CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-01307 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-01307

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

Case Profile
Decision Date4/21/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the appeal decision (Case 24-01307) →
Participants
Judge: Mark W. Harvey
Government Counsel: Brittany C. M. White
Applicant's Counsel: Matthew J. Thomas
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 28-year-old information technology site lead who sought a security clearance. The adjudicative guidelines at issue were related to drug involvement and substance misuse under Guideline H. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleged that the applicant had used marijuana from March 2021 to April 2024 and had done so while holding a public trust position, which raised concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to the allegations in the SOR regarding his marijuana use but denied using it prior to 2022. He explained that he had a medical marijuana card prescribed by a doctor for back pain and stated his intention to continue using it for medical purposes. The applicant also indicated a willingness to cease marijuana use if required for his security clearance and provided evidence of negative drug tests and a psychological evaluation that found no substance use disorder.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that the security concerns related to drug involvement were not sufficiently mitigated. The judge noted that while the applicant had taken steps to address his marijuana use, including a commitment to abstain and evidence of negative drug tests, the overall pattern of use and the timing of his admissions raised significant concerns about his reliability and compliance with laws and regulations. Consequently, the applicant's eligibility for access to classified information was denied.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · Against 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. 24-01307

deniedApr 21, 2025· Hon. Mark W. Harvey· hearing

Summary

A 28-year-old IT site lead was denied a security clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) due to admitted marijuana use from March 2021 to April 2024. This included use while he held a public trust position, which was cited as a specific concern.

The Statement of Reasons detailed two allegations: the applicant's marijuana use over the specified period and his use while granted public trust eligibility or in a sensitive position. Disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 25(a), (c), and (f) were raised, while AG ¶ 26(b)(3) was considered as a potential mitigating condition.

Ultimately, the judge found insufficient evidence of rehabilitation or a consistent pattern of abstinence from drug use prior to the hearing. The applicant's recent drug use raised doubts about his current reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the conclusion that granting access to classified information was not consistent with national security interests. The security clearance was therefore denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to using marijuana while holding a public trust position.
The applicant did not demonstrate a sufficient pattern of abstinence from drug use prior to the hearing.
The applicant's recent drug use raised doubts about his current reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)raisedSubstance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(c)raisedIllegal Possession of a Controlled Substance
AG ¶ 25(f)rejectedIllegal Drug Use While Holding a Sensitive PositionThe applicant did not use illegal drugs while granted access to classified information.

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(b)(3)appliedStatement of Intent to Abstain From Drug UseThe applicant signed a statement of intent to abstain from all drug involvement.

Key Rule Quoted

“Once a concern arises regarding an applicant’s security clearance eligibility, there is a strong presumption against the grant or maintenance of a security clearance.”
— Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1990)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 13, 2024
Answer filedNov 18, 2024
Hearing heldFeb 6, 2025to ensure jurisdiction before termination of sponsorship
Decision dateApr 21, 2025

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Insufficient Evidence of Rehabilitation in Drug Use Cases
Presumption Against Granting Security Clearance When Concerns Arise

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: denied

The judge found that the applicant used marijuana with varying frequency from March 2021 to April 2024 and that this use occurred while he was granted public trust eligibility. The judge ruled against the applicant on both allegations, concluding that the security concerns related to drug involvement were not mitigated, resulting in a denial of eligibility for access to classified information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant used marijuana with varying frequency from about March of 2021 to about April of 2024.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Frequent	Admitted	(f) any illegal drug use while holding a clearance or sensitive position	—	—
1.b	Applicant used marijuana while being granted public trust eligibility or while in a sensitive position.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	(f) any illegal drug use while holding a clearance or sensitive position	—	—

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.