CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-02480 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-02480

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/27/2026
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Pamela C. Benson
Government Counsel: Karen A. Moreno-Sayles
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 44-year-old male, married with one child, who had served in the U.S. Air Force and was employed as a staff engineer for a federal contractor. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing concerns under Guidelines H (drug involvement and substance misuse), J (criminal conduct), and E (personal conduct) due to the applicant's past illegal drug use, specifically marijuana. The applicant admitted to using and purchasing marijuana from approximately June 1997 until January 2025 but denied any allegations related to personal conduct.
During the hearing, the applicant acknowledged his past marijuana use but explained that he had significantly reduced his consumption and had not used marijuana since New Year's Eve 2025. He expressed a commitment to comply with federal law regarding drug use and provided character references attesting to his integrity and professionalism. The administrative judge found that the applicant had mitigated the concerns under Guidelines H and J, noting his acknowledgment of past behavior, efforts to abstain from drug use, and the support from his employers. Ultimately, the judge ruled in favor of the applicant, granting him national security eligibility for access to classified information, emphasizing the importance of his commitment to compliance with federal law moving forward.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · For Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · For Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · 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. 24-02480

grantedFeb 27, 2026· Hon. Pamela C. Benson· hearing

Summary

A 44-year-old aerospace engineer was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), H (Drug Involvement), and J (Criminal Conduct). These concerns stemmed from his past marijuana use and purchases, which occurred with varying frequency from approximately June 1997 until at least January 2025. His criminal conduct was related to illegal drug possession in a state where recreational marijuana use is legal.

Disqualifying conditions were raised under Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) ¶ 25(a) and AG ¶ 25(c). However, the applicant successfully mitigated these issues by demonstrating a clear intent to comply with federal law regarding drug use, acknowledging a prior misunderstanding of state versus federal regulations.

The decision to grant the clearance was based on several mitigating factors, including AG ¶ 26(a), AG ¶ 26(b), AG ¶ 32(a), and AG ¶ 32(d). The applicant provided credible evidence of rehabilitation, committed to abstaining from marijuana, and adopted new coping mechanisms for anxiety. His honesty and transparency throughout the security clearance process were also noted favorably.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated a clear intent to comply with federal law regarding drug use after a misunderstanding of state versus federal law.
He provided credible evidence of rehabilitation, including a commitment to abstain from marijuana use and a change in coping mechanisms for anxiety.
The applicant's honesty and transparency about his past drug use during the security clearance process were noted favorably.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)appliedBehavior Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 26(b)appliedAcknowledgment and Actions Taken to Overcome Drug Involvement
AG ¶ 32(a)appliedTime Elapsed Since Criminal Behavior
AG ¶ 32(d)appliedEvidence of Successful Rehabilitation

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 13, 2025
Answer filedFeb 26, 2025
Hearing heldSep 11, 2025via online video teleconferencing
Decision dateFeb 27, 2026

Cite For

Mitigation of Drug Involvement Under Guideline H Due to Misunderstanding of Federal Law
Successful Rehabilitation and Commitment to Abstain From Illegal Drug Use
Refutation of Personal Conduct Concerns Under Guideline E Through Transparency and Honesty

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 personal conduct concerns were mitigated. The applicant was transparent about his past marijuana use and demonstrated a commitment to abstaining from illegal drug use after understanding the implications of federal law. The judge concluded that the applicant's conduct did not raise doubts about his reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	The allegation in SOR ¶ 1.a was also cross alleged in SOR ¶ 3.a. The conduct in SOR ¶ 3.a is fully addressed under Guidelines H and J, above.	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	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 and purchased marijuana with varying frequency from June 1997 until January 2025. However, the applicant demonstrated successful rehabilitation and has not used marijuana since January 2025, leading to a decision to grant the security clearance.

¶	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 June 1997 until at least January 2025.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Occasional	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence	Documented Abstinence Period Documented Documented Rehabilitation Evidence

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline H). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant's criminal conduct related to illegal drug possession was mitigated by the fact that he resides in a state where recreational marijuana use is legal. The applicant demonstrated successful rehabilitation and has not used marijuana since January 2025, leading to a favorable decision regarding his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant's criminal conduct is related to his illegal drug possession in a state where the recreational possession and use of marijuana is legal.	For Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur (d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline J). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.