Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-00809 · CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date1/21/2026
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Government Counsel: John Renehan
Judge: Wilford H. Ross
Guidelines Evaluated
- HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · Against Applicant
Questions about ISCR 24-00809, 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 24-00809denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 24-00809

deniedJan 21, 2026· Hon. Wilford H. Ross· hearing

Synopsis

The applicant, a 66-year-old vice president at a defense contractor, faced security concerns under Guideline H due to illegal drug use, specifically THC gummies. Despite acknowledging his drug use and expressing intent to abstain, the judge found insufficient evidence of rehabilitation and a pattern of abstinence, leading to a denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant tested positive for THC while holding a sensitive position.
He continued to use THC after being aware of the prohibition against it.
The applicant's period of abstinence was deemed insufficient given his prior drug use and position.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)appliedAny Substance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(b)appliedTesting Positive for an Illegal Drug
AG ¶ 25(f)appliedIllegal Drug Use While Granted Access to Classified Information or Holding a Sensitive Position
AG ¶ 25(g)appliedExpressed Intent to Continue Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)rejectedBehavior Happened so Long Ago, Was Infrequent, or Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 26(b)rejectedAcknowledgment of Drug Involvement and Evidence of Actions Taken to Overcome the Problem

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 30, 2024
Answer filedAug 26, 2024
Hearing heldAug 15, 2025via MS Teams
Decision dateJan 21, 2026

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Rehabilitation Under Guideline H
Impact of Illegal Drug Use on National Security Eligibility
Importance of a Pattern of Abstinence in Security Clearance Cases

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 against the applicant on the drug involvement allegations under Guideline H. The applicant admitted to using THC gummies while holding a security clearance, which raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness. Despite expressing intent to abstain from future use, the judge determined that the applicant's history of drug use was insufficiently mitigated, leading to a denial of his security clearance.

1.a Used illegal drugs, specifically THC gummies, while holding a security clearance.
Finding: Against Applicant
Substance / event: MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED
Use level: Frequent
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶25):
(a) any substance misuse
(b) testing positive for an illegal drug
(f) any illegal drug use while holding a clearance or sensitive position
Mitigating applied (¶26): —
Mitigation: —

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Used illegal drugs, specifically THC gummies, while holding a security clearance.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Frequent	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (b) testing positive for an illegal drug (f) any illegal drug use while holding a clearance or sensitive position	—	—

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

___ ______________ In the matter of: )

)

R Case No. 24-00809

) Applica

STATEMENT OF CASE

tfor Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: John Renehan, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 01/21/2026 Decision ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge: Statement of the Case On July 30, 2024, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse). The action was taken 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) implemented b

FINDINGS OF FACT

the DOD on June 8, 2017. 1

Applicant responded to the SOR (Answer) on August 26, 2024, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on February 18, 2025. The case was assigned to me on June 2, 2025. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Notice of Hearing on June 9, 2025. I convened the hearing as scheduled on August 15, 2025. The Government offered Government Exhibits 1 through 4, which were admitted without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf and submitted Applicant Exhibits A through D, which were admitted without objection. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on August 25, 2025. This decision was delayed when all administrative judges were furloughed from October 1 through November 12, 2025, during a Federal government shutdown due to a lapse in federal funding. Findings of Fact Applicant is 66 years old, divorced, and has two adult children. He has a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering. He has worked for his current defense contractor employer (Company 2) since January 2023 as a vice president. He has held government security clearances at various times since 2002. He does not currently have national security eligibility. (Government Exhibit 1 at Sections 12, 13A, 17, 18, and 25; Applicant Tr. 5-7.) Guideline H: Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) alleged that Applicant is not eligible for access because he has used illegal drugs. He admitted the three allegations under Paragraph 1 with explanations. Applicant worked for Company 1 as Maintenance Manager from June 2020 to September 2022. In this position he managed approximately 1,200 people who worked at a large government facility. He worked in a sensitive position and held national security eligibility, i.e., a security clearance, during this employment. He acknowledged that his employer, and the government facility he worked on, prohibited the use of il

POLICIES

egal drugs. During this period in which he worked in a sensitive position, he had national security eligibility and a security clearance provided by another agency. (Tr. 21-22, 35.) Applicant began using marijuana in the form of THC gummies in approximately June 2022. He continued to use them until December 2022. He also used them in August and September 2023. He stated that he used THC gummies to help with insomnia. (Government Exhibit 1 at Section 23; Government Exhibit 2; Tr. 26-28.) 2

Applicant was questioned about why he used THC knowing such use was prohibited by his employer and the government, and that there was the possibility of a random urinalysis. He stated, “I don’t necessarily have a good answer. I took a chance. I was thinking that even though it’s random, that somehow I wouldn’t get picked. And, I also thought that - - with only doing them so infrequently and such little - - if I did get picked, I might not even have enough to test positive.” (Tr. 29, 35-36, 42.) Applicant tested positive for the THC metabolite during a random drug test in August 2022. Based on that positive drug test, he was offered the opportunity to resign rather than be terminated from his employment. (Tr. 36.) As stated, Applicant continued to use THC gummies until December 2022. He used them again in August and September 2023, after he began working for his current employer. He stated that he continued to use them for sleep issues. He stopped using them because they were expensive and he did not think they worked well. (Tr. 36-38, 43- 44.) Applicant filled out an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e- QIP) in March 2023 (Gove

ANALYSIS

nment Exhibit 1). He fully described his THC use until December 2022 on the form under Section 23. He also indicated that he did not intend to use THC in the future stating, “The use did not significantly improve my sleep AND I want to be able to continue my career to support the mission of federal government customers.” (Emphasis in original.) Applicant was interviewed by an authorized investigator for the DoD in October 2023. He fully described his THC use through September 2023 in the interview. He also confirmed that he knew such use was prohibited by government contractors having national security eligibility. (Government Exhibit 2.) Applicant expressed intent, during his testimony at the hearing, not to use marijuana in the future. He stated that he is willing to have random urinalysis to confirm his abstinence from illegal drugs. (Tr. 20, 40, 44.) Applicant submitted documentation that he had a long and successful career working for various government contractors. During his career he often held a security clearance. (Applicant Exhibits A through D.) Policies When evaluating an applicant’s national security eligibility for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief 3

introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines (AG) list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are to be used in evaluating an applicant’s national security eligibility. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. The entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable guidelines in the context 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, “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based on the evidence contained in the record. I have not drawn inferences based on mere speculation or conjecture. Directive ¶ E3.1.14, requires the Government to 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, and has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.” 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 national security eligibility. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified or sensitive information. Finally, as emphasized in Section 7 of Executive Ord

FORMAL FINDINGS

r 10865, “Any determination under this order adverse to an applicant shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See also Executive Order 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information.) Analysis 4

Guideline H: Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse The security concern relating to Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse is set forth in

CONCLUSION

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 abili