CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-01022 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 24-01022

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

Case Profile
Decision Date9/11/2025
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Bryan J. Olmos
Government Counsel: Erin P. Thompson
Applicant's Counsel: Ronald C. Sykstus
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 27-year-old software engineer who faced security concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to his failure to disclose a history of marijuana use in a March 2023 security clearance application. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined allegations that included intentional omission of relevant information and a subsequent reprimand from his employer for this conduct. The applicant admitted to the allegations but provided clarifications regarding his understanding of the security clearance process and the reasons for his omissions.
During the proceedings, the applicant acknowledged his past marijuana use from March 2018 to April 2022 and admitted to intentionally failing to disclose this information due to fear of jeopardizing his employment prospects. He expressed remorse for his actions, recognized the lapse in judgment, and took steps to correct his disclosures in a subsequent January 2024 application. The applicant's character witnesses testified to his integrity and work performance, emphasizing his growth and commitment to maintaining security standards.
The administrative judge ruled in favor of the applicant, granting him eligibility for access to classified information. The judge found that the applicant had mitigated the security concerns by demonstrating a good-faith effort to correct his omissions and acknowledging his past behavior. The judge noted the applicant's understanding of the responsibilities associated with holding a security clearance and his proactive steps to ensure compliance moving forward.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · 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. 24-01022

grantedSep 11, 2025· Hon. Bryan J. Olmos· hearing

Summary

A 27-year-old software engineer was granted eligibility for access to classified information despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant had failed to disclose his history of marijuana use in a March 2023 security clearance application, an intentional omission for which he received a written warning from his employer. This non-disclosure raised disqualifying conditions related to personal conduct.

However, the administrative judge applied mitigating conditions, noting the applicant's subsequent actions. The applicant acknowledged his past mistakes and demonstrated a commitment to honesty by providing detailed disclosures about his prior drug use in a later security clearance application. This change in behavior was a key factor.

Additionally, multiple character references supported the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness. Citing the applicant's acknowledgment of his past errors, positive character references, and compliance with security protocols, the judge ultimately granted the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant acknowledged his past mistakes and demonstrated a commitment to honesty in subsequent applications.
He provided detailed disclosures about his past drug use in a later security clearance application, showing a change in behavior.
Character references from multiple witnesses supported his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 16(c)raisedCredible Adverse Information

Mitigating

AG ¶ 17(a)appliedPrompt, Good-faith Efforts to Correct the Omission
AG ¶ 17(d)appliedAcknowledgment of Behavior and Positive Steps Taken

Key Rule Quoted

“The security clearance process relies on those who are trusted with the nation’s secrets to be honest and forthcoming, regardless of the consequences.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 13, 2024
Answer filedSep 1, 2024
Hearing heldJul 11, 2025
Decision dateSep 11, 2025

Cite For

Mitigation of Personal Conduct Issues Under Guideline E
Importance of Character References in Security Clearance Cases
Impact of Acknowledgment and Corrective Actions 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: granted

The judge found that the applicant's failure to disclose his history of marijuana use in a March 2023 security clearance application was a significant lapse in judgment. However, the applicant's subsequent voluntary disclosure and positive character references led the judge to conclude that the security concerns were mitigated, resulting in a favorable decision for the applicant.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant received a written warning from his employer based on this intentional omission.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances	Claimed Acknowledgment and Remorse
1.b	Applicant failed to disclose his history of marijuana use in a March 2023 security clearance application.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances	Claimed Acknowledgment and Remorse Claimed Corrected Falsification Promptly
1.c	Applicant admitted to the intentional omission of his drug-use history.	For Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances	Claimed Acknowledgment and Remorse Claimed Corrected Falsification Promptly

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

Full decision

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