Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-01740 · CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date5/27/2026
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Government Counsel: Tara R. Karoian
Judge: Richard A. Cefola
Guidelines Evaluated
- EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · For Applicant
Questions about ISCR ISCR Case No. 24-01740, 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. 24-01740denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 24-01740

deniedMay 27, 2026· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Synopsis

The applicant, a 38-year-old maintenance mechanic and former U.S. Navy service member, faced security clearance denial under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) due to a history of inappropriate conduct and drug use. The judge found that the applicant's admissions of past misconduct and false statements during the security clearance process raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to providing false information in his security clearance questionnaire and during interviews with DoD investigators.
The applicant's past conduct, including a confession to inappropriate touching of a minor, raised serious doubts about his judgment and reliability.
The applicant's drug use, although legal under state law, was not sufficiently mitigated to alleviate concerns about his trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 16(b)appliedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information
AG ¶ 25(a)appliedAny Substance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(c)appliedIllegal Possession of a Controlled Substance

Mitigating

AG ¶ 17(c)appliedThe Offense Is so Minor, or so Much Time Has Passed, or the Behavior Is so Infrequent
AG ¶ 26(a)appliedThe Behavior Happened so Long Ago, Was so Infrequent, or Happened Under Such Circumstances
AG ¶ 26(b)appliedThe Individual Acknowledges His or Her Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse

Key Rule Quoted

“A person holding a security clearance has a duty to fully disclose conduct of security concern.”
ISCR 24-00278 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 14, 2026)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 27, 2024
Answer filedJan 2, 2025Requested decision on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decided on written record.
Decision dateMay 27, 2026

Cite For

False Statements in Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Impact of Past Criminal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility
Mitigation of Drug Involvement Concerns Under Guideline H

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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant admitted to falsifying information in his security questionnaire and during an interview, which raised significant concerns about his judgment and reliability. The applicant's history of inappropriate conduct and lack of candor during the security clearance process contributed to the denial of his security clearance.

1.a False Statement in Questionnaire: On July 7, 2023, Applicant submitted his Questionnaire wherein he answered, “Yes,” to the question, “In the last seven (7) years, have you been arrested…” or “have you been charged (with) a crime?” When asked to provide a description of the offense, Applicant stated that in February 2007, he “was arrested on false allegations for lewd and lecivious (sic) activity with a minor…” and claimed he “spent maybe 3 or 4 days in jail before all charges were dropped and dismissed.” He went on to claim that he “was not charged and all charges were dropped. The case was dismissed.”
Finding: Against Applicant
Conduct: Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE
Concealed issue: Criminal Conduct
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶16):
(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form
(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official
Mitigating applied (¶17): —
Mitigation: —
1.b False Statement to a DoD Investigator: On November 16, 2023, an authorized agent for the DoD conducted a subject interview with the Applicant, who was asked about the arrest. Applicant acknowledged the arrest but averred that the charges were ultimately dropped because “the instances never occurred and they were false allegations.” When confronted with the fact that he had confessed, he claimed that he had only done so “to prevent his foster mother from facing legal repercussions.” The DoD investigator then confronted the Applicant with the specifics of his confession wherein he described his actions with his foster sister. At that point, Applicant acknowledged that he had in fact committed the acts with his foster sister. He went on to explain that he was initially “untruthful about the incident because he was trying to erase that chapter in his life from his memory.” He went on to admit, however, that he believed the incident record had been expunged and “did not think his interview with (the police) was documented and would show up in a current record.”
Finding: Against Applicant
Conduct: Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE
Concealed issue: Criminal Conduct
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶16):
(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form
(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official
Mitigating applied (¶17): —
Mitigation: —
1.c Arrest for Lewd or Lascivious Battery: Applicant was arrested on February 23, 2007. See discussion above.
Finding: Against Applicant
Conduct: Questionable Judgment General
Concealed issue: Criminal Conduct
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶16): —
Mitigating applied (¶17): —
Mitigation: —

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	False Statement in Questionnaire: On July 7, 2023, Applicant submitted his Questionnaire wherein he answered, “Yes,” to the question, “In the last seven (7) years, have you been arrested…” or “have you been charged (with) a crime?” When asked to provide a description of the offense, Applicant stated that in February 2007, he “was arrested on false allegations for lewd and lecivious (sic) activity with a minor…” and claimed he “spent maybe 3 or 4 days in jail before all charges were dropped and dismissed.” He went on to claim that he “was not charged and all charges were dropped. The case was dismissed.”	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
1.b	False Statement to a DoD Investigator: On November 16, 2023, an authorized agent for the DoD conducted a subject interview with the Applicant, who was asked about the arrest. Applicant acknowledged the arrest but averred that the charges were ultimately dropped because “the instances never occurred and they were false allegations.” When confronted with the fact that he had confessed, he claimed that he had only done so “to prevent his foster mother from facing legal repercussions.” The DoD investigator then confronted the Applicant with the specifics of his confession wherein he described his actions with his foster sister. At that point, Applicant acknowledged that he had in fact committed the acts with his foster sister. He went on to explain that he was initially “untruthful about the incident because he was trying to erase that chapter in his life from his memory.” He went on to admit, however, that he believed the incident record had been expunged and “did not think his interview with (the police) was documented and would show up in a current record.”	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
1.c	Arrest for Lewd or Lascivious Battery: Applicant was arrested on February 23, 2007. See discussion above.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	Criminal Conduct	Admitted	—	—	—

