CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-00804 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-00804

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/26/2026
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Marc E. Curry
Government Counsel: Troy L. Nussbaum
Applicant's Counsel: Sean D. Rogers
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 32-year-old software engineer with a history of marijuana use, which raised concerns under Guideline H (drug involvement) and Guideline E (personal conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) issued by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency outlined allegations related to his drug use and the falsification of his public trust application in 2016. The applicant admitted to his marijuana use but denied that he had falsified his application, attributing any omissions to carelessness.
During the proceedings, the applicant acknowledged his past marijuana use and provided evidence of negative drug tests in 2024 and 2025. He argued that his omission of marijuana use from his 2016 application was not intentional, as he had not used marijuana within a year prior to completing that application. However, the administrative judge found his explanation unconvincing, particularly in light of his inability to recall details about purchasing marijuana for someone else. Ultimately, the judge ruled that while the applicant mitigated the drug involvement concern, he failed to mitigate the personal conduct concern due to the deliberate falsification of his 2016 application. Consequently, the applicant's request for a security clearance was denied.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against 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. 24-00804

deniedFeb 26, 2026· Hon. Marc E. Curry· hearing

Summary

A 32-year-old software engineer was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The applicant had falsified a public trust application in 2016 by deliberately omitting his marijuana use, which was a required disclosure. This omission was deemed a deliberate falsification, raising significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness, as his explanation for the omission was not found credible.

While the applicant successfully mitigated the drug involvement security concern related to his marijuana use itself, demonstrating a history of responsible behavior, he failed to mitigate the personal conduct concern stemming from the falsification of his 2016 application.

Specifically, the applicant did not disclose his marijuana use as required, and this failure to disclose generated the unmitigated personal conduct security concern. The decision to deny the clearance was based on the deliberate falsification of the e-QIP and the lack of credible explanation for this omission.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant mitigated the drug involvement concern due to infrequent marijuana use and negative drug test results.
The applicant demonstrated a commitment to abstaining from marijuana use in the future.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 15appliedPersonal ConductConduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual’s reliability.

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)appliedDrug InvolvementThe behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur.
AG ¶ 26(b)(2)appliedDrug InvolvementChanging or avoiding the environment where drugs were used.
AG ¶ 26(b)(3)appliedDrug InvolvementProviding a signed statement of intent to abstain from all drug involvement.

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
— AG ¶ 1(d)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 17, 2024
Answer filedJun 21, 2024
Hearing heldJun 16, 2025via video teleconference
Decision dateFeb 26, 2026

Cite For

Deliberate Falsification of Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Mitigation of Drug Involvement Concerns Under Guideline H
Importance of Credibility in Applicant's Explanations During Hearings

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 the personal conduct security concern related to the falsification of his public trust application in 2016. The applicant's omission of relevant information about his past marijuana use from his 2016 e-QIP was deemed a deliberate falsification, which the applicant failed to mitigate.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant did not disclose his marijuana use, as required.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to Disclose	Drug Involvement	Denied	—	—	—
2.c	Applicant failed to mitigate the personal conduct security concern generated by the falsification of his public trust application in 2016.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	Claimed Other

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 mitigated the drug involvement security concern related to his marijuana use, but ultimately denied the application due to unresolved personal conduct issues stemming from falsifications in his public trust application. The applicant's history of marijuana use was deemed infrequent and not recent enough to raise significant concerns about his reliability or trustworthiness.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant mitigated the drug involvement security concern stemming from his marijuana use.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Occasional	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur	Documented Signed Intent with Revocation Clause
1.b–1.c	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified		—	—	—

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.