CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 25-00087 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 25-00087

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

Case Profile
Decision Date12/2/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Richard A. Cefola
Government Counsel: Tara R. Karoian
Applicant's Counsel: Alan V. Edmunds
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 30-year-old employee of a defense contractor who had previously held a security clearance while serving in the U.S. Army. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guidelines H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse), E (Personal Conduct), and F (Financial Considerations). The core allegations included the applicant's positive drug test for marijuana in May 2020, falsification of information on his security clearance application, and issues related to financial debts.
The applicant admitted to using THC gummies for sleep and stress relief following the loss of two soldiers but claimed a "lapse in memory" regarding his drug use when completing the SF-86 and during a subsequent interview. He also acknowledged financial debts but provided documentation showing that some debts had been resolved. The administrative judge found the applicant's explanations for his drug use and falsifications to be not credible, determining that he willfully falsified information on both the SF-86 and during the interview.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that the disqualifying conditions under Guidelines H and E were established due to the applicant's drug use and willful falsifications. Although the applicant mitigated some financial concerns, the overall assessment of his reliability and trustworthiness led to an unfavorable determination regarding his security clearance eligibility.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · 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. 25-00087

deniedDec 2, 2025· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 30-year-old former U.S. Army member was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The applicant admitted to testing positive for marijuana/THC in a random urinalysis on or about May 11, 2020.

Further, the applicant admitted to falsifying material facts on his May 10, 2024, SF-86 regarding illegal drug use in the last seven years. He also admitted to falsifying material facts during a September 5, 2024, personal subject interview with a DCSA investigator when asked about failing military drug tests. While the applicant had outstanding debts to Creditor A for approximately $15,360 and to Creditor B for about $2,081, these financial issues were successfully mitigated.

Ultimately, the application was denied due to serious concerns regarding personal conduct. The judge found that the applicant willfully falsified information on his security clearance application and during his interview, and his explanations for these falsifications were not credible, raising significant doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant successfully mitigated financial concerns by resolving past debts.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.aappliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
E2.bappliedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information

Mitigating

F20.dappliedGood-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Resolve Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”
— AG ¶ 2(b)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 25, 2025
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 23, 2025Hearing conducted as scheduled.
Decision dateDec 2, 2025Decision delayed due to federal government shutdown.

Cite For

Willful Falsification of Information Under Guideline E
Mitigation of Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Drug Involvement Considerations Under Guideline H

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 his SF-86 and during a personal subject interview. The applicant admitted to these actions, which raised significant security concerns, leading to a denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant admits that he falsified material facts during a personal subject interview (PSI) on September 5, 2024, with an investigator with the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA), when asked whether he had ever failed any drug test provided by the military.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant admits that he falsified material facts on his May 10, 2024, SF-86, in response to 'Section 23 – Illegal Use of Drugs or Drug Activity in the last seven (7) years, have you illegally used drugs or controlled substances?'.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	—	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 F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant had past-due debts related to a motorcycle and a motor vehicle, totaling $17,441. Despite these debts, the judge ruled in favor of the applicant on both allegations, indicating that the applicant had satisfied his admitted past-due debts and established mitigation under AG ¶ 20(d). However, the overall security clearance was denied due to concerns under other guidelines.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant admits that he was indebted to Creditor A, for a past-due, motorcycle debt, in the amount of about $15,360. $15,360	For Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	—	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Debt Paid in Full
3.b	Applicant admits that he was indebted to Creditor B, for a past-due, motor vehicle debt, in the amount of about $2,081. $2,081	For Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	—	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Debt Paid in Full

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 that the applicant tested positive for marijuana/THC while holding a security clearance, which raised significant security concerns under Guideline H. Despite the applicant's admission and attempts to explain the circumstances, the judge concluded that the applicant failed to mitigate these concerns, resulting in a denied security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant admits that on or about May 11, 2020, he tested positive for marijuana/THC, as the result of a random urinalysis.	For Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	(f) any illegal drug use while holding a clearance or sensitive position	—	—

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.