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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant mitigated the security concerns related to drug involvement and substance misuse. The applicant admitted to using and purchasing marijuana over an eight-year period but ceased use upon learning of federal restrictions. The judge ruled in favor of the applicant on both allegations under Guideline H.

2.a Marijuana use from June 2015 to November 2023.
Finding: For Applicant
Substance / event: Marijuana
Use level: Frequent
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶25):
(a) any substance misuse
(c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia
Mitigating applied (¶26):
(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur
(b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence
Mitigation:
Documented
Abstinence Period Documented
2.b Marijuana purchase from 2015 to November 2023.
Finding: For Applicant
Substance / event: Marijuana
Use level: Not Applicable
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶25):
(a) any substance misuse
(c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia
Mitigating applied (¶26):
(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur
(b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence
Mitigation:
Documented
Abstinence Period Documented

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
2.a	Marijuana use from June 2015 to November 2023.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Frequent	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 (b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence	Documented Abstinence Period Documented
2.b	Marijuana purchase from 2015 to November 2023.	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 (b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence	Documented Abstinence Period Documented

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

sel For Applicant: Pro se 05/27/2026 Decision CEFOLA, Richard A. Administrati

DECISION

ve Judge: Applicant has mitigated the security concerns raised under the Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse adjudicative guideline. Applicant has not mitigated the securi

STATEMENT OF CASE

ty concerns raised under the Personal Conduct adjudicative guideline. National security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Statement of the Case Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions on July 7, 2023 (Questionnaire). On December 27, 2024, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and 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 (DoD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (A

FINDINGS OF FACT

G) effective within DoD after June 8, 2017.

On January 2, 2025, Applicant responded to the SOR in writing (Answer) and requested that the case be decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. In his Answer, Applicant admitted to all allegations. On August 18, 2025, Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case in a File of Relevant Material (FORM). A complete copy of the FORM, consisting of Government Exhibits (GE) 1 to 8 and the Government’s arguments in support of the SOR, was received by the Applicant on August 27, 2025. He was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the security concerns, but he did not respond within the specified 30-day period. The case was assigned to me on May 20, 2026, and all exhibits were admitted without objection. Findings of Fact Applicant is 38 years old and has worked for a DoD contractor as a maintenance mechanic since April 2022. He was raised in a challenging foster care, group home environment. He then served in the U.S. Navy from 2007 – 2015, after which time he was honorably discharged. He completed the Questionnaire in connection with his employment and previously held a security clearance while serving in the Navy. Applicant has been married since 2021 and has two children. He has completed some college coursework. (Answer; GE 3 at 5, 10-11, 18-19, 21-22, 24-25, 34; GE 4 at 12; GE 8) SOR Paragraph 1, Guideline E (Personal Conduct) The Government alleged that Applicant is ineligible for a security clearance because he had engaged in conduct that involved questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations. I find the following facts regarding this allegation: In the course of a criminal investigation, Applicant was questioned on February 23, 2007, about inappropriate touching of his foster sister. During questioning by the police detective, Applicant admitted that when he was living in a foster home with several other children, he touched the vagina of his foster sister on two separate occasions. The first time was in August 2003, when he p

POLICIES

laced his hand on her vagina and asked her to hold his penis – which she did. At the time, Applicant was 15 years old and the victim was 10. The second time was in October 2006, when he reached between her legs and fondled her vagina. At that time, Applicant was 18 years old and the victim was 13. Applicant was thereupon arrested for Lewd and Lascivious Battery of a Child and transported to jail. He was appointed a public defender on February 24, 2007, and the next day, his foster mother posted a $15,000 bond to secure his release. On March 2, 2007, Applicant entered a plea of not guilty to the charges. On April 18, 2007, however, the prosecutor entered an Announcement of No Information after the victim recanted her story. As a result, the case was subsequently dropped. (GE 5 at 9-11; GE 6 at 1-8, 17- 18) 2

