CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-00256 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-00256

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/7/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the appeal decision (Case 24-00256) →See the hearing decision (Case 24-00256) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Robert Robinson Gales
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 25-year-old software engineer employed by a defense contractor since July 2022. He applied for a security clearance in December 2022, during which he disclosed a history of drug use, including marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy, and Adderall. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) issued by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) raised concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse), indicating that the applicant's drug use history posed a risk to national security.
The applicant admitted to his past drug use but asserted his intention to abstain from all drug involvement in the future. He acknowledged using marijuana once in July 2023, after previously ceasing its use in February 2022. Despite his admissions, the administrative judge initially ruled that the applicant failed to provide a signed statement of intent to abstain from drug use, which was deemed a critical factor in the decision-making process. The judge also incorrectly classified the applicant's position as "sensitive," which influenced the application of disqualifying conditions.
Upon appeal, the DOHA Appeal Board found that the administrative judge had erred in not considering the applicant's updated statement of intent and in misclassifying his employment status. The case was remanded for further processing to correct these errors, as they could significantly affect the outcome of the security clearance eligibility determination.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · For Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · 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. 24-00256

deniedFeb 7, 2025· Hon. Robert Robinson Gales· hearing

Summary

A 25-year-old software engineer for a defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) due to concerns about substance misuse, primarily recent marijuana use. The Statement of Reasons alleged that the applicant failed to mitigate security concerns related to drug involvement. While the applicant's use of cocaine, ecstasy, and Adderall was infrequent or limited and did not continue, recent marijuana use was a significant factor.

Disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 25(a), AG ¶ 25(c), and AG ¶ 25(g) were raised. Although mitigating condition AG ¶ 26(b) was applied, it was insufficient to overcome the concerns. The denial stemmed from the applicant's recent marijuana use, which raised questions about reliability and compliance with laws.

The judge concluded that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of a commitment to abstain from drug use, especially after previously violating stated intentions. The applicant's admissions were not deemed sufficient to mitigate the overall concerns regarding drug involvement, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant's recent marijuana use raised questions about his reliability and compliance with laws.
The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of a commitment to abstain from drug use after previously violating his stated intentions.
The judge found that the applicant's admissions did not sufficiently mitigate the concerns regarding drug involvement.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)raisedAny Substance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(c)raisedIllegal Possession of a Controlled Substance, Including Purchase
AG ¶ 25(g)raisedExpressed Intent to Continue Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse, or Failure to Clearly and Convincingly Commit to Discontinue Such Misuse

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(b)rejectedThe Individual Acknowledges His or Her Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse, Provides Evidence of Actions Taken to Overcome This Problem, and Has Established a Pattern of AbstinenceThe applicant's renewed statements of intent were given less weight due to prior violations of his declared promise.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 11, 2024
Answer filedMay 16, 2024Applicant elected for a written record decision.
Hearing held—Decision was made based on the written record.
Decision dateFeb 7, 2025Remand decision issued.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Recent Drug Use Under Guideline H
Failure to Demonstrate Commitment to Abstain From Drug Use
Impact of Equivocation on Future Intent Regarding Drug Use

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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the overall drug involvement and substance misuse concerns, indicating that the applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns. However, the judge ruled in favor of the applicant regarding specific instances of cocaine, ecstasy, and Adderall use, determining that these were limited and did not continue thereafter.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns regarding drug involvement and substance misuse.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Unknown	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant's use of cocaine was infrequent and did not continue thereafter.	For Applicant	Cocaine	Experimental	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant's use of ecstasy was limited and did not continue thereafter.	For Applicant	MDMA	Experimental	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant's use of Adderall was limited and did not continue thereafter.	For Applicant	Prescription Stimulant Misuse	Experimental	Admitted	—	—	—

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.