CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-01801 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-01801

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

Case Profile
Decision Date9/12/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: LeRoy F. Foreman
Government Counsel: Karen A. Moreno-Sayles
Applicant's Counsel: Matthew J. Thomas
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 38-year-old production engineer who sought a security clearance for employment with a defense contractor. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing concerns under Guidelines H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) and F (Financial Considerations). The SOR detailed the applicant's history of marijuana use, which he admitted began in high school and continued intermittently until December 2023, as well as several delinquent debts.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to all allegations in the SOR, including his drug use and financial issues. He provided evidence of his efforts to mitigate his drug use, including a declaration of intent to abstain from illegal drugs and a negative drug test. He also presented documentation showing that some debts had been paid or were in the process of being resolved. However, the administrative judge noted that the applicant's marijuana use continued despite his awareness of its implications for his security clearance and that he had not demonstrated sufficient financial responsibility.
The administrative judge ultimately denied the applicant's request for a security clearance, concluding that the applicant had not sufficiently mitigated the security concerns related to his drug use and financial issues. The judge emphasized the importance of trust and reliability in individuals with access to classified information, stating that the applicant's history raised concerns about his judgment and reliability, which were critical in determining his eligibility for a security clearance.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
- 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. 24-01801

deniedSep 12, 2025· Hon. LeRoy F. Foreman· hearing

Summary

A 38-year-old production engineer was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The applicant admitted to recent and frequent marijuana use, which included testing positive in June 2019 after a random drug test. He also acknowledged using marijuana during employment despite knowing it violated company policy and resuming use after an initial cessation following a positive test.

Additionally, the applicant had multiple delinquent debts. These included a credit union account charged off for $180, an insurance company debt of $59 referred for collection, another insurance company debt of $78 referred for collection, and two telecommunications accounts referred for collection totaling $983 and $953, respectively. A student loan of $10,985 was paid in full and erroneously reported.

The administrative judge determined that the applicant's recent drug use and pattern of financial irresponsibility raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to recent and frequent drug use, including marijuana, which raised questions about his reliability and trustworthiness.
The applicant had multiple delinquent debts, indicating a pattern of financial irresponsibility and lack of judgment.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)appliedSubstance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(b)appliedTesting Positive for an Illegal Drug
AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 31, 2024
Answer filedJan 13, 2025
Hearing heldAug 15, 2025conducted by video teleconference
Decision dateSep 12, 2025

Cite For

Denial Based on Recent Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Denial Due to Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Impact of Recent Conduct 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 F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found multiple financial concerns under Guideline F, ruling against the applicant on most debts. However, the applicant successfully mitigated the allegation regarding a student loan that was erroneously reported as unpaid.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant has a credit union account charged off for $180. $180	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant had a student loan of $10,985 that was paid in full and erroneously reported. $10,985	For Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
2.c	Applicant has an insurance company debt referred for collection of $59. $59	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
2.d	Applicant has an insurance company debt referred for collection of $78. $78	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
2.e	Applicant has a telecommunications account referred for collection of $983. $983	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
2.f	Applicant has a telecommunications account referred for collection of $953. $953	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline F). 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 against the applicant on all allegations related to drug involvement, specifically regarding marijuana use. The applicant tested positive for marijuana, used it during employment against company policy, and resumed use after initially stopping. The judge concluded that the applicant did not mitigate the security concerns raised by his drug involvement, resulting in a denied clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant tested positive for marijuana after a random drug test in June 2019.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (b) testing positive for an illegal drug (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	—	—
1.b	Applicant used marijuana during employment, knowing it was against company policy.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Regular	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (b) testing positive for an illegal drug (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	—	—
1.c	Applicant resumed marijuana use after initially stopping following a positive test.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Regular	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (b) testing positive for an illegal drug (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.

Full decision

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