Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 25-00923 · CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date4/29/2026
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Government Counsel: George A. Hawkins
Judge: LeRoy F. Foreman
Guidelines Evaluated
- EPersonal Conduct · For Applicant
- HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · For Applicant
Questions about ISCR ISCR Case No. 25-00923, 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. 25-00923granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 25-00923

grantedApr 29, 2026· Hon. LeRoy F. Foreman· hearing

Synopsis

The applicant, a 36-year-old tactical software engineering manager, faced security concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct) and H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) due to her past marijuana use and falsification of a security clearance application. The judge granted the security clearance, finding that the applicant had taken significant steps to mitigate the concerns, including a period of abstinence from drug use and a commitment to refrain from future use.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated a significant period of abstinence from marijuana use, having ceased use in June 2023.
She provided credible testimony and evidence of her understanding of the rules regarding drug use and the security clearance process.
The applicant submitted a signed statement of intent to abstain from illegal drug use, acknowledging the consequences of future violations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)raisedSubstance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(c)raisedIllegal Possession of a Controlled Substance
AG ¶ 25(f)raisedIllegal Drug Use While Holding a Security Clearance
AG ¶ 16(a)raisedFalsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 16(e)raisedPersonal Conduct Creating Vulnerability

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)appliedBehavior Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 26(b)appliedAcknowledgment of Drug Involvement and Pattern of Abstinence

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 23, 2025
Answer filedSep 4, 2025
Hearing heldMar 27, 2026conducted by video teleconference
Decision dateApr 29, 2026

Cite For

Mitigation of Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Consideration of Personal Conduct in Security Clearance Cases
Importance of a Signed Statement of Intent Regarding Future Drug Use

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: granted

The judge found that the applicant's personal conduct concerns under Guideline E were mitigated. The applicant admitted to the allegations and demonstrated a commitment to abstaining from illegal drug use, which contributed to the favorable decision.

2.a Applicant admitted the allegation in SOR ¶ 2.a, cross-alleging the conduct in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b.
Finding: For Applicant
Conduct: Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations
Concealed issue: —
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶16):
(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form
(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern
(f) violation of a written commitment made as a condition of employment
Mitigating applied (¶17):
(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted
(b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully
Mitigation:
Documented
Signed Intent with Revocation Clause
Credited
Acknowledgment and Remorse

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant admitted the allegation in SOR ¶ 2.a, cross-alleging the conduct in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b.	For Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern (f) violation of a written commitment made as a condition of employment	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted (b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully	Documented Signed Intent with Revocation Clause Credited Acknowledgment and Remorse

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: granted

The judge found that the applicant's marijuana use occurred on various occasions from August 2007 to June 2023, including while holding a security clearance. However, the judge determined that the applicant's conduct was mitigated by her acknowledgment of the drug involvement, her established pattern of abstinence, and her commitment to refrain from future use. The decision ultimately granted the applicant a security clearance.

1.a used marijuana on various occasions between at least August 2007 and June 2023
Finding: For Applicant
Substance / event: MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED
Use level: Occasional
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶25):
(a) any substance misuse
(c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia
(f) any illegal drug use while holding a clearance or sensitive position
Mitigating applied (¶26):
(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur
(b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence
Mitigation:
Credited
Acknowledgment and Remorse
Claimed
Substance Treatment Completed
1.b used and purchased marijuana on various occasions between at least approximately November 2011 to about June 2023, while holding a sensitive position requiring a security clearance
Finding: For Applicant
Substance / event: MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED
Use level: Occasional
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶25):
(a) any substance misuse
(c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia
(f) any illegal drug use while holding a clearance or sensitive position
Mitigating applied (¶26):
(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur
(b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence
Mitigation:
Claimed
Acknowledgment and Remorse
Claimed
Substance Treatment Completed

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	used marijuana on various occasions between at least August 2007 and June 2023	For Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Occasional	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia (f) any illegal drug use while holding a clearance or sensitive position	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence	Credited Acknowledgment and Remorse Claimed Substance Treatment Completed
1.b	used and purchased marijuana on various occasions between at least approximately November 2011 to about June 2023, while holding a sensitive position requiring a security clearance	For Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Occasional	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia (f) any illegal drug use while holding a clearance or sensitive position	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence	Claimed Acknowledgment and Remorse Claimed Substance Treatment Completed

