CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-02599 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 23-02599

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date4/2/2025
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Pamela C. Benson
Government Counsel: Brian L. Farrell
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 30-year-old mechanical engineer employed by a Department of Defense contractor, seeking a security clearance. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency issued a Statement of Reasons citing concerns under Guideline H (drug involvement and substance misuse) due to the applicant's past use of marijuana and Delta-8, a substance he initially believed to be legal in his state but was classified as a controlled substance under federal law. The applicant admitted to using marijuana from 2016 to May 2023 and purchasing it on two occasions, while denying any intention to use it in the future.
During the proceedings, the applicant acknowledged his past drug use and expressed a clear understanding of the legal implications of Delta-8. He demonstrated a commitment to abstaining from illegal substances by providing a signed statement of intent and testifying about his cessation of use. The administrative judge found that the applicant's last use of marijuana was approximately two years prior, and his last use of Delta-8 was about a year and a half ago. The judge ruled in favor of the applicant, concluding that he successfully mitigated the security concerns related to drug involvement and substance misuse, thereby granting him national security eligibility for access to classified information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · For Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · Unknown Outcome
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 23-02599

grantedApr 2, 2025· Hon. Pamela C. Benson· hearing

Summary

A 30-year-old mechanical engineer was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons alleged marijuana use from approximately 2016 to May 2023, including two purchases during that period, and an intent for future use. These allegations raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines Paragraphs 25(a) and 25(c).

However, the administrative judge applied mitigating conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines Paragraphs 26(a) and 26(b). The applicant acknowledged his past marijuana and Delta-8 use and demonstrated a clear understanding of the legal implications. He provided a signed statement committing to abstain from all illegal drug involvement.

The judge found the applicant's positive behavioral changes and commitment to remaining drug-free to be credible, supported by his work history. Consequently, the applicant was found eligible for access to classified information.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated a clear understanding of the legal implications of his past drug use.
He provided a signed statement of intent to abstain from all illegal drug involvement.
The applicant's positive changes in behavior and commitment to remaining drug-free were credible and supported by his work history.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)raisedAny Substance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(c)raisedIllegal Possession of a Controlled Substance

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)appliedBehavior Happened so Long Ago, Was so Infrequent, or Happened Under Such Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 26(b)appliedAcknowledgment of Drug Involvement and Evidence of Actions Taken to Overcome This Problem

Key Rule Quoted

“The illegal use of controlled substances . . . can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness, both because such behavior may lead to physical or psychological impairment and because it raises questions about a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 1, 2023
Answer filedJan 17, 2024Amended SOR under Guideline H
Hearing heldDec 17, 2024Via online video teleconferencing
Decision dateApr 2, 2025

Cite For

Mitigation of Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Understanding of Legal Implications of Drug Use
Commitment to Abstain From Illegal Substances as a Mitigating Factor

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline H (Drug Involvement) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant used marijuana with varying frequency from about 2016 to May 2023 and purchased it on two occasions. The applicant admitted to this use and expressed an intent to abstain from future use, which the judge credited as mitigating the security concerns related to drug involvement.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	You used marijuana with varying frequency from about 2016 to May 2023.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Frequent	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur	Documented Abstinence Period Documented
1.b	You purchased marijuana about two times from about 2016 to about May 2023.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Occasional	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur	Documented Abstinence Period Documented
1.c	You intend to use marijuana in the future.	For Applicant	Stated Intent to Use Again	Not Applicable	Denied	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline H). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.