CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-02290 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-02290

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/22/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the appeal decision (Case 24-02290) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Roger C. Wesley
Government Counsel: Cassie L. Ford
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 48-year-old employee of a defense contractor seeking a security clearance. The adjudicative guidelines at issue were related to drug involvement and substance abuse. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleged that the applicant had used marijuana with varying frequency from 2014 to November 2023 while holding a security clearance, as well as prior use from 2002 to 2009.
In his response to the SOR, the applicant admitted to the allegations but provided explanations, claiming he had voluntarily disclosed his past marijuana use and had ceased using the substance since November 2023. He expressed a commitment to abstain from drug use in the future and acknowledged the potential consequences of any future involvement with drugs. The applicant's history included a lengthy period of marijuana use, particularly during the years he held a security clearance, which raised significant concerns regarding his reliability and trustworthiness.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he did not sufficiently mitigate the concerns related to his drug involvement. The judge noted the applicant's extensive history of marijuana use, particularly during the time he held a security clearance, and determined that this behavior raised questions about his ability to comply 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. 24-02290

deniedAug 22, 2025· Hon. Roger C. Wesley· hearing

Summary

A 48-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) due to a prolonged history of marijuana use. The Statement of Reasons detailed two periods of use: from May 2002 to about 2009, and more recently, from about 2014 to November 2023. Notably, the latter period occurred while the applicant held a security clearance or occupied a sensitive position.

The denial was based on several factors. The applicant's extensive history of marijuana use, spanning nine years while cleared, was a primary concern. Furthermore, the judge found the applicant's commitments to abstain from drug use to be unreliable, citing past failures to maintain abstinence and continued associations with marijuana users.

Ultimately, the judge determined there was insufficient evidence to establish the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness, despite his claims of current abstinence. The seriousness of the applicant's drug involvement and the failure to mitigate concerns regarding his past behavior led to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a lengthy history of marijuana use, including nine years while holding a security clearance.
The applicant's commitments to abstain from drug use were weakened by previous failures to maintain abstinence and ongoing associations with marijuana users.
The judge found insufficient evidence of the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness despite his claims of abstinence.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

25(a)raisedAny Substance Misuse
25(c)raisedIllegal Possession of a Controlled Substance
25(f)raisedAny Illegal Drug Use While Granted Access to Classified Information

Key Rule Quoted

“no one has a right to a security clearance”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 11, 2025
Answer filedMar 13, 2025Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
Hearing held—Decision made based on written record.
Decision dateAug 22, 2025

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Importance of Reliability and Trustworthiness in Security Clearance Determinations
Impact of Past Drug Use on Current 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 H (Drug Involvement) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant used marijuana with varying frequency while holding a security clearance, which is a significant concern under Guideline H. The applicant admitted to the allegations but did not provide sufficient mitigation to overcome the disqualifying conditions. As a result, the application for access to classified information was denied.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	used marijuana with varying frequency from about 2014 to about November 2023 while granted access to classified information or while holding a sensitive position	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Frequent	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia (f) any illegal drug use while holding a clearance or sensitive position	—	Claimed Voluntary Disclosure Before Confrontation Claimed Other Claimed Other Claimed Other Claimed Other
1.b	used marijuana from May 2002 to about 2009 with varying frequency	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Occasional	Admitted	(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.

Full decision

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