Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 25-01316 · CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date4/23/2026
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Government Counsel: Erin P. Thompson
Judge: Jeff A. Nagel
Guidelines Evaluated
- HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · For Applicant
Questions about ISCR ISCR Case No. 25-01316, 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. 25-01316granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 25-01316

grantedApr 23, 2026· Hon. Jeff A. Nagel· hearing

Synopsis

The applicant, a 53-year-old Data Center Engineer, sought a security clearance under Guideline H due to past marijuana use from 1991 until May 2025. The applicant demonstrated a commitment to abstain from drug use, citing personal health concerns and a desire to set a positive example for his children. The judge found that the applicant mitigated the security concerns, granting eligibility for access to classified information.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant stopped using marijuana upon receiving a job offer, demonstrating a commitment to abstain from drug use.
The applicant provided credible testimony regarding health concerns related to marijuana use, which influenced his decision to abstain.
The applicant submitted a signed statement of intent to abstain from all drug involvement, reinforcing his commitment.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)raisedSubstance Misuse

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)appliedBehavior Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 26(b)appliedAcknowledgment and Evidence of Actions Taken

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 issuedDec 15, 2025
Answer filedJan 12, 2026
Hearing heldApr 8, 2026
Decision dateApr 23, 2026

Cite For

Mitigation of Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Importance of Personal Commitment to Abstain From Substance Misuse
Consideration of Health Concerns in Adjudication of Drug Use 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: granted

The judge found that the applicant mitigated security concerns related to drug involvement, specifically marijuana use. The applicant's past use was deemed unlikely to recur due to his commitment to abstain for legal and health reasons, leading to a favorable decision for security clearance.

1.a Applicant admitted he began using marijuana recreationally in California when he was in college and continued thereafter. Between 1991 and 2000, before he moved to Colorado, his use of marijuana in California was illegal under state law. He continued to use marijuana recreationally in Colorado after his move in 2000. His use of marijuana in Colorado between 2000 and 2012 was illegal under state law. His recreational use of marijuana in Colorado between 2012 and when he stopped using altogether in May of 2025 was legal under Colorado state law. However, it was still illegal under federal law.
Finding: For Applicant
Substance / event: Marijuana
Use level: Frequent
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶25):
(a) any substance misuse
Mitigating applied (¶26):
(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur
(b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence
Mitigation:
Documented
Substance Treatment Completed
Documented
Signed Intent with Revocation Clause

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant admitted he began using marijuana recreationally in California when he was in college and continued thereafter. Between 1991 and 2000, before he moved to Colorado, his use of marijuana in California was illegal under state law. He continued to use marijuana recreationally in Colorado after his move in 2000. His use of marijuana in Colorado between 2000 and 2012 was illegal under state law. His recreational use of marijuana in Colorado between 2012 and when he stopped using altogether in May of 2025 was legal under Colorado state law. However, it was still illegal under federal law.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Frequent	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence	Documented Substance Treatment Completed Documented Signed Intent with Revocation Clause

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

-01316

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Erin P. T

DECISION

ompson, Esq, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 04/23/2026 Decision NAGEL, Jeff A., Administrative Judge: Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, Applica

STATEMENT OF CASE

t has mitigated the security concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse). Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. Statement of the Case Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA) on June 6, 2025, in connection with his employment in the defense industry. On December 15, 2025, 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). 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

FINDINGS OF FACT

mended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the Department of Defense on June 8, 2017.

Applicant answered the SOR in writing (Answer) on January 12, 2026, and requested a hearing before an Administrative Judge. The Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on March 3, 2026. The case was assigned to me on March 10, 2026. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Notice of Hearing on March 18, 2026. I convened the hearing as scheduled on April 8, 2026. The Government called no witnesses and submitted Government Exhibits (GE) 1 and 2, which I admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf, called three witnesses to testify, but submitted no documentary exhibits. The record was kept open until April 17, 2026, for the receipt of additional evidence. Applicant submitted a character reference as well as a signed statement to abstain from all drug involvement in the future. I marked them as Applicant’s Exhibits A and B and admitted them into evidence without objection. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (TR) on April 15, 2026. Findings of Fact Applicant is 53 years old and is presently employed as a Data Center Engineer for a DoD contractor, where he has worked since June of 2025. He received a computer science degree in 1996 and is a few credits short of earning his master’s in computer science as well. Applicant is married and has two adult children. He submitted his SCA in June of 2025. This is Applicant’s first time working in the defense industry and he is applying for a security clearance for the first time. (Tr. at 16-18, GE 1) In his SCA, Applicant informed the Government that he had used marijuana from August of 1991 until May of 2025, 2-3 times a month and that he had no intention of using it in the future. Ap

