CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-02057 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-02057

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/24/2026
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Richard A. Cefola
Government Counsel: Aubrey M. De Angelis
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 52-year-old defense contractor with a master's degree in electrical engineering, who had held a security clearance since 2006. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse), specifically alleging that the applicant had illegally purchased and consumed marijuana while holding a security clearance. The applicant admitted to the allegations, stating that he had engaged in this behavior on five occasions between January 2021 and February 2023, although it was legal under state law.
During the hearing, the applicant provided testimony and evidence, including a signed statement of intent to abstain from drug use and negative drug test results. He also presented favorable testimony from colleagues. However, the administrative judge found that the applicant's drug use occurred while he held a security clearance, which raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness. Despite the applicant's efforts to demonstrate rehabilitation and a commitment to abstinence, the judge concluded that the evidence did not sufficiently mitigate the security concerns. Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, denying eligibility for access to classified information based on the overall assessment of the applicant's conduct and the potential risks to national security.
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. 24-02057

deniedFeb 24, 2026· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 52-year-old defense contractor, holding a master's degree in electrical engineering, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The applicant admitted to purchasing and smoking marijuana on two occasions between January 2021 and February 2023, and purchasing and consuming marijuana gummies on three occasions, ending approximately three years prior. All of this drug use occurred while the applicant possessed a security clearance.

The administrative judge identified several disqualifying conditions, including the admitted drug use while cleared, and the recency of the involvement. While the applicant presented mitigating factors, such as recent negative drug tests and a signed intent to abstain from future drug use, these were deemed insufficient.

Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant's history of drug involvement, particularly while holding a clearance and within a two-year period leading up to 2023, raised significant questions about his reliability and trustworthiness. Consequently, the applicant was denied eligibility for access to classified information.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to using marijuana while holding a security clearance.
The drug use occurred within a two-year period leading up to 2023.
The applicant's drug involvement raised questions about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)appliedAny Substance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(c)appliedIllegal Possession of a Controlled Substance
AG ¶ 25(f)appliedIllegal Drug Use While Granted Access to Classified Information

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)rejectedBehavior Happened so Long Ago, Was Infrequent, or Unlikely to RecurThe applicant held a security clearance during his drug usage.
AG ¶ 26(b)rejectedAcknowledgment of Drug Involvement and Evidence of Actions Taken to Overcome the ProblemThe applicant's recent actions were insufficient to mitigate the concerns.

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 issuedJan 22, 2025
Answer filedMay 20, 2025
Hearing heldJan 21, 2026Hearing was delayed due to furlough.
Decision dateFeb 24, 2026

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Importance of Reliability and Trustworthiness in Security Clearance Decisions
Impact of Illegal Drug Use on National Security 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 H (Drug Involvement) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant regarding drug involvement, specifically noting that the applicant purchased and consumed marijuana on five occasions while holding a security clearance. Despite the applicant's claims of intent to abstain from future drug use and a recent negative drug test, the judge concluded that this history was inconsistent with national security interests, leading to a denial of eligibility for a security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant admits that during a two-year period from January 2021 until February of 2023, he purchased and smoked marijuana on two separate occasions, and purchased and consumed marijuana gummies on three separate occasions, ending about three years ago.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Experimental	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia (f) any illegal drug use while holding a clearance or sensitive position	—	Claimed Signed Intent with Revocation Clause

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.