CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-02337 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-02337

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

Case Profile
Decision Date1/5/2026
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Pamela C. Benson
Government Counsel: Cynthia Ruckno
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 30-year-old individual who applied for a Department of Defense (DOD) security clearance. The adjudicative guidelines at issue were Guideline H (drug involvement and substance misuse) and Guideline E (personal conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined concerns regarding the applicant's history of marijuana use, including purchasing and using the substance from 2018 until August 2024, and failing a drug test in December 2022, which led to her termination from a previous employer.
The applicant admitted to all allegations in the SOR, including her drug use and the circumstances surrounding her termination. She claimed a lack of awareness regarding the prohibition of marijuana use under federal law, despite its legality in her state. The applicant also acknowledged failing to disclose her previous employment and drug use on her eQIP, asserting that these omissions were unintentional. In mitigation, she provided evidence of a subsequent negative drug test and a letter from a federal contractor's account manager supporting her character and competence.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that the security concerns were not mitigated. The judge emphasized that the applicant's admissions triggered multiple disqualifying conditions under the guidelines, and her explanations did not sufficiently address the risks associated with her drug involvement and personal conduct. The judge determined that granting the security clearance was not clearly consistent with national security interests.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- 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. 24-02337

deniedJan 5, 2026· Hon. Pamela C. Benson· hearing

Summary

A 30-year-old female applicant was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The denial stemmed from her admitted frequent marijuana use and a positive drug test that resulted in her termination from employment in approximately December 2022.

The Statement of Reasons detailed several allegations, including the applicant's use and purchase of marijuana from about 2018 until about August 2024, with some use occurring while in a sensitive position between July and August 2024. Additionally, she was alleged to have falsified material facts on an eQIP by failing to disclose both her termination for cause and her illegal drug use.

The judge found the applicant's credibility questionable, particularly regarding her claims of unawareness of federal laws despite state-level marijuana legality. Her drug involvement raised concerns about reliability and trustworthiness, which were not mitigated by her claims of abstinence. Consequently, the applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns, leading to the denial of her security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to frequent marijuana use and a positive drug test, which led to her termination from employment.
The judge found the applicant's credibility questionable, undermining her claims of misunderstanding the legality of marijuana use.
The applicant's drug involvement raised concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness, which were not mitigated by her claims of abstinence.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)raisedAny Substance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(b)raisedTesting Positive for an Illegal Drug
AG ¶ 25(f)raisedIllegal Drug Use While Granted Access to Classified Information
AG ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 3, 2025
Answer filedFeb 14, 2025
Hearing held—Applicant requested a determination on the written record.
Decision dateJan 5, 2026

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Credibility Issues Impacting the Assessment of Mitigating Factors
Failure to Disclose Relevant Employment History and Drug Use on Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E

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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline E, concluding that the applicant's personal conduct raised significant security concerns. The applicant's admissions regarding her termination for drug use and the falsification of her eQIP were critical in the decision to deny her security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant was fired by employer A in about December 2022 for testing positive for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
2.b	Applicant falsified material facts on an eQIP by failing to disclose her termination for cause.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Employment History	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
2.c	Applicant falsified material facts on an eQIP by failing to disclose her illegal drug use.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—

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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant used and purchased marijuana with varying frequency from 2018 until August 2024, including while holding a sensitive position. The applicant also failed a urinalysis test in December 2022 after testing positive for marijuana. The decision was ultimately denied due to unresolved security concerns regarding the applicant's drug involvement.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant used and purchased marijuana with varying frequency from about 2018 until about August 2024.	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Frequent	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (b) testing positive for an illegal drug (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	—	—
1.b	Applicant used marijuana with varying frequency, from about July 2024 to about August 2024, while she was in a sensitive position.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Frequent	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (b) testing positive for an illegal drug (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	—	—
1.c	Applicant failed a urinalysis test in about December 2022, after she tested positive for marijuana.	Against Applicant	Drug Test Failure	Not Applicable	Admitted	(b) testing positive for an illegal drug	—	—

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.