Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 26-00010 · CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date5/29/2026
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeWRITTEN RECORD FORM
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Government Counsel: Erin P. Thompson
Judge: Benjamin R. Dorsey
Guidelines Evaluated
- HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · Against Applicant
Questions about ISCR ISCR Case No. 26-00010, answered from its own record: what was alleged, what the judge found, where it says so. Descriptive only; never advice.

Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only, not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 26-00010denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 26-00010

deniedMay 29, 2026· Hon. Benjamin R. Dorsey· hearing

Synopsis

The applicant, a 31-year-old prospective employee of a government contractor, faced security concerns under Guideline H due to his marijuana use, which he admitted had occurred from November 2021 until December 2025. Despite claiming medical necessity for his use, the judge found that the applicant did not mitigate the concerns related to drug involvement and substance misuse, leading to a denial of his security clearance application.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to using marijuana frequently and tested positive for it in July 2025.
He expressed an intention to continue using marijuana in the future despite knowing it is illegal under federal law.
The applicant failed to demonstrate a pattern of abstinence or sufficient evidence that his drug involvement is unlikely to recur.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)appliedSubstance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(b)appliedPositive Drug Test
AG ¶ 25(g)appliedIntent to Continue Drug Involvement

Key Rule Quoted

“The illegal use of controlled substances, to include the misuse of prescription and non-prescription drugs, and the use of other substances that cause physical or mental impairment or are used in a manner inconsistent with their intended purpose can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 3, 2026
Answer filedMar 2, 2026Requested decision based on written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decision based on written record.
Decision dateMay 29, 2026

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Ongoing Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Failure to Mitigate Substance Misuse Concerns Despite Medical Claims
Importance of Compliance with Federal Drug Laws in Security Clearance Determinations

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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant's drug involvement and substance misuse raised significant security concerns. The applicant used marijuana with varying frequency from November 2021 until at least December 2025, tested positive for marijuana in July 2025, and expressed an intention to continue using marijuana. The judge concluded that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate these concerns, resulting in a denial of security clearance eligibility.

1.a Applicant used marijuana with varying frequency from about November 2021 until at least December 2025
Finding: Against Applicant
Substance / event: Marijuana
Use level: Frequent
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶25):
(a) any substance misuse
(b) testing positive for an illegal drug
Mitigating applied (¶26): —
Mitigation: —
1.b he tested positive for marijuana on an employer issued urinalysis in July 2025
Finding: Against Applicant
Substance / event: Drug Test Failure
Use level: Not Applicable
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶25):
(b) testing positive for an illegal drug
Mitigating applied (¶26): —
Mitigation: —
1.c he intends to use marijuana in the future
Finding: Against Applicant
Substance / event: Stated Intent to Use Again
Use level: Not Applicable
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶25):
(g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue
Mitigating applied (¶26): —
Mitigation: —

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant used marijuana with varying frequency from about November 2021 until at least December 2025	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Frequent	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (b) testing positive for an illegal drug	—	—
1.b	he tested positive for marijuana on an employer issued urinalysis in July 2025	Against Applicant	Drug Test Failure	Not Applicable	Admitted	(b) testing positive for an illegal drug	—	—
1.c	he intends to use marijuana in the future	Against Applicant	Stated Intent to Use Again	Not Applicable	Admitted	(g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue	—	—

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.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

______________ ______________ DEFENSE L

DECISION

GAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 26-00010 ) Applicant for

STATEMENT OF CASE

ecurity Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Erin P. Thompson, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 05/29/2026 Decision Dorsey, Benjamin R., Administrative Judge: Applicant did not mitigate the drug involvement and substance misuse security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Statement of the Case On February 3, 2026, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline H (drug involvement and substance misuse). Applicant provided a response to the SOR dated March 2, 2026 (Answer) and requested a decision based on the written record in lieu of a hearing. The Government’s written case was submitted on March 11, 2026. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to Applicant, who was given 30 da

FINDINGS OF FACT

sto file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the security concerns. Applicant received the FORM on March 18, 2026, and provided a response that he dated April 8, 2026 (FORM Response). The case was assigned to me on May 8, 2026. The Government exhibits included in the FORM (Items 1-5) and the FORM Response are admitted in evidence without objection.