During the Applicant’s security clearance investigation in 2023, he answered questions about these events in both his Questionnaire and an ensuing interview by a DoD investigator. The following findings of fact pertain: 1.a. False Statement in Questionnaire: On July 7, 2023, Applicant submitted his Questionnaire wherein he answered, “Yes,” to the question, “In the last seven (7) years, have you been arrested…” or “have you been charged (with) a crime?” When asked to provide a description of the offense, Applicant stated that in February 2007, he “was arrested on false allegations for lewd and lecivious (sic) activity with a minor…” and claimed he “spent maybe 3 or 4 days in jail before all charges were dropped and dismissed.” He went on to claim that he “was not charged and all charges were dropped. The case was dismissed.” Applicant was not arrested on false allegations, but rather he was arrested following his confessio

ANALYSIS

nfor the inappropriate touching of his foster sister. In his Answer, Applicant admitted to the allegation as written in the SOR and acknowledged that he “did falsify some things during questioning,” as he “was not aware that the federal and government authorities still have access to my arrest records.” (Answer; GE 3 at 30-31) 1.b. False Statement to a DoD Investigator: On November 16, 2023, an authorized agent for the DoD conducted a subject interview with the Applicant, who was asked about the arrest. Applicant acknowledged the arrest but averred that the charges were ultimately dropped because “the instances never occurred and they were false allegations.” When confronted with the fact that he had confessed, he claimed that he had only done so “to prevent his foster mother from facing legal repercussions.” The DoD investigator then confronted the Applicant with the specifics of his confession wherein he described his actions with his foster sister. At that point, Applicant acknowledged that he had in fact committed the acts with his foster sister. He went on to explain that he was initially “untruthful about the incident because he was trying to erase that chapter in his life from his memory.” He went on to admit, however, that he believed the incident record had been expunged and “did not think his interview with (the police) was documented and would show up in a current record.” Applicant admitted to the allegation as written in the SOR. (Answer; GE 4 at 12-13) 1.c. Arrest for Lewd or Lascivious Battery: Applicant was arrested on February 23, 2007. See discussion above. (GE 6 at 1) SOR Paragraph 2, Guideline H ( Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) The Government alleged that Applicant is ineligible for a security clearance because he both purchased and used marijuana over an eight-year span. Based upon the evidence presented in the administrative record, I find the following facts regarding the history and status of Applicant’s drug use: 3

2.a. Marijuana use from June 2015 to November 2023. Applicant denied illegal drug use i nhi

s Questionnaire but admitted to the allegation as drafted in his Answer. In his November 16, 2023, interview with the DoD investigator, Applicant characterized his marijuana use as a couple of times in 2015 after getting out of the Navy and then twice a week from 2019 until November 15, 2023, to help alleviate back pain. His use was legal in his state and he was unaware of the federal prohibitions, which he only learned of from the interviewer. Applicant then indicated his plan to immediately cease any future use. He reiterated this pledge in his responses to interrogatories, submitted on December 2, 2024. (Answer; GE 3 at 32; GE 4 at 6, 13) 2.b. Marijuana purchase from 2015 to November 2023. Applicant denied any illegal drug purchase in his Questionnaire but admitted to the allegation as drafted in his Answer. In his November 16, 2023, interview with the DoD investigator, Applicant explained he obtained marijuana from a legal dispensary in his state. Upon learning of the federal restrictions from the investigator, Applicant related his plan to seek prescription pain relief from his doctor instead. (Answer; GE 3 at 32; GE 4 at 13) Whole Person and Mitigating Evidence Applicant submitted comments with his Answer alluding to difficulties he experienced growing up in a group foster home. He also referenced suffering from PTSD, bipolar disorder, anxiety, and memory loss. He expressed pride at having served in the Navy for eight years and he reiterated his abstention from marijuana since the date of the DoD interview. Policies When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for national security eligibility, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief 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.” In reaching this decision, I have 4

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 degre

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

e 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 Order 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 SOR Paragraph 1 (Guideline E, Personal Conduct) The security concerns relating to the guideline for personal conduct are set out in AG ¶ 15, which states: Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified or sensitive information. Of special interest is any failure to cooperate or provide truthful and candid answers during national security investigative or adjudicative processes. The facts of this case establish the following potentially disqualifying conditions set forth in AG ¶ 16: (a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine national security eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities; 5

(b) deliberately providing

FORMAL FINDINGS

false or misleading information; or concealing or omitting information, concerning relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security official, competent medical or mental health professional involved in making a recommendation relevant to a national security eligibility determination, or other official government representative; and (e) personal conduct, or concealment of information about one’s conduct, that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress by a fo

CONCLUSION

reign intelligence entity or other individual or group. Such conduct includes: (1) engaging in activities which, if known, could affect the person’s personal, professional, or community standing; (2) while in another country, engaging in any activity that is illegal in that country; (3) while in another country, engaging in any activity that, while legal there, is illegal i