CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-00337 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-00337

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

Case Profile
Decision Date4/10/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Robert E. Coacher
Government Counsel: Tara R. Karoian
Applicant's Counsel: Jeffrey S. Gard
Case Summary
was no evidence presented to contradict his claims of abstinence. The administrative judge found that the applicant's drug involvement was mitigated under Guideline H due to the time elapsed since his last use, his acknowledgment of past behavior, and his demonstrated commitment to abstaining from drug use.
However, the judge ruled against the applicant regarding the allegations under Guideline E, personal conduct. The applicant admitted to falsifying his security clearance applications by failing to disclose his marijuana use and purchases, which he knew were illegal under federal law. The judge noted that the applicant's actions were deliberate and motivated by a desire to secure employment, undermining his credibility. Despite the applicant's claims of immaturity and lessons learned, the judge concluded that the falsifications raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness. Consequently, the applicant's request for a security clearance was denied.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · For 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. 24-00337

deniedApr 10, 2025· Hon. Robert E. Coacher· hearing

Summary

A 24-year-old engineer's security clearance application was denied due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The applicant used marijuana with varying frequency from approximately August 2019 to April 2022 and purchased it from about October 2021 to April 2022.

While the applicant successfully mitigated the drug involvement issues, his application was ultimately denied because of multiple instances of dishonesty during the security clearance process. Specifically, he falsified his December 2022 Security Clearance Application by failing to disclose his marijuana use and purchases. He also provided false answers to an investigator in October 2023, denying any past drug use during his background interview.

The applicant later admitted his drug use and purchases during his testimony. These repeated acts of falsification regarding his drug use raised significant doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to multiple instances of falsification regarding his drug use during the security clearance process.
His dishonesty raised significant doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 16(b)appliedRefusal to Provide Full, Frank, and Truthful Answers

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)appliedBehavior Happened so Long Ago, Was Infrequent, or Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 26(b)appliedAcknowledgment of Drug Involvement and Established Pattern of Abstinence

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 5, 2024
Answer filedApr 23, 2024
Hearing heldFeb 13, 2025
Decision dateApr 10, 2025

Cite For

Evaluation of Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
Mitigation of Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Impact of Dishonesty on Security Clearance Eligibility

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 against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline E, determining that he falsified his security clearance application and provided false answers during an investigator interview regarding his drug use. The applicant admitted to these allegations during his testimony, which contributed to the decision to deny his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant falsified his December 2022 SCA when he failed to disclose his marijuana use and purchases.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
2.b	Applicant gave false answers to an investigator when he denied any past drug use during his background interview in October 2023.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
2.c	Applicant admitted his drug use and purchases during his testimony.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—

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 August 2019 to April 2022 and purchased marijuana from October 2021 to April 2022. Despite the applicant's admissions and claims of learning from the experience, the judge ultimately denied the application for a security clearance due to concerns about reliability and trustworthiness.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant used marijuana, with varying frequency, from about August 2019 to about April 2022.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant purchased marijuana from about October 2021 to about April 2022.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Unspecified	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.