CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-02300 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-02300

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

Case Profile
Decision Date7/8/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Darlene Lokey Anderson
Government Counsel: Aubrey M. De Angelis
Case Summary
Applicant, a 25-year-old employed as a Quality Assurance Supervisor for a defense contractor, sought a security clearance after a history of drug involvement, personal conduct issues, and criminal conduct. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency issued a Statement of Reasons citing concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant admitted to the allegations, which included multiple instances of marijuana use from 2016 to 2023, false statements on security clearance applications, and a charge of soliciting prostitution.
During the hearing, the applicant acknowledged his drug use and the dishonesty in his applications, attributing his actions to immaturity and peer pressure. He provided evidence of his military service, including non-judicial punishment for drug-related offenses and a subsequent discharge for misconduct. Witnesses testified to his character and work ethic, emphasizing his potential for growth. However, the applicant's repeated dishonesty, including a false response on a recent security clearance application, raised significant concerns about his credibility.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that the evidence of ongoing drug use and dishonesty outweighed the mitigating factors presented. The judge emphasized the importance of trust and reliability in individuals granted access to classified information, ultimately determining that the applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated his eligibility for a security clearance.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · Against Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · 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. 24-02300

deniedJul 8, 2025· Hon. Darlene Lokey Anderson· hearing

Summary

A 25-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), H (Drug Involvement), and J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant had a history of drug involvement, dishonesty, and criminal conduct spanning from approximately December 2016 through January 2023. This included using marijuana with varying frequency during that period.

Specifically, the applicant deliberately concealed his marijuana use on his military enlistment application and subsequent security clearance applications, providing a false "NO" response to questions about illegal drug use. Despite his statements on applications and during an April 2019 interview, he continued sporadic marijuana use from March 2019 until January 2023 while serving in the Navy in a sensitive position and holding a security clearance.

Further issues included a charge of Soliciting a Prostitute and providing a fake urine sample to avoid a positive drug test. The judge concluded that the applicant's actions demonstrated immaturity and unreliability, leading to the denial of his security clearance eligibility.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to a history of drug involvement and dishonesty, including falsifying security clearance applications.
The applicant's continued drug use while holding a security clearance raised serious concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.
The applicant's criminal conduct, including providing a fake urine sample, demonstrated poor judgment and immaturity.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 24raisedDrug Involvement and Substance Misuse
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct
AG ¶ 30raisedCriminal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 6, 2025
Answer filedMar 9, 2025
Hearing heldJun 18, 2025
Decision dateJul 8, 2025

Cite For

Disqualifying Conditions Related to Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Disqualifying Conditions Related to Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
Disqualifying Conditions Related to Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J

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 that the applicant deliberately concealed his marijuana use on multiple security clearance applications. The applicant admitted to the allegations, but the judge concluded that the evidence raised significant concerns about the applicant's eligibility for a security clearance, resulting in a decision against the applicant.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant deliberately concealed his marijuana use on his application for military enlistment and on his security clearance applications.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Admitted	—	—	—

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 against the applicant on allegations of drug involvement, specifically noting a history of marijuana use while holding a security clearance. The applicant admitted to the allegations but claimed to have received counseling for his drug use, which the judge did not credit as sufficient mitigation. The overall conclusion was that the applicant's conduct raised significant concerns regarding his eligibility for a security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has a history of drug involvement, dishonesty, and criminal conduct that occurred from about December 2016 through January 2023.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug InvolvementWHILE CLEARED	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	From about December 2016 until January 2023, Applicant used marijuana with varying frequency.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	In response to Section 23, concerning Illegal use of Drugs or Drug Activity, the question asks if he has ever used any illegal drugs. Applicant answered “NO.” This was a false response.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug InvolvementWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	Despite what he said on his security clearance applications, and to the investigator during his interview in April 2019, from March 2019 until January 2023, Applicant continued to use marijuana sporadically while serving in the Navy, in a sensitive position, and while possessing a security clearance.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Unspecified	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 against the applicant on the criminal conduct allegations, specifically regarding solicitation of prostitution and providing a fake urine sample. The applicant admitted to the allegations, which contributed to the decision to deny the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant was charged with Soliciting a Prostitute and provided a fake urine sample to avoid a positive drug test.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	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.