Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 25-00467 · CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date1/20/2026
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Government Counsel: Lauren Shure
Judge: Richard A. Cefola
Guidelines Evaluated
- HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · For Applicant
Questions about ISCR ISCR Case No. 25-00467, 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. 25-00467granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 25-00467

grantedJan 20, 2026· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Synopsis

The applicant, a 29-year-old defense contractor with a master's degree in electrical engineering, faced security concerns under Guideline H due to past marijuana use. The judge found that the applicant's marijuana use was legal in his state and had ceased prior to the hearing, supported by a signed Statement of Intent to abstain from future drug use. Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant mitigated the security concerns and granted eligibility for a security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant's marijuana use was legal in his state, mitigating concerns under Guideline H.
He ceased all drug involvement prior to the hearing and provided a signed Statement of Intent to abstain from future use.
The applicant demonstrated respect and value in his workplace, indicating reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)raisedAny Substance Misuse

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)appliedBehavior Happened so Long Ago, Was Infrequent, or Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 26(b)appliedAcknowledgment of Drug Involvement and Evidence of Actions Taken to Overcome It

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 2, 2025
Answer filedJul 28, 2025
Hearing heldDec 9, 2025rescheduled due to furloughs
Decision dateJan 20, 2026

Cite For

Mitigation of Drug Involvement Under Guideline H Due to Legal Use and Cessation of Use
Importance of a Signed Statement of Intent in Demonstrating Commitment to Abstinence
Consideration of the 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 H (Drug Involvement) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant's use and purchase of marijuana were legal in his state, and he used marijuana about six times a year from October 2015 until January 2025. The applicant signed a Statement of Intent to abstain from future drug use. The judge concluded that the applicant mitigated the security concerns related to drug involvement and granted eligibility for a security clearance.

1.a The use and purchase of marijuana is legal in the state where Applicant resides. (It has been legal there since 2012.) He used marijuana about once every two months from October of 2015 until his last usage in January of 2025, about a year ago. Applicant also purchased marijuana from dispensaries from about 2018 until October of 2023, more than two years ago.
Finding: For Applicant
Substance / event: Marijuana
Use level: Occasional
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶25):
(a) any substance misuse
Mitigating applied (¶26):
(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur
Mitigation:
Claimed
Substance Treatment Completed
1.b specific text not stated in this decision
Finding: For Applicant
Substance / event: Unspecified Drug Involvement
Use level: Unspecified
Response: Denied
Disqualifying (¶25): —
Mitigating applied (¶26): —
Mitigation: —

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	The use and purchase of marijuana is legal in the state where Applicant resides. (It has been legal there since 2012.) He used marijuana about once every two months from October of 2015 until his last usage in January of 2025, about a year ago. Applicant also purchased marijuana from dispensaries from about 2018 until October of 2023, more than two years ago.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Occasional	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur	Claimed Substance Treatment Completed
1.b	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Denied	—	—	—

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

)

ISCR Case No. 25-00467

) Applicant for Security Clearance

STATEMENT OF CASE

Appearances For Government: Lauren Shure, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 01/20/2026 Decision CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge: On June 5, 2023, Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP). On July 2, 2025, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency Consolidated Adjudication Services (DCSA CAS) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse). The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the Adjudicative Guidelines effective June 8, 2017. 1

Applicant answered the SOR (Answer) in w

FINDINGS OF FACT

iting on July 28, 2025, with an attached Statement of Intent, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) received the request on September 9, 2025. I received the case assignment on September 9, 2025. DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing on September 9, 2025, setting this hearing for October 28, 2025. However, due to a lapse in Federal funding, all Administrative Judges were furloughed from October 1 through November 12, 2025. This hearing was thus cancelled, rescheduled for December 9, 2025, and convened as rescheduled. The Government offered Exhibits (GXs) 1 through 3, which were received into evidence without objection. Applicant testified, called one witness to testify, and asked that the record be kept open until January 9, 2026, for the receipt of additional documentation. On January 8, 2026, Applicant

ANALYSIS

submitted Applicant Exhibit (AppX) and a closing statement, which were received into evidence without objection. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (TR) on December 19, 2025. Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is granted. Findings of Fact In his Answer to the SOR Applicant admitted the factual allegations in Subparagraph 1.a. of the SOR; but denied the factual allegations Subparagraph 1.b. of the SOR, with explanations. He also provided additional information, a Statement of Intent, to support his request for eligibility for a security clearance. Applicant is 29 years old, unmarried, and has

POLICIES

no children. He has a master’s degree in electrical engineering. He has worked for a defense contractor since June 2021. (TR at page 5 line 10 to page 6 line 4, at page 21 line 15 to page 23 line 17, and GX 1 at pages 5 and 11.) Guideline H – Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse 1.a. and 1.b. The use and purchase of marijuana is legal in the state where Applicant resides. (It has been legal there since 2012.) He used marijuana a bout once every two months from October of 2015 until his last usage in January of 2025, about a year ago. Applicant also purchased marijuana from dispensaries from about 2018 until October of 2023, more than two years ago. After receipt of the SOR, Applicant signed a “Statement of Intent,” eschewing any future drug usage. (TR at page 2 3 line 18 to page 38 line 9, and Answer at page 6.)

Policies When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful 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, admi

ANALYSIS

istrative judges apply the guidelines 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. According to AG ¶ 2(a), 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.” In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based on the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences grounded on mere speculation or conjecture. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, an “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

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

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 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 information. Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the 3

applicant concerned.” See also EO 12

FORMAL FINDINGS

68, 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 relating to the guideline for Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse is set forth at AG ¶ 24: The illegal use of controlled substances, to include the misuse of prescription an

CONCLUSION

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 psy