Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-01712 · CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date3/16/2026
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeWRITTEN RECORD FORM
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Government Counsel: Tara R. Karoian
Judge: Richard A. Cefola
Guidelines Evaluated
- HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · Against Applicant
- JCriminal Conduct · Against Applicant
Questions about ISCR 24-01712, 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 24-01712denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 24-01712

deniedMar 16, 2026· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Synopsis

The applicant, a 41-year-old software security engineer, faced security concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) due to extensive history of illegal drug use and criminal conduct. The applicant admitted to using multiple controlled substances over two decades and expressed intent to continue using THC. The judge found that the applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns, leading to a denial of security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to extensive illegal drug use over two decades, including THC, cocaine, and other controlled substances.
The applicant expressed intent to continue using THC, raising concerns about reliability and trustworthiness.
The applicant provided no evidence of rehabilitation or commitment to abstain from drug use, failing to mitigate the security concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

H.25(a)raisedSubstance Misuse
H.25(c)raisedIllegal Possession of a Controlled Substance
H.25(g)raisedIntent to Continue Drug Involvement
J.31(a)raisedPattern of Minor Offenses
J.31(b)raisedEvidence of Criminal Conduct

Mitigating

H.26(a)rejectedBehavior Unlikely to RecurThe applicant's recent drug use and intent to continue using THC do not support this condition.
H.26(b)rejectedAcknowledgment and Evidence of Actions Taken to Overcome the ProblemThe applicant did not provide evidence of actions taken to mitigate drug use.
J.32(a)rejectedTime Elapsed Since Criminal BehaviorThe applicant's criminal conduct was ongoing and recent, undermining this condition.
J.32(d)rejectedEvidence of Successful RehabilitationThe applicant showed no evidence of rehabilitation or remorse for past conduct.

Key Rule Quoted

“The illegal use of controlled substances...can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness.”
AG ¶ 24

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 17, 2024
Answer filedNov 14, 2024Requested decision on written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decided on written record.
Decision dateMar 16, 2026

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Extensive Drug Use Under Guideline H
Failure to Mitigate Criminal Conduct Concerns Under Guideline J
Importance of Demonstrating Rehabilitation and Commitment to 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 multiple allegations of drug involvement, including the use of THC and cocaine, which raised concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness. However, the judge found for the applicant on the allegations related to psilocybin mushrooms, LSD, MDMA, and ketamine, indicating that these behaviors were unlikely to recur and did not cast doubt on his current judgment. Overall, the application for security clearance was denied due to unresolved concerns regarding drug use.

1.a THC use from September 1998 to April 2023.
Finding: Against Applicant
Substance / event: MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED
Use level: Regular
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶25):
(a) any substance misuse
(c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia
(g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue
Mitigating applied (¶26): —
Mitigation: —
1.b THC purchase from September 1998 to February 2020.
Finding: Against Applicant
Substance / event: MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED
Use level: Not Applicable
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶25):
(a) any substance misuse
(c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia
(g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue
Mitigating applied (¶26): —
Mitigation: —
1.c Intent to continue THC use in the future.
Finding: Against Applicant
Substance / event: Stated Intent to Use AgainWHILE CLEARED
Use level: Not Applicable
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶25):
(a) any substance misuse
(c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia
(g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue
Mitigating applied (¶26): —
Mitigation: —
1.d Cocaine use from January 2014 to January 2023.
Finding: Against Applicant
Substance / event: CocaineWHILE CLEARED
Use level: Frequent
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶25):
(a) any substance misuse
(c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia
(g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue
Mitigating applied (¶26): —
Mitigation: —
1.e Cocaine purchase from August 2013 to January 2023.
Finding: Against Applicant
Substance / event: CocaineWHILE CLEARED
Use level: Not Applicable
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶25):
(a) any substance misuse
(c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia
(g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue
Mitigating applied (¶26): —
Mitigation: —
1.f Mushroom use from July 2000 to December 2022.
Finding: For Applicant
Substance / event: PsilocybinWHILE CLEARED
Use level: Frequent
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶25): —
Mitigating applied (¶26):
(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur
(b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence
Mitigation: —
1.g Mushroom purchase from July 2000 to December 2022.
Finding: For Applicant
Substance / event: PsilocybinWHILE CLEARED
Use level: Not Applicable
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶25): —
Mitigating applied (¶26):
(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur
(b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence
Mitigation: —
1.h LSD use from 2012 to 2018.
Finding: For Applicant
Substance / event: LSDWHILE CLEARED
Use level: Occasional
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶25): —
Mitigating applied (¶26):
(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur
(b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence
Mitigation: —
1.i LSD purchase from 2002 to 2018.
Finding: For Applicant
Substance / event: LSDWHILE CLEARED
Use level: Not Applicable
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶25): —
Mitigating applied (¶26):
(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur
(b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence
Mitigation: —
1.j MDMA use from September 2013 to September 2018.
Finding: For Applicant
Substance / event: MDMAWHILE CLEARED
Use level: Frequent
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶25): —
Mitigating applied (¶26):
(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur
(b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence
Mitigation: —
1.k MDMA purchase from 2014 to 2018.
Finding: For Applicant
Substance / event: MDMAWHILE CLEARED
Use level: Not Applicable
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶25): —
Mitigating applied (¶26):
(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur
(b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence
Mitigation: —
1.l Ketamine use from January 2014 to January 2018.
Finding: For Applicant
Substance / event: KetamineWHILE CLEARED
Use level: Occasional
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶25): —
Mitigating applied (¶26):
(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur
(b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence
Mitigation: —