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

______________ __________

DECISION

___ DEPARTMENT OF WAR DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) )

STATEMENT OF CASE

) ISCR Case No. 25-00923 Appearances For Government: George A. Hawkins, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Aidan P. Connor, Esq. 04/29/2026 Decision FOREMAN, LeRoy F., Administrative Judge: This case involves security concerns raised under Guidelines H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) and E (Personal Conduct). Clearance is granted. Statement of the Case Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA) on August 29, 2024. On July 23, 2025, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) sent her a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging security concerns under Guidelines H and E. The DCSA acted under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security C

FINDINGS OF FACT

earance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) promulgated in Security Executive Agent Directive 4, National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (December 10, 2016), which became effective on June 8, 2017. Applicant answered the SOR on September 4, 2025, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was ready to proceed on December 1

12, 2025. The case was assigned to me on February 18, 2026. On February 24, 2026, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) notified Applicant that the hearing was scheduled to be conducted by video teleconference on March 27, 2026. I convened the hearing as scheduled. Government Exhibits 1 through 6 were admitted in evidence without objection. Applicant testified and submitted Applicant’s Exhibits (AX) A, B, and C, which were admitted without objection. DOHA received the transcript on April 9, 2026. Findings of Fact In Applicant’s answer to the SOR, she admitted the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b. SOR ¶ 1.a alleges that she used marijuana on various occasions between at least August 2007 and June 2023. SOR ¶ 1.balleges that she used and purchased marijuana on various occasions between at least approximately November 2011 to about June 2023, while holding a sensitive position requiring a security clearance. In her answer, she stated that she ceased her marijuana use after May 2010, but that she resumed her marijuana use after it was legalized in the jurisdiction where she lived a nd used it about once every six months from August 2018 through J une 2023. Applicant admitted the allegation in SOR ¶ 2.a, cross-alleging the conduct in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1b. She admitted the allegation in SOR ¶ 2.b, alleging a falsification of her August 2011 SCA, but her explanation amounted to a denial of this allegation, and I have treated it as a denial. Her admissions are incorporated in my findings of fact. Applicant is a 36-year-old tactical software engineering manager employed by a federal contractor since August 2011. She received a bachelor’s degree in May 2011 and a master’s degree in December 2015. She married in May 2015. She received a security clearance in November 2011 and has held a clearance continuously until the present. In her present position, she manages a team of 145 to 150 software engineers who are responsible for the software development of equipment for Navy submarines. (Tr. 14) When Applicant submitted an SCA in August 2011, she answered “No” to the question whether she had illegally used any controlled substance in the last seven years. She did not disclose that she had used marijuana between approximately August 2007 and May 2010. (GX 1 at 33) When Applicant submitted another SCA in August 2024, she disclosed that she recreationally smoked marijuana less than once a month from about August 2007 to June 2023, while holding a security clearance. (GX 2 at 35) When she was interviewed by a security investigator in March 2025, she confirmed her admissions in the 2024 SCA and explained that her marijuana use was recreational and infrequent and that she did not intend to use it again. She told the investigator that she disclosed her use of marijuana 2

but did not disclose her illegal purchase of marijuana in the 2024 SCA due to oversight, and that she purchased it about six times, most recently in June 2022. (GX 3 at 5-6) When Applicant responded to DOHA interrogatories in July 2025, she disclosed that she used marijuana about once per week from August 2007 to May 2010 and less than once per month from August 2018 to June 2023. She also disclosed that she purchased marijuana from August 2018 to June 2022. She stated that she did not use a medical marijuana card for her purchases. (GX 3 at 8) Applicant testified that she used marijuana from August 2007 to May 2010, no more than once a week, while she was in college. She used it at social events with other users. (Tr.17) She was aware at that time that recreational marijuana use was illegal. (Tr. 17-18) Her marijuana use did not affect her academic performance, and she was an honor graduate. She stopped using marijuana in May 2010, because she knew that some potential emp