Findings of Fact Applicant is a 31-year-old prospective employee of a government contractor that is sponsoring him for security clearance eligibility. He earned a high school diploma in 2012. He has never married and has no children. He has lived with a cohabitant since 2020. This is his first application for security clearance eligibility. (Items 3, 4) In the SOR, the Government alleged the following: Applicant used marijuana with varying frequency from about November 2021 until at least December 2025 (SOR ¶ 1.a); he tested positive for marijuana on an employer issued urinalysis in July 2025 (SOR ¶ 1.b); and he intends to use marijuana in the future (SOR ¶ 1.c). In the Answer, he admitted the SOR allegations with no additional comment except adding the word, “medical” to his response to the allegation in SOR ¶ 1.c. His admissions are incorporated in my findings of fact. Applicant completed a security clearance application in July 2025 (SCA). In it, he disclosed he has had a medical marijuana card issued by State C since November 2021. He purchased marijuana from a state dispensary and used it from November 2021 to July 2025 by ingesting edibles or vaping it daily before going to bed. He claimed that using it has greatly improved his quality of life and has not detracted from his work or ability to function in society. He wrote that he intended to use marijuana in the future. (Item 3) During Applicant’s August 2025 security interview (SI), that he authenticated, he updated his marijuana use to earlier that same month He claimed that he used it for nightmares and to sleep through the night. He acknowledged that he tested positive for marijuana on a urinalysis administered by his current sponsoring employer. He claimed that his positive marijuana test did not cause him a problem with this prospective employer because he showed them his medical marijuana card. He claimed that he does not use marijuana while he is working or if he is on call. He stopped using marijua

POLICIES

a for about three months during an unidentified timeframe while he waited for a doctor’s appointment. He claimed it was tough to stop using it, but he was able and therefore knows that he can if he has to. He also acknowledged that he intended to continue to use marijuana but would stop if “required to” and would look at other treatment options. (Item 4) In December 2025, Applicant responded to Government interrogatories. He updated the date he last used marijuana to earlier that same month and wrote that he used about five milligrams daily to help him sleep. He reiterated his intention to use marijuana in the future. He claimed he used it to alleviate post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) induced nightmares. He indicated that he understood that marijuana remains illegal under federal law and that its use could affect his security clearance eligibility. He acknowledged that he would be subject to random drug testing if he worked for his sponsoring employer. (Item 5) In the FORM Response, Applicant wrote about his career path and his positive employment record. He noted his willingness to acknowledge wrongdoing through his 2

disclosure of past work-related and traffic infractions and presented their scarcity as evidence of his following rules and regulations. He claimed that he is responsible with money and recently saved up enough money to buy a house. He wrote that he began exploring marijuana after his psychiatrist recommended it while treating him for PTSD. One of the symptoms of his PTSD was having vivid nightmares. He claimed that using the small dose of marijuana right before bed has stopped those nightmares and helped him sleep. He wrote that he had no plans to stop using marijuana because of how much it helped him but also claimed he might have “to think

ANALYSIS

about something else again” if his marijuana use prevents him from being awarded security clearance eligibility. (FORM Response) Policies This case is adjudicated under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG), which became effective on June 8, 2017. When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are to be used in evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, administrative judges apply the guidelines in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole-person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision. The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the applicant is responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel.” The applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable security decision. 3

A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of potenti

ANALYSIS

him from being awarded security clearance eligibility. (FORM Response) Policies This case is adjudicated under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG), which became effective on June 8, 2017. When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are to be used in evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, administrative judges apply the guidelines in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole-person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision. The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the applicant is responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel.” The applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable security decision. 3

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

l, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Section 7 of EO 10865 provides that adverse decisions shall be “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information). Analysis Guideline H, Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse The security concern for drug involvement and substance misuse is set out in AG ¶ 24: The illegal use of controlled substances, to include the misuse of prescription and non-prescription drugs, and the use of other substances that cause physical or mental impairment or are used in a manner inconsistent with their intended purpose can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness, both because such behavior may lead to physical or psychological impairment and because it raises questions about a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations. Controlled substance means any “controlled substance” as defined in 21 U.S.C. 802. Substance misuse is the generic term adopted in this guideline to describe any of the behaviors listed above. On October 25, 2014, the Director of National Intelligence (the Security Executive Agent (SecEA)) issued DNI Memorandum ES 2014-00674, “Adherence to Federal Laws Prohibiting Marijuana Use,” which states: [C]hanges to state laws and the laws of the District of Columbia pertaining to marijuana use do not alter the existing National Security Adjudicative Guidelines . . . . An individual’s disregard of federal law pertaining to the use, sale, or manufacture of marijuana remains adjudicatively relevant in national security determinations. As always, adjudicative authorities are expected to evaluate claimed or developed use of, or involvement with, marijuana using the current adjudicative criteria. The adjudicative authority must determine if the use of, or involvement with, marijuana raises

FORMAL FINDINGS

questions about the individual’s judgment, reliability, trustworthiness, and 4

willingness to comply with law, rules, and regulations, including federal laws, when making eligibility decisions of persons proposed for, or occupying, sensitive national security positions. On December 21, 2021, the SecEA promulgated clarifying guidance concerning marijuana-related issues in security clearance adjudications (Security Executive Agent Clarifying Guidance Concerning Marijuana for Agencies Co

CONCLUSION

ducting Adjudications of Persons Proposed for Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position). It states in pe