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	THC use from September 1998 to April 2023.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Regular	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia (g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue	—	—
1.b	THC purchase from September 1998 to February 2020.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia (g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue	—	—
1.c	Intent to continue THC use in the future.	Against Applicant	Stated Intent to Use AgainWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia (g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue	—	—
1.d	Cocaine use from January 2014 to January 2023.	Against Applicant	CocaineWHILE CLEARED	Frequent	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia (g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue	—	—
1.e	Cocaine purchase from August 2013 to January 2023.	Against Applicant	CocaineWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia (g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue	—	—
1.f	Mushroom use from July 2000 to December 2022.	For Applicant	PsilocybinWHILE CLEARED	Frequent	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence	—
1.g	Mushroom purchase from July 2000 to December 2022.	For Applicant	PsilocybinWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence	—
1.h	LSD use from 2012 to 2018.	For Applicant	LSDWHILE CLEARED	Occasional	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence	—
1.i	LSD purchase from 2002 to 2018.	For Applicant	LSDWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence	—
1.j	MDMA use from September 2013 to September 2018.	For Applicant	MDMAWHILE CLEARED	Frequent	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence	—
1.k	MDMA purchase from 2014 to 2018.	For Applicant	MDMAWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence	—
1.l	Ketamine use from January 2014 to January 2018.	For Applicant	KetamineWHILE CLEARED	Occasional	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence	—

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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the criminal conduct allegations, determining that the applicant's history of illegal drug use raised significant concerns about his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. The applicant's admissions regarding his criminal conduct were deemed insufficient to mitigate these concerns, leading to a denial of his security clearance.

2.a Cross-allegations with paragraph 1 (less ¶ 1.c). See discussion supra.
Finding: Against Applicant
Offense: Drug Related Criminal Charge
Criminal disposition: Conduct No Charge
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶31):
(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability
(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction
Mitigating applied (¶32): —
Mitigation: —

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	Cross-allegations with paragraph 1 (less ¶ 1.c). See discussion supra.	Against Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—

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.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

6 Decision CEFOLA, Richard A. Administrative Judge: Applicant has not mitigated

DECISION

he security concerns raised under the Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse adjudicative guideline or the Criminal Conduct adjudicative guideline. National security eligibility for access to classified info

STATEMENT OF CASE

mation is denied. Statement of the Case Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions on April 28, 2023 (Questionnaire). On October 17, 2024, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). 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 adjudicati

FINDINGS OF FACT

e guidelines (AG) effective within DoD after June 8, 2017.

On November 14, 2024, 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 April 1, 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 4 and the Government’s arguments in support of the SOR, was received by the Applicant on April 10, 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 period specified. The case was assigned to me on March 10, 2026, and GE 1 to 4 were admitted without objection. Findings of Fact Applicant is 41 years old and has worked for a DoD contractor as a software security engineer since May 2023. Applicant, who has never married, has no children, and has lived with his girlfriend since February 2020. He enlisted in the Army Reserve in June 2003, was honorably discharged in June 2011, and received a master’s degree in 2014. Applicant submitted the Questionnaire in connection with his employment. (GE 3 at 5, 12, 19, 21-22; GE 4 at 1) SOR Paragraph 1, Guideline H ( Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) The Government alleged that Applicant is ineligible for a security clearance because he used a number of controlled substances over two decades including tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), cocaine, psilocybin mushrooms, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), and ketamine. Based upon the evidence presented in the administrative record, I find the following facts regarding the history and status of Applicant’s drug use: 1.a. THC use from September 1998 to April 2023. In his Answer, Applicant admitted to the allegation as drafted. He both legally and illegally purchased and used marijuana from approximately September 1998 through April 2023 – the same month he completed his Questionnaire and a month before beginning his position with the DoD contractor. His use in high school and college was frequent, both for enjoyment and due to peer pressure. As of 2020, he switched to THC edibles for use as a sleep ai d. (Answer; GE 3 at 40-41, 43; GE 4 at 1-2) 1.b. THC purchase from September 1998 to February 2020. In his Answer, Applicant admitted to the allegation as drafted. As discussed above, he both legally and illegally purchased marijuana from approximately September 1998 through at least February 2020. (Answer, GE 3 at 40-41, 43; GE 4 at 2) 2