POLICIES

licant confirmed this information in his answer to the interrogatories the Government sent him on December 4, 2025. Applicant submitted a detailed answer to the SOR admitting his use of marijuana and describing the circumstances of this use and once again affirming he no longer uses and will not use in the future. (GE 1 GE 2, Answer) Applicant first began using marijuana casually with fellow students when he began college in August of 1991. Applicant attended college in California where recreational use of marijuana is legal now but was not at the time of his attendance1. In the ensuing years Applicant has used marijuana on and off approximately 2-3 times a m

onth mostly for recreational purposes, but he did try it to help him with his Chron’s disease. He found that it had no effect and stopped using it for that purpose but did continue his recreational use. Applicant moved to Colorado in 2000 and continued to use marijuana recreationally on occasion, and it was legal for him to do so on the state level for almost the last fifteen years2. (Tr. a 23, GE 2) 1 California legalized recreational marijuana on November 8, 2016, with the passage of Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act. 2 Colorado legalized recreational marijuana in November 2012 with the passage of Amendment 64. It became legal for adults 21 and older to possess and use marijuana on December 10, 2012. 2

Applicant testified that there were numerous months when he did not use marijuana and periods that he abstained from using it for up to two years. As soon as Applicant received the job offer to begin work with his current company, he stopped using marijuana knowing he could not do so with his employment. Applicant submitted a signed statement to abstain from all drug involvement in the future. (Tr. 20, 22, at GE 2, AE B) Applicant testified that in addition to stopping marijuana use because of his job, he has other reasons for abstaining. He wants to set an example for his kids who began college and are in an environment whe

ANALYSIS

e marijuana is prevalent. He also wants them to think about their future, such as if they will need to apply for a security clearance, and his own medical concerns. (Tr. at 27, 28) Applicant testified: I have a couple of friends right now, and this is kind of heartbreaking. They're dealing with brain tumors, and I believe the brain tumor might've had to do something with their vaping and their vaping with Marijuana. And, they're not really sure where they started, but these are two of my friends who are doing the same thing. And, I smoked Marijuana with them on the golf course before this happened, and they're both having surgery and it's very serious. And, because of the medical risks to my health, not just my lungs, the possibility of scariness of a brain tumor and how scary that surgery is, I don't think I'll ever touch the stuff again in my life. And it's not just for this job. It's just morally and I'm not going to do it. … I wouldn't do it. I just, there's too many risks and everything that's happened with my friends and stuff that I've seen happen and the level of Marijuana that there is right now and the danger that has occurred with it because you don't even know what you're getting and what's happening. It's just, it just doesn't appeal to me at all anymore. (Tr. at 28, 29) Three witnesses testified on Applicants behalf, and he submitted a character reference from another person who could not make the hearing. They attested to Applicant’s trustworthiness, responsibility, reliability, honesty, and dedication. (Tr. at 54- 70, AE B) 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 3

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 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 neces

DISCUSSION

's too many risks and everything that's happened with my friends and stuff that I've seen happen and the level of Marijuana that there is right now and the danger that has occurred with it because you don't even know what you're getting and what's happening. It's just, it just doesn't appeal to me at all anymore. (Tr. at 28, 29) Three witnesses testified on Applicants behalf, and he submitted a character reference from another person who could not make the hearing. They attested to Applicant’s trustworthiness, responsibility, reliability, honesty, and dedication. (Tr. at 54- 70, AE B) 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 3

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

ity, 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 The Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) makes it illegal under Federal law to manufacture, possess, or distribute certain drugs, including marijuana. (Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801, et seq. See § 844.) All controlled substances are classified into five schedules, based on their accepted medical uses, their potential for abuse, and their psychological and physical effects on the body. §§ 811, 812. Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I controlled substance, § 812(c), based on its high potential for abuse, no accepted medical use, and no accepted safety for use in medically supervised treatment. § 812(b)(1). See Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005). 4

FORMAL FINDINGS

Further, in October 2014, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) issued a memorandum entitled “Adherence to Federal Laws Prohibiting Marijuana Use,” (2014 DNI Memo) which makes clear that changes in the laws pertaining to marijuana by the various states, territories, and the District of Columb

CONCLUSION

a do not alter the existing National Security Adjudicative Guidelines, and that Federal law supersedes state laws on this issue: [C]hanges to state laws and the laws of the District of Columbia pertaining to marijuana use do not alter the existing National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. .