CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-01166 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-01166

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

Case Profile
Decision Date5/20/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Richard A. Cefola
Government Counsel: Andrew H. Henderson
Case Summary
Applicant, a 32-year-old defense contractor and former U.S. Marine Corps member, sought a security clearance but faced allegations under Guidelines J (Criminal Conduct), H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse), and E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) issued by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency detailed concerns stemming from a 2017 court-martial conviction for possession of a controlled substance and conspiracy, resulting in a Bad Conduct Discharge. The applicant admitted to the criminal conduct but denied other allegations related to falsifications in his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP).
During the hearing, the applicant acknowledged his conviction but contested the allegations of willful falsification in his e-QIP, where he misrepresented the reasons for his discharge and failed to disclose his court-martial history. The administrative judge found that the applicant's admissions and the evidence presented established significant security concerns, particularly regarding his criminal conduct and dishonesty. Although the judge noted that sufficient time had passed since the applicant's criminal behavior, the repeated falsifications in his e-QIP were deemed serious enough to undermine his trustworthiness.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, denying his eligibility for access to classified information. The decision emphasized that the applicant's past conduct, particularly the willful falsifications, raised substantial doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness, which are critical for national security considerations.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · For Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal 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. 24-01166

deniedMay 20, 2025· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 32-year-old defense contractor and former U.S. Marine was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline H (Drug Involvement), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant admitted to a 2017 drug conviction and to falsifying information on his e-QIP, but denied other allegations.

The Statement of Reasons detailed multiple instances of alleged willful falsification on the applicant's e-QIP. These included misrepresenting his reason for leaving the Marine Corps, denying he was discharged, denying a court-martial within the past seven years, and denying both a crime conviction within the past seven years and ever being convicted of a crime with a sentence exceeding one year. Additionally, the applicant was alleged to have been involved with controlled substances in 2017, and he admitted to pleading guilty at a General Court-Martial in April 2017 for possession of a controlled substance and conspiracy.

The adjudicator found that the applicant repeatedly falsified information on his e-QIP, which raised significant concerns under Guideline E. Despite the application of some mitigating conditions, the repeated falsifications were a primary factor in the decision. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant's drug involvement occurred over eight years ago, mitigating concerns under Guideline H.
The applicant's criminal conduct was not deemed to cast doubt on his current reliability under Guideline J.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts

Mitigating

AG ¶ 32(a)appliedTime Elapsed Since Criminal Behavior
AG ¶ 26(a)appliedBehavior Unlikely to Recur

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 19, 2024
Answer filedDec 26, 2024
Hearing heldApr 15, 2025
Decision dateMay 20, 2025

Cite For

Issues of Falsification in E-qip Under Guideline E
Mitigation of Criminal Conduct Due to Time Elapsed
Considerations of Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse Over Time

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 the applicant willfully falsified information on the security questionnaire regarding military history and criminal conduct. As a result, the applicant was denied national security eligibility for a security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant answered, 'contract ended,' to 'Section 13A – Employment Activities #9. United States Marine Corps Reason for Leaving Question,' which is a willful falsification.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Employment History	Denied	—	—	—
3.b	Applicant answered, 'No,' to 'Section 15 – Military History . . . were you discharged from' the Marine Corps, which is a willful falsification.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Employment History	Denied	—	—	—
3.c	Applicant answered, 'No,' to 'Section 15 – Military History Discipline In the past seven (7) years, have you been subject to court martial,' which is a willful falsification.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
3.d	Applicant answered, 'No,' to 'Section 22 – Police Record . . . In the past seven (7) years have you been charged, convicted, or sentenced of a crime in any court,' which is a willful falsification.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
3.e	Applicant answered, 'No,' to 'Section 22 – Police Record (EVER) . . . Have you EVER been convicted in any court of the United States of a crime, sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year for that crime,' which is a willful falsification.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—

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 was involved with controlled substances in 2017, which led to a denial of security clearance. The applicant admitted to the involvement but denied other allegations related to falsification of military history and criminal conduct. The judge concluded that granting the applicant a security clearance was not consistent with national interest.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant was involved with controlled substances in 2017.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Denied	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	—	—

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

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

Bond Amendment: the decision notes incarceration over one year or a dishonorable discharge — a statutory bar to SCI / Special Access / Restricted Data eligibility absent a waiver.

The judge found that the applicant pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance and conspiracy at a General Court-Martial in April 2017. The judge ruled against the applicant on the allegations related to criminal conduct, leading to a denial of security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant admits that in April of 2017, he pled guilty at a General Court-Martial to possession of a controlled substance, and to conspiracy.	For Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—

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

Full decision

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