CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-01114 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-01114

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/4/2025
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Mark W. Harvey
Government Counsel: Tara R. Karoian
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 41-year-old project planner and scheduler employed by a government contractor, who sought a security clearance. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing concerns under Guideline H, specifically regarding the applicant's past involvement with THC, which he admitted to using from March 2018 to May 2019 and from June 2021 to April 2023. The SOR indicated that this behavior raised questions about his eligibility for access to classified information.
During the proceedings, the applicant acknowledged his past THC use but provided mitigating information, stating that he had only used THC in states where it was legal and had ceased all use for over 18 months prior to the hearing. He emphasized his understanding of the responsibilities associated with holding a security clearance and presented character references attesting to his integrity and commitment to his professional duties. The applicant's military background, including his honorable service and previous security clearance, was also highlighted.
The administrative judge ruled in favor of the applicant, concluding that the security concerns were mitigated. The judge noted the applicant's full disclosure of his past drug use, his compliance with state laws, and his commitment to abstaining from any future substance misuse. The judge found that the applicant's overall character and professional conduct demonstrated that granting him a security clearance was consistent with the national interest.
Guidelines Evaluated
- 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. 24-01114

grantedAug 4, 2025· Hon. Mark W. Harvey· hearing

Summary

This case concerns a 41-year-old project planner and scheduler with a military background who was granted a security clearance despite past drug involvement under Guideline H. The Statement of Reasons alleged the applicant used THC with varying frequency from approximately March 2018 to May 2019, and again from June 2021 to April 2023. These allegations raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines Paragraphs 25(a) and 25(c).

However, the administrative judge applied mitigating conditions under Paragraphs 26(a) and 26(b). The applicant demonstrated a pattern of abstinence from THC for over 18 months before the hearing and provided credible evidence of his commitment to refrain from future drug use, including a signed statement of intent.

Crucially, the applicant's past THC use occurred in states where it was legal, and he did not use drugs while holding a security clearance. With a strong character reference from his employer, the judge found the drug involvement concerns mitigated, leading to a favorable decision to grant eligibility for access to classified information.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated a pattern of abstinence from THC use for over 18 months prior to the hearing.
He provided credible evidence of his commitment to refrain from future drug use, including a signed statement of intent.
The applicant's past THC use occurred in states where it was legal, and he did not use drugs while holding a security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)raisedSubstance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(c)raisedIllegal Possession of a Controlled Substance

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)appliedBehavior Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 26(b)appliedAcknowledgment and Evidence of Actions Taken to Overcome Drug Involvement

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 17, 2024
Answer filedOct 15, 2024
Hearing heldMay 20, 2025
Decision dateAug 4, 2025

Cite For

Mitigation of Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Importance of Demonstrating a Pattern of Abstinence From Substance Use
Consideration of State Law in Adjudicating Drug Use Cases

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: HearingDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant used THC with varying frequency from March 2018 to May 2019 and again from June 2021 to April 2023. Despite this history, the judge ruled in favor of the applicant, considering his admissions, legal use in compliant jurisdictions, and commitment to abstain from drug involvement in the future.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant used THC with varying frequency from about March of 2018 to about May of 2019.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Occasional	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur	Claimed Voluntary Disclosure Before Confrontation Documented Abstinence Period Documented
1.b	Applicant used THC with varying frequency from about June of 2021 to about April of 2023.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Occasional	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur	Claimed Voluntary Disclosure Before Confrontation Documented Abstinence Period Documented

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.