Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 25-01325 · CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date3/31/2026
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Government Counsel: George A. Hawkins, Esq.
Judge: Benjamin R. Dorsey
Guidelines Evaluated
- HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · Against Applicant
Questions about ISCR ISCR Case No. 25-01325, 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. 25-01325denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 25-01325

deniedMar 31, 2026· Hon. Benjamin R. Dorsey· hearing

Synopsis

The applicant, a 64-year-old government contractor employee, faced security concerns under Guideline H due to ongoing marijuana use and purchases, despite federal illegality. The judge found that the applicant did not mitigate these concerns, as he expressed intent to continue using marijuana, which raised questions about his reliability and trustworthiness. Consequently, the applicant's request for security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant used marijuana illegally under federal law from at least 1983 until at least November 2025.
He tested positive for THC on an employer-issued drug test in March 2022.
The applicant expressed intent to continue using marijuana, indicating a lack of commitment to abstain.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)appliedSubstance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(b)appliedTesting Positive for an Illegal Drug
AG ¶ 25(c)appliedIllegal Possession of a Controlled Substance
AG ¶ 25(f)appliedIllegal Drug Use While Granted Access to Classified Information
AG ¶ 25(g)appliedExpressed Intent to Continue Drug Involvement

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 10, 2025
Answer filedJan 6, 2026Requested decision based on written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decision based on written record.
Decision dateMar 31, 2026

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Ongoing Illegal Drug Use Under Guideline H
Failure to Mitigate Drug Involvement Despite Medical Necessity Claims
Impact of Federal Law on State-sanctioned Medical Marijuana Use in Security Clearance Determinations

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 that the applicant's drug involvement and substance misuse raised significant security concerns, particularly due to his continued use of marijuana, which is illegal under federal law. The applicant's admissions and intentions to continue using marijuana while holding a security clearance were critical factors in the decision to deny eligibility for access to classified information.

1.a Applicant used marijuana with varying frequency from at least 1983 until at least November 2025
Finding: Against Applicant
Substance / event: Marijuana
Use level: Unspecified
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶25):
(a) any substance misuse
Mitigating applied (¶26): —
Mitigation: —
1.b He purchased marijuana from at least January 2022 until at least November 2025
Finding: Against Applicant
Substance / event: Drug Distribution or Dealing
Use level: Not Applicable
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶25):
(c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia
Mitigating applied (¶26): —
Mitigation: —
1.c From at least November 2024 to at least November 2025, he used and purchased marijuana with varying frequency while granted access to classified information
Finding: Against Applicant
Substance / event: MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED
Use level: Unspecified
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶25):
(f) any illegal drug use while holding a clearance or sensitive position
Mitigating applied (¶26): —
Mitigation: —
1.d He intends to continue to use marijuana in the future
Finding: Against Applicant
Substance / event: Stated Intent to Use Again
Use level: Not Applicable
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶25):
(g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue
Mitigating applied (¶26): —
Mitigation: —
1.e In March 2022, he tested positive for THC on an employer-issued drug test/screen
Finding: Against Applicant
Substance / event: Drug Test Failure
Use level: Not Applicable
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶25):
(b) testing positive for an illegal drug
Mitigating applied (¶26): —
Mitigation: —
1.f His aforementioned discharge from the Navy under other than honorable conditions after testing positive for marijuana
Finding: Against Applicant
Substance / event: Unspecified Drug Involvement
Use level: Unspecified
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶25): —
Mitigating applied (¶26): —
Mitigation: —

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant used marijuana with varying frequency from at least 1983 until at least November 2025	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Unspecified	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse	—	—
1.b	He purchased marijuana from at least January 2022 until at least November 2025	Against Applicant	Drug Distribution or Dealing	Not Applicable	Admitted	(c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	—	—
1.c	From at least November 2024 to at least November 2025, he used and purchased marijuana with varying frequency while granted access to classified information	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Unspecified	Admitted	(f) any illegal drug use while holding a clearance or sensitive position	—	—
1.d	He intends to continue to use marijuana in the future	Against Applicant	Stated Intent to Use Again	Not Applicable	Admitted	(g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue	—	—
1.e	In March 2022, he tested positive for THC on an employer-issued drug test/screen	Against Applicant	Drug Test Failure	Not Applicable	Admitted	(b) testing positive for an illegal drug	—	—
1.f	His aforementioned discharge from the Navy under other than honorable conditions after testing positive for marijuana	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—

