CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-02872 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 23-02872

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

Case Profile
Decision Date3/14/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the appeal decision (Case ISCR Case No. 23-02872) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Charles C. Hale
Government Counsel: Patricia M. Lynch-Epps
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 30-year-old employee of a federal contractor, working as a monitor trainee since December 2022. He previously held a security clearance in 2017 and was the primary custodial parent of two preschool-aged children. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guidelines H (drug involvement and substance misuse), J (criminal conduct), and E (personal conduct). The core allegations included the applicant's admitted marijuana use from 2015 to November 2022, failure to disclose this drug use on his security clearance applications, and various traffic violations.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to using marijuana and acknowledged that he had not disclosed this on his 2017 and 2023 security clearance applications. He explained that he was afraid of being perceived as a drug user and admitted to falsifying information on the applications. The applicant also admitted to multiple traffic offenses and expressed remorse for his past actions, stating he was working to improve his situation as a single father. However, he denied some allegations related to criminal conduct, providing explanations that were not fully accepted by the judge.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he did not mitigate the security concerns raised. The judge found that the applicant's continued marijuana use, despite knowing it was illegal under federal law, raised significant questions about his judgment and reliability. The judge determined that the applicant's admissions and attempts at mitigation did not sufficiently address the concerns regarding his compliance with laws and regulations, leading to a denial of his eligibility for access to classified information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · Against Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · Against Applicant
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. 23-02872

deniedMar 14, 2025· Hon. Charles C. Hale· hearing

Summary

A 30-year-old federal contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline H (Drug Involvement), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from the applicant's admitted marijuana use between approximately 2015 and November 2022, which he failed to disclose on his 2017 and 2023 security clearance applications. His 2017 application contained a false statement regarding drug use.

Additionally, the applicant acknowledged multiple citations for various traffic and vehicle offenses. The administrative judge determined that the applicant's admissions raised significant questions about his judgment, reliability, and willingness to comply with laws and regulations.

Despite the application of some mitigating conditions, the judge concluded that the applicant did not sufficiently mitigate the security concerns, nor did he demonstrate adequate rehabilitation or a change in behavior. Consequently, eligibility for access to classified information was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to marijuana use from 2015 to 2022, which he failed to disclose on his security clearance applications.
He acknowledged multiple traffic violations and did not demonstrate sufficient rehabilitation or change in behavior.
The applicant's admissions raised substantial questions about his judgment, reliability, and willingness to comply with laws.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 24raisedDrug Involvement and Substance Misuse
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct
AG ¶ 30raisedCriminal Conduct

Mitigating

AG ¶ 17(a)appliedPrompt, Good-faith Efforts to Correct the OmissionThe applicant voluntarily disclosed his drug use during his 2023 security clearance interview.
AG ¶ 17(c)rejectedMinor Offense or Unlikely to RecurInsufficient time has passed to show that the applicant's behavior is unlikely to recur.
AG ¶ 32(d)rejectedEvidence of Successful RehabilitationInsufficient time has passed without recurrence of criminal activity.

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 24, 2024
Answer filedApr 30, 2024
Hearing heldJan 28, 2025
Decision dateMar 14, 2025

Cite For

Failure to Disclose Drug Use on Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Impact of Criminal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline J
Consideration of Personal Conduct and Reliability in Security Clearance Decisions Under Guideline H

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 E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant failed to disclose his drug use on his 2017 and 2023 Security Clearance Applications (SCAs), which constituted deliberate falsification. The judge ruled against the applicant on the allegations under Guideline E, concluding that the applicant's conduct raised significant security concerns.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant did not disclose his drug use on his 2017 and 2023 SCAs.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.b	Applicant's answer on the 2017 SCA was false.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—

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

Standardized Decision Profile

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

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant used marijuana with varying frequency from about 2015 through November 2022, which was admitted by the applicant. The judge ruled against the applicant on this allegation, concluding that the applicant's drug use was inconsistent with the national security interests of the United States, leading to a denial of clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant used marijuana with varying frequency from about 2015 through November 2022.	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—

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

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline J, which included various traffic and vehicle offenses. The applicant admitted to some of the allegations but was ultimately denied clearance due to the nature of the offenses and their implications for national security.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant was cited for various traffic and vehicle offenses.	Against Applicant	Traffic Offense Pattern	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	—	—
3.b–3.g	6 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant		—		—	—	—

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

Full decision

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