CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-02364 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-02364

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

Case Profile
Decision Date12/15/2025
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: LeRoy F. Foreman
Government Counsel: Cynthia Ruckno
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 36-year-old employee of a federal contractor who sought a security clearance. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing concerns under Guidelines H (Drug Involvement) and E (Personal Conduct). The allegations included the applicant's past marijuana use and omissions in his security clearance application regarding his drug-related arrests.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to the allegations under Guideline H, acknowledging his past marijuana use and the omissions in his application, which he claimed were honest mistakes rather than intentional falsifications. He provided testimony about his life changes and goals, emphasizing his commitment to his family and work. The applicant's supervisor testified to his exemplary work ethic, which contributed to a favorable view of his character. Additionally, the applicant submitted a written statement of intent to refrain from illegal drug use in the future.
The administrative judge ruled in favor of granting the security clearance, concluding that the applicant's past drug involvement was infrequent and occurred under circumstances unlikely to recur. The judge found that the applicant's admissions and his proactive steps to mitigate future risks demonstrated a commitment to compliance with laws and regulations, thus supporting a favorable adjudication consistent with national interest.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · For Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · 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. 24-02364

grantedDec 15, 2025· Hon. LeRoy F. Foreman· hearing

Summary

A 36-year-old federal contractor employee was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons alleged that the applicant answered "no" to questions on his June 2024 Security Clearance Application (SCA) regarding illegal drug use or involvement in the past seven years.

However, during a September 2024 interview with a security investigator, the applicant admitted to three arrests for marijuana possession: in September 2008, March 2011 (resulting in a "stet" docket placement), and May 2014. The May 2014 arrest occurred when police observed him and three others passing a marijuana cigarette. The applicant admitted all allegations under Guideline H.

The judge found that the applicant mitigated these concerns. His admissions regarding past drug use were candid and timely, and he provided a signed statement of intent to abstain from illegal drug use. Additionally, positive testimony regarding his character and work ethic supported the decision to grant the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant's admissions regarding past drug use were candid and timely.
He provided a signed statement of intent to abstain from illegal drug use in the future.
Positive character references and a strong work ethic supported his case.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)raisedSubstance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(c)raisedIllegal Possession of a Controlled Substance
AG ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission or Falsification

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)appliedBehavior Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 26(b)appliedAcknowledgment of Drug Involvement and Actions Taken
AG ¶ 17(a)appliedPrompt Correction of Omission

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 18, 2025
Answer filedMar 21, 2025
Hearing heldSep 29, 2025conducted by video teleconference
Decision dateDec 15, 2025

Cite For

Mitigation of Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Mitigation of Personal Conduct Issues Under Guideline E
Importance of Whole-person Analysis in Security Clearance Decisions

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: granted

The judge found that the applicant admitted to omissions in his Security Clearance Application (SCA) but denied intentional falsification, claiming the omissions were honest mistakes. The judge ruled in favor of the applicant on the personal conduct allegations, concluding that the omissions were mitigated by the applicant's prompt efforts to correct them before being confronted with the facts.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	When Applicant submitted his SCA in June 2024, he answered “no” the questions asking if, in the last seven years he had illegally used any drugs or controlled substances, and asking if, in the last seven years, he had been involved in the illegal purchase, manufacture, cultivation, trafficking, production, transfer, shipping, receiving, handling, or sale of any drug or controlled substance.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATESELF-CORRECTED	Drug Involvement	Admitted	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted	Claimed Corrected Falsification Promptly

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: granted

The judge found that the applicant admitted to multiple instances of marijuana possession and use, including recent use to manage back pain. Despite these admissions, the judge concluded that the applicant's behavior was mitigated by the passage of time and the applicant's acknowledgment of his drug involvement, leading to a decision to grant eligibility for access to classified information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant admitted all the allegations in the SOR under Guideline H.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Occasional	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence	Claimed Acknowledgment and Remorse
1.b	In March 2011, he was charged with possession of marijuana, and his case was placed on the “stet” docket.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Occasional	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence	Claimed Acknowledgment and Remorse
1.c	In May 2014, he was charged with possession of marijuana. This arrest occurred when police observed four individuals, including Applicant, passing around a marijuana cigarette in a parking lot.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Occasional	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence	Claimed Acknowledgment and Remorse
1.d	When Applicant was interviewed by a security investigator in September 2024, he admitted being arrested for possession of marijuana in September 2008, March 2011, and May 2014.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Occasional	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence	Claimed Acknowledgment and Remorse

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.