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

dge: Applicant did not mitigate the drug involvement and substance misuse security concerns. Eligibility for access to classi

DECISION

fied information is denied. Statement of the Case On December 10, 2025, the Department of War (DOW) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security conce

STATEMENT OF CASE

rns under Guideline H (drug involvement and substance misuse). On January 6, 2026, Applicant responded to the SOR (Answer) and requested a decision based on the written record in lieu of a hearing. The Government’s written case was submitted on January 27, 2026. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to Applicant, who was given 30 days to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the security concerns. Applicant received the FORM on January 29, 2026, and provided a response that he dated January 27, 2026 (FORM Response). The case was assigned to me on March 18, 2026. The Government exhibits included in the FORM (Items 1-10) are

admitted in evidence without objection. Department Counsel objected to the FORM Response being admitted in evidence. That objection is overruled. The FORM Response is relevant and material to Applicant’s Guideline H security concerns and to the whole- person analysis. Moreover, there is no indication that the FORM Response lacks authenticity. The FORM Response is admitted in evidence over Department Counsel’s objection. Findings of Fact Applicant is a 64-year-old employee of a government contractor for which he has worked since December 2016. He earned a high school diploma in 1979, and a certificate that he believes is the equivalent of an associate degree, in 1986. He is single. He was married from 1989 until a divorce in 1992. He was also married from 2000 until a divorce in 2010. He has an adult daughter. He served on active duty in the Navy from 1980 until about May 1984, when he received a discharge under other than honorable conditions after testing positive for marijuana (tetrahydrocannabinol or THC) (SOR ¶ 1.f). (Items 2- 4, 10; FORM Response) In the SOR, the DOW alleged the following: Applicant used marijuana with varying frequency from at least 1983 until at least November 2025 (SOR ¶ 1.a); he purchased marijuana

FINDINGS OF FACT

from at least January 2022 until at least November 2025 (SOR ¶ 1.b); from at least November 2024 to at least November 2025, he used and purchased marijuana with varying frequency while granted access to classified information (SOR ¶ 1.c); he intends to continue to use marijuana in the future (SOR ¶ 1.d); in March 2022, he tested positive for THC on an employer-issued drug test/screen (SOR ¶ 1.e); and his aforementioned discharge from the Navy under other than honorable conditions after testing positive for marijuana. He admitted the SOR allegations with additional comments in the Answer. His admissions are incorporated in my findings of fact. The SOR allegations are established by his admissions, the Government’s evidence, and the FORM Response. (Items 1-10; FORM Response) Applicant has used marijuana with varying frequency from about 1983 until at least November 2025. He acknowledged that he has known marijuana is illegal pursuant to federal law since 1983, when he began using it. He has uniformly indicated his intent to continue to use marijuana at multiple times during the clearance adjudication process, including the following: his security clearance application in November 2024 (SCA); his authenticated summaries of his April 2025, May 2025, and June 2025 interview with an investigator (SI); his November 2025 responses to Government interrogatories; his Answer; and the FORM Response. (Items 2-4, 10; FORM Response) Applicant uses marijuana to alleviate painful symptoms of Crohn’s Disease and ulcerative colitis (collectively, “GI Symptoms”), which he described as gastrointestinal pain, swelling, bloating, and bleeding. He provided medical records corroborating his conditions and his symptoms. He indicated that marijuana use calms him down, arrests the GI Symptoms, and helps him sleep. He has ingested marijuana by smoking it, and, more recently, by chewing a marijuana gummy. Given his admissions and other conflicting evidence, there is equivocal evidence that he stopped using marijuana from 2

about 2010 until about 2017 because he was receiving transfusions to alleviate his GI Symptoms. However, he stopped the transfusions in 2017 because of the painful side effects and started using marijuana regularly again. (Items 2-4; FORM Response) In about January 2022, Applicant obtained a medical marijuana card (MMC) from State A, after being prescribed medical marijuana by a doctor of osteopathic medicine (D.O.) (Dr. A). Since then, Applicant has purchased marijuana from a licensed dispensary in State A. He provided a copy of an MMC issued in 2025 that expires in 2028. In March 2022, he tested positive for marijuana after taking an employer-issued drug urinalysis. His employer accepted his medical condition as a permissible excuse and did not terminate his employment. A copy of his employer’s drug-free workplace policy contemplates the “lawful use and possession of prescribed medication or medical marijuana [emphasis mine].” While marijuana po

