CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-01289 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-01289

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

Case Profile
Decision Date11/25/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Mark W. Harvey
Government Counsel: George A. Hawkins
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 25-year-old software and test engineer who had been employed by a government contractor for approximately 30 months. He applied for a security clearance, which was challenged by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) due to concerns under Guidelines H (drug involvement and substance misuse), J (criminal conduct), and E (personal conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleged that the applicant had used illegal drugs, including ecstasy and marijuana, and had been arrested for distributing ecstasy.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to using ecstasy and marijuana but claimed that he had ceased using these substances and recognized the consequences of his actions. He also acknowledged a felony charge related to drug distribution but stated that he had completed drug counseling and believed the charge was dismissed. However, he did not provide documentation to support this claim. The applicant admitted to omitting his ecstasy use in his initial security clearance application and expressed regret for this omission, while he denied the allegations related to falsifying information during an interview with an investigator.
The administrative judge ruled that while the concerns under Guidelines H and J were mitigated, the issues under Guideline E were not. The judge concluded that the applicant's lack of full disclosure and the circumstances surrounding his drug-related activities raised significant doubts about his judgment and reliability, ultimately leading to the denial of his eligibility for access to classified information.
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. 24-01289

deniedNov 25, 2025· Hon. Mark W. Harvey· hearing

Summary

A 25-year-old software engineer was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline H (Drug Involvement), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The primary reason for denial was the falsification of material facts on his June 9, 2021, security clearance application and during a September 7, 2023, interview with an investigator.

The applicant admitted to using ecstasy from approximately November 2019 to April 2022, and marijuana from October 2018 to 2019. He was also arrested and charged with a felony in July 2022 for selling or distributing ecstasy. While the judge acknowledged these admissions, they did not mitigate the significant personal conduct issues arising from his lack of candor.

The decision highlighted the critical importance of integrity in the security clearance process. The applicant's falsification of information raised substantial doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant falsified material facts on his security clearance application, which raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.
The judge found that the applicant's admissions regarding drug use did not mitigate the personal conduct issues stemming from the falsification of his application.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 15appliedPersonal ConductThe applicant's deliberate omission of drug use on his security clearance application raised questions about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26appliedDrug Involvement and Substance MisuseThe applicant established a sufficient period of abstinence from drug involvement and criminal activity.
AG ¶ 32appliedCriminal ConductThe applicant's criminal conduct concerns were mitigated due to the time elapsed since the last incident.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 24, 2024
Answer filedJan 15, 2025
Hearing heldAug 5, 2025conducted by video teleconference
Decision dateNov 25, 2025decision delayed due to federal government shutdown

Cite For

Importance of Honesty in the Security Clearance Process
Impact of Falsification on Security Clearance Eligibility
Mitigation of Drug Involvement Concerns Under Guideline H

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 the personal conduct allegations under Guideline E, specifically regarding falsification of material facts on a security clearance application and during an interview. The applicant admitted to some allegations but did not mitigate the concerns related to his personal conduct, resulting in a denial of eligibility for access to classified information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant falsified material facts on his June 9, 2021 SCA.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	Claimed Acknowledgment and Remorse
3.b	The information in SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, and 1.c was admitted by Applicant.	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Admitted	—	—	—
3.c	Applicant falsified material facts during a September 7, 2023, interview with an authorized investigator.	For Applicant	Falsification Security Form	Other	Unknown	—	—	—

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 ecstasy and marijuana at varying frequencies over several years. Despite the applicant's admissions and the circumstances surrounding his drug use, the judge concluded that the security concerns related to drug involvement were mitigated, resulting in a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant used ecstasy with varying frequency from about November of 2019 to about April of 2022.	For Applicant	MDMA	Frequent	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant used marijuana with varying frequency from about October 2018 to about 2019.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Occasional	Admitted	—	—	—

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

The judge found that the applicant was arrested and charged with a felony related to the distribution of ecstasy in July 2022. Although the applicant admitted to the allegations, the judge ultimately denied the application for a security clearance due to unresolved concerns under Guideline E, despite mitigating factors under Guidelines H and J.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	In about July 2022, Applicant was arrested for and charged with Schedule I/II Sell/Give/Distribute, a Controlled Substance Classified in Schedule I or II (Ecstasy), a felony.	For Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Charged Not Convicted	Admitted	—	—	—

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.