CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-02323 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-02323

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/20/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Mark W. Harvey
Government Counsel: Cassie L. Ford
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 35-year-old aircraft mechanic employed by a defense contractor since March 2024. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guidelines H (drug involvement and substance misuse), J (criminal conduct), and E (personal conduct). The core allegations included the applicant's long history of marijuana use, purchases, and sales, as well as falsifications made on his security clearance application regarding his drug history.
The applicant admitted to several allegations, including his marijuana use from 2003 to 2022, multiple drug-related charges, and the falsification of material facts on his security clearance application. He expressed regret for his past actions and claimed to have ceased using marijuana and delta-8 THC since around May 2024. Despite his admissions and attempts at mitigation, the administrative judge found that the applicant's security concerns under Guideline E were not mitigated due to the deliberate falsification of his application, which raised significant doubts about his trustworthiness.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled to deny the applicant's eligibility for access to classified information, stating that the applicant's history of drug involvement and personal conduct did not align with the standards required for security clearance. The judge emphasized the importance of honesty and reliability in maintaining national security, concluding that the applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated that granting him a clearance would be consistent with the national interest.
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. 24-02323

deniedAug 20, 2025· Hon. Mark W. Harvey· hearing

Summary

A 35-year-old aircraft mechanic was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline H (Drug Involvement), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant admitted to extensive marijuana use, purchases, and sales from approximately April 2003 until at least December 2022. He also faced charges for marijuana possession in about 2016 and November 2018, and tested positive for marijuana in July 2007.

A primary factor in the denial was the applicant's falsification of his March 13, 2024, security clearance application. He deliberately failed to disclose his history of illegal drug use and activity in response to specific questions regarding the first and most recent use of illegal drugs. This omission directly contributed to the personal conduct concerns.

While some mitigating conditions were applied under Guidelines H and J, the judge determined that the applicant's personal conduct issues, particularly the falsification of his application, were not sufficiently resolved. Consequently, the applicant was denied eligibility for access to classified information.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to extensive marijuana use, purchases, and sales from 2003 to 2022.
He falsified information on his security clearance application regarding his drug use history.
The judge found that the applicant's personal conduct issues were not mitigated despite some mitigating factors under Guidelines H and J.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)rejectedBehavior Happened so Long Ago or Was InfrequentThe applicant's drug involvement was recent and serious.
AG ¶ 30(a)rejectedPattern of Minor OffensesThe applicant's conduct raised significant concerns about his judgment and reliability.

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 issuedFeb 3, 2025
Answer filedMar 7, 2025
Hearing heldJun 11, 2025
Decision dateAug 20, 2025

Cite For

Falsification of Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
Mitigation of Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Impact of Personal 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 E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on allegations of personal conduct under Guideline E, specifically regarding falsification of material facts on a security clearance application. The applicant's failure to disclose illegal drug use was deemed intentional and serious, leading to a denial of eligibility for access to classified information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	He falsified material facts on his March 13, 2024 SCA, in response to the following requests: For SOR ¶ 3.a: 'Section 23 - Illegal Use of Drugs or Drug Activity' asked him to 'Provide an estimate of the month and year of first use' of illegal drugs, and 'Section 23 - Illegal Use of Drugs or Drug Activity' asked him to 'Provide an estimate of the month and year of most recent use' of illegal drugs.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
3.b	He answered 'No', and thereby deliberately failed to disclose that information as set forth in SOR ¶¶ 1.b. and 1.c., above.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—

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 marijuana from April 2003 until at least December 2022, purchased it on various occasions, and sold it from 2013 to 2018. The applicant admitted to these allegations, but the overall outcome was a denial of eligibility for access to classified information due to the seriousness of the drug involvement and related misconduct.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	From about April 2003 until at least December 2022, he used marijuana with varying frequency;	For Applicant	Marijuana	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	From about May 2003 until about October 2022, he purchased marijuana on various occasions;	For Applicant	Drug Distribution or Dealing	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	From about 2013 until about 2018, he sold marijuana on various occasions;	For Applicant	Drug Distribution or Dealing	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	In about November 2018, he was charged with possession of marijuana;	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	In about 2016, he was charged with possession of marijuana;	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	In about July 2007, he tested positive for marijuana on a drug test.	For Applicant	Drug Test Failure	Not Applicable	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's admitted conduct constituted criminal conduct under Guideline J. The allegations included the use, purchase, and sale of marijuana, as well as charges related to marijuana possession. The judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that the applicant's criminal conduct was disqualifying.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	SOR ¶¶ 1.c through 1.e above constitute criminal conduct.	For Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—

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.