POLICIES

ssession (and therefore its use) may be “legal” pursuant to state law, it remains illegal pursuant to federal law, which preempts any state law to the contrary. (Items 2-4; FORM Response) In about November 2024, Applicant was granted interim security clearance eligibility. He signed a classified information non-disclosure agreement (NDA) on January 28, 2025. In the NDA, he acknowledged that he was being granted access to classified information. (Items 5, 6) In the Answer and the FORM Response, Applicant noted that he only uses marijuana for medicinal purposes. He wrote that he tried other treatments to alleviate his painful GI Symptoms, but those other treatments damaged his kidneys and caused other negative side effects such as joint pain, osteoporosis, hypertension, and diabetes exacerbation. He wrote the marijuana use is the only treatment that has alleviated his GI Symptoms without the negative side effects. He provided a letter from Dr. A corroborating these alternative treatments and negative side effects. Dr. A wrote that he strongly advises against Applicant’s cessation of his marijuana treatment and that “it is a clinically essential, last line treatment that preserves his health, dignity, and ability to function as a productive member of society.” (Item 2; FORM Response) Applicant does not associate with other illegal drug users and uses marijuana alone in his home. He disagreed with the Navy’s decision to discharge him and thought he was being unfairly targeted because of his medical condition. He argued that there is a plan mandated by the President to transfer cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. There is no evidence that this transfer from Schedule I to Schedule III transpired. He wrote that he will have been treated unfairly if he loses his security clearance, and that medical necessity overrides technical federal illegality. He argued that most states allow th

ANALYSIS

e use of medical marijuana, that his voluntary disclosure of his medical marijuana use, the circumstances surrounding his medical treatment, and his compliance with state law favor his being granted security clearance eligibility under the whole-person standard and AG ¶ 26. (Items 2-4; FORM Response) Applicant provided character-reference letters from work colleagues attesting to his trustworthiness, integrity, reliability, and professionalism. They note his chronic health condition but claim that it has not negatively affected his work performance. They wrote 3

that he has always complied with workplace security protocols and safeguarded proprietary information. They believe he should be granted security clearance eligibility. Item 2; FORM Response) Policies This case is adjudicated under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG), which became effective on June 8, 2017. When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are to be used in evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, administrative judges apply the guidelines in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole-person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision. The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must 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.” The applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable security 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 access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. 4

Section 7 of EO 10865 provides that adverse decisions shall be “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information). Analysis Guideline H, Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse The security concern for drug involvement and substance misuse is set out in AG ¶ 24: 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 to comply with laws, rules, and regulations. Controlled substance means any “controlled substance” 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. On October 25, 2014, the Director of National Intelligence (the Security Executive Agent (SecEA)) issued DNI Memorandum ES 2014-00674, “Adherence to Federal Laws Prohibiting Marijuana Use,” which states: [C]hang

ANALYSIS

cumstances surrounding his medical treatment, and his compliance with state law favor his being granted security clearance eligibility under the whole-person standard and AG ¶ 26. (Items 2-4; FORM Response) Applicant provided character-reference letters from work colleagues attesting to his trustworthiness, integrity, reliability, and professionalism. They note his chronic health condition but claim that it has not negatively affected his work performance. They wrote 3

WHOLE PERSON ANALYSIS

tpredicated upon trust and confidence. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. 4

FORMAL FINDINGS

ws, rules, and regulations. Controlled substance means any “controlled substance” 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. On October 25, 2014, the Director of National Intelligence (the Security Executive Agent (SecEA)) issued DNI Memorandum ES 2014-00674, “Adherence to Federal Laws Prohibiting Marijuana Use,” which states: [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 .

CONCLUSION

. . . An individual’s disregard of federal law pertaining to the use, sale, or manufacture of marijuana remains adjudicatively relevant in national security determinations. As always, adjudicative authorities are expected t