1.c. Intent to continue THC use in the future. In his Answer, Applicant admitted to the allegation as drafted. He continues to socialize with marijuana users and in his Questionnaire, noted an intent to continue using THC as a sleep aid inasmuch as it is legally available for recreational use in his state. During his interview a few months later, he qualified that he would only consider using THC again if it became legal federally. (Answer, GE 3 at 40-41; GE 4 at 2) 1.d. Cocaine use from January 2014 to January 2023. In his Answer, Applicant ad

POLICIES

itted to the allegation as drafted. Applicant used cocaine with friends 10-15 times during this time span to help him stay up and party. The drug gave him more energy and made him more talkative and confrontational. His last use was a few months before filling out the Questionnaire. He no longer associates with that friend group and noted there was little likelihood he would use cocaine again. He clarified that he had no intent to use the drug again while he is getting his clearance and working. (Answer; GE 3 at 42; GE 4 at 3) 1.e. Cocaine purchase from August 2013 to January 2023. In his Answer, Applicant admitted to the allegation as drafted. Applicant purchased cocaine “a few times” to use with friends to help him stay up late and socialize. (Answer; GE 3 at 44; GE 4 at 3) 1.f. Mushroom use from July 2000 to December 2022. In his Answer, Applicant admitted t o the al legation as drafted. Applicant used mushrooms 10-15 times during this time span with friends in college, at home, and on vacation. The drug gave him weird feelings and body effects while he was “tripping.” He no longer associates with that friend group and does not intend to keep using mushrooms because he does not “feel like (he) can handle the effects at this point in (his) life.” (Answer; GE 3 at 41; GE 4 at 2) 1.g. Mushroom purchase from July 2000 to December 2022. In his Answer, Applicant admitted to the allegation as drafted. Applicant purchased mushrooms a few times over the timespan because he “wanted to experiment with psychedelics.” (Answer; GE 3 at 44; GE 4 at 2) 1.h. LSD use from 2012 to 2018. In hi

s Answer, Applicant admitted to the allegation as drafted. Applicant used LSD with friends “a few times” during this time span to enhance his experience at music events. The dr

ug made him more en

ergetic, gregarious, and outgoing. He no longer associates with that friend group and does not intend to use the drug again unless it is legalized. (Answer; GE 3 at 41; GE 4 at 3) LSD purchase from 2002 to 2018. In his Answer, Applicant admitted to the allegation as drafted. Applicant purchased LSD “a few times” during this time span because he “wanted to experiment with psychedelics.” (Answer; GE 3 at 4

ANALYSIS

; GE 4 at 3) 3 1.i.

1.j. MDMA use from September 2013 to September 2018. In his Answer, Applicant admitted to the allegation as drafted. Applicant used MDMA (ecstasy) 15-20 times during this time span with friends at music events. The drug made him feel friendlier, outgoing, and euphoric. He no longer associates with that friend group and does not intend to use the drug again recreationally but would consider using it for MDMA therapy. (Answer; GE 3 at 41-42; GE 4 at 3) 1.k. MDMA purchase from 2014 to 2018. In his Answer, Applicant admitted to the allegation as drafted. Applicant purchased MDMA over this timespan “to take at raves and concerts” because “it makes you feel euphoric.” (Answer; GE 3 at 45; GE 4 at 3) 1.l. Ketamine use from January 2014 to January 2018. In his Answer, Applicant admitted to the allegation as drafted. Applicant obtained ketamine from friends approximately five times during this time span for use at music events. The drug made him feel drunk. He no longer associates with that friend group and does not intend to use the drug again as he does not like how it makes him feel. (Answer; GE 3 at 42-43; GE 4 at 4) SOR Paragraph 2, Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) The Government alleged that Applicant is ineligible for a security clearance because he has engaged in criminal conduct that calls into question his ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations. I find the following facts regarding this allegation: 2.a. Cross-allegations with paragraph 1 (less ¶ 1.c). See discussion supra. Whole Person and Mitigating Evidence Applicant submitted no comments or explanations in his Answer as whole person evidence in mitigation of the security concerns alleged in the SOR. The comments and explanations Applicant included in both his Questionnaire and interview, however, were reviewed in their entirety. 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. 4

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 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

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

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 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 H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) The security concerns relating to the guideline for drug involvement and substance misuse are set out in AG ¶ 24, which reads as follows: 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

FORMAL FINDINGS

o comply with laws, rules, and regulations. 5

Controlled substance means any “controlled s ubstance” 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. The facts of this case establish the following potentially disqualifying condition set forth in AG ¶ 25: (a) any substance misuse (see above definition); (c) illegal possession of a controlled substance, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession

CONCLUSION

of drug paraphernalia; and (g) expressed intent to continue drug involvement and substance abuse, or failure to clearly and convincingly commit to discontinue such misuse. Applicant acknowled