CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 25-00397 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 25-00397

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

Case Profile
Decision Date9/26/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Braden M. Murphy
Government Counsel: Brian L. Farrell
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 35-year-old cybersecurity engineer who sought a security clearance after previously disclosing marijuana use on his security clearance applications. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing concerns under Guideline H, which pertains to drug involvement and substance misuse. The core allegations included the applicant's continued marijuana use after he had previously stated he would not use it again, particularly while holding a sensitive position.
In his response to the SOR, the applicant admitted to the allegations, acknowledging his marijuana use from May 2015 to July 2023, including during the period he held a security clearance. He attributed his drug use to significant life stressors, including a divorce and job loss, and expressed remorse for his actions. The applicant provided evidence of his engagement in therapy for adjustment disorder and stated he had not used marijuana since July 2023, offering to submit to random drug testing.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that his recent drug use raised significant security concerns that were not sufficiently mitigated by his explanations or circumstances. The judge emphasized the importance of compliance with federal law regarding drug use and determined that the applicant's actions demonstrated a lack of reliability and trustworthiness necessary for access to classified information. Consequently, the applicant's eligibility for a security clearance 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. 25-00397

deniedSep 26, 2025· Hon. Braden M. Murphy· hearing

Summary

A 35-year-old cybersecurity engineer was denied a security clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) due to recent marijuana use. The applicant had previously reported marijuana use on a February 2021 security clearance application and declared an intent to abstain from further use. However, he subsequently used marijuana while holding a sensitive position.

The Statement of Reasons specifically cited his marijuana use after declaring abstinence and the fact that this use occurred while in a sensitive role. These actions raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) ¶ 25(a) and AG ¶ 25(f).

While the applicant acknowledged his mistakes and underwent therapy, and mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 26(b) were considered, the recency of his drug use and the insufficient mitigating evidence ultimately led to the denial. The decision emphasized that his drug use while in a sensitive position presented significant security concerns.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant used marijuana after declaring he would not do so again on his security clearance application.
His marijuana use occurred while holding a sensitive position, raising significant security concerns.
The recency of his drug use and lack of sufficient mitigating evidence precluded a favorable decision.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)raisedAny Substance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(f)raisedAny Illegal Drug Use While Granted Access to Classified Information or Holding a Sensitive Position

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(b)appliedThe Individual Acknowledges His or Her Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse, Provides Evidence of Actions Taken to Overcome This Problem, and Has Established a Pattern of AbstinenceThe applicant accepted responsibility for his drug use and stated he has not used marijuana since July 2023.

Key Rule Quoted

“the clearly consistent standard indicates that security determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 27, 2025
Answer filedJan 23, 2025Applicant requested a decision based on the administrative record.
Hearing held—Decision made on the written record.
Decision dateSep 26, 2025

Cite For

Recency of Drug Use as a Significant Factor in Security Clearance Decisions
Impact of Illegal Drug Use While Holding a Sensitive Position
Importance of Demonstrating a Pattern of Abstinence in Mitigating Security Concerns

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 after previously reporting such use on a security clearance application and declaring he would not do so again. This use occurred while the applicant was in a sensitive position. As a result, the judge ruled against the applicant on both allegations under Guideline H, leading to a denial of security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant used marijuana after reporting previous marijuana use on a security clearance application in February 2021 and declaring he would not do so again.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Regular	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (f) any illegal drug use while holding a clearance or sensitive position	—	Claimed Acknowledgment and Remorse
1.b	Applicant's marijuana use occurred while in a sensitive position.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Regular	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (f) any illegal drug use while holding a clearance or sensitive position	—	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.