POLICIES

oyers required drug testing, and she did not want her marijuana use to adversely affect her career. (Tr. 17-18) Applicant resumed her marijuana use in August 2018, after recreational marijuana use was legalized in the jurisdiction where she lived and worked. She had friends who were frequent marijuana users, and her friends brought marijuana to her home and shared it. During this period, she used marijuana about once a month, but there were periods of up to six months when she did not use it. She purchased marijuana from state- licensed dispensaries. She testified that she was being conservative when questioned by security investigator and disclosed purchasing it about six times, but it was only “maybe two or three times.” She testified that she knew that marijuana was still illegal under federal law, but that she did not understand the full ramifications of her continued use of marijuana. She never used marijuana at work or prior to going to work. (Tr. 18-22) Applicant testified that she stopped using marijuana in June 2023, when she learned that she had high blood pressure. She decided at that time to make lifestyle changes to reduce stress, maintain good health, and avoid the need for medication to control her blood pressure. (Tr. 22-23) She has also changed her living environment, moving from a neighborhood where marijuana use was “normalized” to a secluded community where she is not near marijuana users. (Tr. 23-24) However, she still maintains contact about once a year with her mother and brother, who hold medical marijuana licenses and use it regularly. (Tr. 25) She used marijuana with her mother and brother on one occasion between 2021 and 2023. All other occasions were alone or with friends. (Tr. 41-42) Applicant testified that she is “incredibly remorseful” and embarrassed because of her illegal use of marijuana. (Tr. 26) She testified that she now has a better understanding of the rules regarding marijuana use, through the advice of her counsel at the hearing and her employer’s security department. (Tr. 27) In January 2026, she underwent a hair 3

ANALYSIS

follicle test for marijuana and several other controlled substances, and the test was negative. (AX A at 1) At the hearing, Applicant admitted that her falsification of her SCA in August 2011 could tend to show that she was not an honest person. However, she was not familiar with the security-clearance process at that time and did not appreciate the sensitivity and responsibility of holding a clearance. (Tr. 28) Applicant did not consult with her facility security officer or anyone else about resuming her use of marijuana after the jurisdiction where she worked and resided legalized its use. (Tr. 51-52) However, after receiving counseling from her attorney and her employer’s security manager, she now understands the importance of clarifying the difference between state and federal law, the importance of not using illegal drugs, and the need for being “fully forthcoming” during the security-clearance process. (Tr. 30) Applicant’s performance evaluation for 2025 rated her as “exceeds expectations,” which is the second highest rating on a scale of five. The highest rating is “excels,” and the rating immediately below hers is “meets expectations.” The manager who rated her made the following comments: “[Applicant] is a highly valued [company] management team member who has consistently produced high quality work with attention to detail. Her initiative in several areas including people and processes have exceeded expectations. [Applicant] has met expectations in all areas and often exceeds.” (AX at 10) Applicant’s security manager testified that he has worked with her for about two years. He testified that their employer has a written drug policy and provides training regarding drug use. (Tr. 63) He testified that Applicant knows that she made a mistake when she completed the SCA in 2011. He has no concerns about her trustworthiness or ability to protect classified information and comply with all security requirements. He “absolutely” recommends that she continue to hold a security clearance. (Tr. 54-61) Two former interns at Applicant’s place of employment wrote letters expressing appreciation for Applicant’s guidance and information. Based on their interaction with Applicant and other employees, they were impressed with the cooperative and dedicated work environment and were enthusiastic about their experience. (AX C at 14-17) Applicant’s husband is the director of sales for a private business. He has never held a security clearance. He testified that he and Applicant met in college and married in 2017. They both used marijuana occasionally. They decided to stop using marijuana in 2023. They have since moved away from a neighborhood where marijuana use was “normalized” to a quieter neighborhood away from the drug culture. (Tr. 66-77) In Applicant’s answer to the SOR, she submitted a written statement of intent to refrain from the future use, purchase, or other involvement in illegal drugs and agreed 4

that any violation of her statement of intent will result in automatic revocation of her security clearance. (Answer to SOR, Enclosure 9) Policies “[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to “control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information.” Id. at 527. The President has authorized the Secretary of War or his designee to grant applicants eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.” Exec. Or. 10865 § 2. Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, an administrative judge applies these guidelines in conjunction with an evaluation of the whole person. An administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. An administrative judge must consider all available and reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable. The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in persons with access to classified information. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Clearance decisions must be made “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. Thus, a decision to deny a security clearance is merely an indication the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of War have established for issuing a clearance. Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the personal or professional history of the applicant that may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information. The Government has the burden of establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR. See Egan at 531. Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.” See ISCR Case No. 17-04166 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 21, 2019). It is “less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence 5

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON ANALYSIS

ormation. Clearance decisions must be made “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. Thus, a decision to deny a security clearance is merely an indication the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of War have established for issuing a clearance. Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the personal or professional history of the applicant that may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information. The Government has the burden of establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR. See Egan at 531. Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.” See ISCR Case No. 17-04166 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 21, 2019). It is “less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence 5

FORMAL FINDINGS

does not prevent [a Judge’s] finding from being supported by substantial evidence.” Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966). “Substantial evidence” is “more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” See v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994). The guidelines presume a nexus or

CONCLUSION

rational connection between proven conduct under any of the criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. ISCR Case No. 15-01253 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2016). Once the Governmen