CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-02349 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-02349

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/5/2026
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Pamela C. Benson
Government Counsel: Brian L. Farrell
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 42-year-old individual who sought a security clearance after being employed by a federal contractor. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing concerns under Guideline H (drug involvement and substance misuse) and Guideline E (personal conduct). The core allegations included the applicant's long-term use of marijuana, a felony charge for sale and distribution of marijuana in 2006, and secret recordings of meetings with a former supervisor that violated company policy.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to all allegations in the SOR, including his marijuana use from 1999 until March 2024 and the felony charge. He explained that he had stopped using marijuana due to personal growth, a desire to improve his family life, and the legal implications of his employment. The applicant also expressed regret over his past actions, particularly regarding the secret recordings, which he made in a challenging work environment. He provided character references that attested to his trustworthiness and commitment.
The administrative judge ruled in favor of the applicant, granting him national security eligibility for access to classified information. The judge found that the applicant had mitigated the concerns related to drug involvement and personal conduct by demonstrating a significant period of abstinence from marijuana, a commitment to positive life changes, and a sincere acknowledgment of his past behavior. The judge emphasized the applicant's current reliability and trustworthiness, considering the totality of circumstances and the applicant's efforts to overcome his past issues.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · 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. 24-02349

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

Summary

This case involved a 42-year-old male applicant whose eligibility for a security clearance was reviewed under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). Concerns were raised regarding his history of marijuana use, which occurred with varying frequency from approximately October 1999 until at least March 2024, including purchases between 2000 and 2021. He was also arrested in September 2006 and charged with felony sale and distribution of marijuana. Additionally, personal conduct concerns arose from allegations that he secretly recorded meetings with a former supervisor from about January 2024 through March 2024, which was against company policy.

Despite these disqualifying conditions, the applicant successfully mitigated the security concerns. He demonstrated a pattern of abstinence from illegal drug use for nearly two years, having ceased all substance use since March 2024. The applicant provided credible testimony regarding his commitment to a drug-free lifestyle and significant personal growth.

The administrative judge found the applicant credible, concluding that his past conduct was unlikely to recur. Based on the demonstrated mitigation, the applicant was granted eligibility for access to classified information.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated a pattern of abstinence from illegal drug use for nearly two years.
He provided credible testimony about his commitment to a drug-free lifestyle and personal growth.
The applicant's past conduct was deemed unlikely to recur, mitigating security concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)raisedAny Substance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(c)raisedIllegal Possession of a Controlled Substance

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)appliedBehavior Happened so Long Ago or Was Infrequent
AG ¶ 26(b)appliedAcknowledgment of Drug Involvement and Evidence of Actions Taken to Overcome the Problem
AG ¶ 17(c)appliedOffense Is so Minor or so Much Time Has Passed That It Is Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 17(d)appliedAcknowledgment of Behavior and Positive Steps Taken to Alleviate Circumstances

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 17, 2025
Answer filedFeb 4, 2025
Hearing heldSep 3, 2025via online video teleconferencing
Decision dateFeb 5, 2026

Cite For

Mitigation of Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Credibility of Applicant's Testimony Regarding Personal Growth
Application of Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions

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: granted

The judge found that the applicant's actions of secretly recording meetings with his former supervisor did not raise personal conduct concerns. Both allegations under Guideline E were ruled in favor of the applicant, indicating that the judge did not find the conduct to be disqualifying.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant was secretly recording meetings with his former supervisor from approximately January 2024 through March 2024.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	The secret recordings were against company policy.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	—	—	—

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: granted

The judge found that the applicant used marijuana with varying frequency from about October 1999 until at least March 2024, purchased marijuana from about 2000 to 2021, and was arrested in September 2006 for felony sale and distribution of marijuana. Despite these allegations, the judge ruled in favor of the applicant, indicating that the past behavior did not cast doubt on the applicant's current reliability and trustworthiness.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant used marijuana with varying frequency from about October 1999 until at least March 2024.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Regular	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur	—
1.b	Applicant purchased marijuana from about 2000 to 2021.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Not Applicable	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur	—
1.c	Applicant was arrested in September 2006 and charged with a felony sale and distribution of marijuana.	For Applicant	Drug Distribution or Dealing	Not Applicable	Denied	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur	—

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.