CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-01004 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 24-01004

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

Case Profile
Decision Date3/11/2025
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Richard A. Cefola
Government Counsel: George A. Hawkins
Applicant's Counsel: Alan V. Edmunds
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 28-year-old employee of a defense contractor who had held a security clearance since February 2019. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guidelines H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) and E (Personal Conduct). The core allegations included the applicant's past use of marijuana and non-prescribed Adderall, including instances while holding a security clearance, as well as omissions regarding this drug use on his security clearance applications.
The applicant admitted to several allegations related to drug use but denied one specific allegation regarding the omission of his Adderall use on his SF-86 forms. He explained that he had forgotten about his past drug use due to the time elapsed. In mitigation, he provided evidence of his commitment to abstain from drug use, including a signed statement of intent and negative drug test results. Additionally, he presented character references supporting his reliability and truthfulness.
The administrative judge ruled in favor of the applicant, finding that while the drug use raised security concerns, the applicant's proactive steps to disclose his past behavior and his commitment to abstain from future drug involvement mitigated those concerns. The judge emphasized the importance of the whole-person concept, considering the applicant's age, the time elapsed since the incidents, and his overall character as demonstrated by the supporting letters.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · For 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. 24-01004

grantedMar 11, 2025· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

This case involved a 28-year-old defense contractor with a master's degree whose security clearance eligibility was reviewed under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). Concerns arose from the applicant's past drug use, specifically marijuana and non-prescribed Adderall, and an initial misrepresentation on his SF-86 regarding illegal drug use.

The Statement of Reasons detailed marijuana use from approximately 2014 to 2017, with one instance in 2021 while holding a security clearance. It also noted the use of non-prescribed Adderall from about 2015 to 2016, with one instance in 2022, also while holding a security clearance. The applicant initially answered "No" to illegal drug use on his SF-86s but later corrected this information.

Despite these disqualifying conditions, the administrative judge found sufficient mitigation. The applicant self-reported his past drug use, provided evidence of negative drug tests, and submitted a signed statement of intent to abstain from future drug use. Character references also attested to his reliability and trustworthiness. Based on these mitigating factors, the security clearance was GRANTED.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant self-reported past drug use, demonstrating honesty and accountability.
He provided evidence of negative drug tests and a signed statement of intent to abstain from future drug use.
Character references supported the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)raisedSubstance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(c)raisedIllegal Possession of a Controlled Substance
AG ¶ 25(f)raisedIllegal Drug Use While Holding a Security Clearance

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)appliedBehavior Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 26(b)appliedAcknowledgment and Evidence of Actions Taken to Overcome Drug Involvement
AG ¶ 17(a)appliedPrompt, Good-faith Efforts to Correct Omissions

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 27, 2024
Answer filedOct 3, 2024
Hearing heldFeb 18, 2025
Decision dateMar 11, 2025

Cite For

Mitigation of Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Self-reporting as a Factor in Favor of Security Clearance
Consideration of Character References in Security Clearance Decisions

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: granted

The judge found that the applicant had answered 'No' to illegal drug use on his SF-86s, which he later corrected. The judge concluded that the applicant mitigated the personal conduct concerns related to this issue, resulting in a favorable decision for the applicant.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant answered 'No' to illegal drug use on his SF-86s, which he later corrected.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATESELF-CORRECTED	Drug Involvement	Denied	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted	Claimed Corrected Falsification Promptly

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: granted

The judge found that the applicant used marijuana and non-prescribed Adderall while holding a security clearance. Despite this, the judge concluded that the applicant mitigated the concerns related to drug involvement and substance misuse, resulting in a granted outcome.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant used marijuana with varying frequency from about 2014 to 2017 and once in 2021 while holding a security clearance.	For Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Occasional	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (c) prescription abuse followed a prolonged illness and has since ended (d) satisfactory completion of treatment with a favorable prognosis	—
1.b	Applicant used Adderall, not prescribed to him, with varying frequency from about 2015 to 2016 and once in 2022 while holding a security clearance.	For Applicant	Prescription Stimulant MisuseWHILE CLEARED	Occasional	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (c) prescription abuse followed a prolonged illness and has since ended (d) satisfactory completion of treatment with a favorable prognosis	—

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.