Loading case…

ISCR Case 25-01363 · CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date5/11/2026
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeWRITTEN RECORD FORM
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Government Counsel: Mark D. Lawton, Esq
Judge: Richard A. Cefola
Guidelines Evaluated
- HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · Against Applicant
Questions about ISCR 25-01363, 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 25-01363denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 25-01363

deniedMay 11, 2026· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Synopsis

The applicant, a 41-year-old supply chain operations coordinator for a DoD contractor, faced security concerns under Guideline H due to his long history of marijuana use and purchases, including while holding a security clearance. Despite acknowledging his drug use, he failed to provide sufficient evidence of rehabilitation or commitment to abstain, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant admitted to illegal drug use and purchases over several decades, including after receiving a security clearance.
He expressed an intent to continue marijuana use for relaxation despite knowing it was illegal under federal law.
The applicant did not provide evidence of rehabilitation or a commitment to abstain from drug use.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)appliedAny Substance Misuse
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 issuedJan 5, 2026
Answer filedJan 28, 2026Requested decision on written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decision based on written record.
Decision dateMay 11, 2026

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Ongoing Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Failure to Mitigate Security Concerns Related to Substance Misuse
Importance of Commitment to Abstain From Illegal Drug Use for Security Clearance Eligibility

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 after receiving a security clearance. The applicant admitted to using and purchasing marijuana over several decades, including while holding a sensitive position, which led to a denial of his security clearance.

1.a Marijuana use from 1999 to at least November 2025.
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
(f) any illegal drug use while holding a clearance or sensitive position
(g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue
Mitigating applied (¶26): —
Mitigation: —
1.b Marijuana purchase from 2016 to at least November 2025.
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
(f) any illegal drug use while holding a clearance or sensitive position
(g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue
Mitigating applied (¶26): —
Mitigation: —
1.c Marijuana use from March to November 2025 while in a sensitive position.
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
(f) any illegal drug use while holding a clearance or sensitive position
(g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue
Mitigating applied (¶26): —
Mitigation: —
1.d Marijuana purchase from March to November 2025 while in a sensitive position.
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
(f) any illegal drug use while holding a clearance or sensitive position
(g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue
Mitigating applied (¶26): —
Mitigation: —

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Marijuana use from 1999 to at least November 2025.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Regular	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 (g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue	—	—
1.b	Marijuana purchase from 2016 to at least November 2025.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Regular	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 (g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue	—	—
1.c	Marijuana use from March to November 2025 while in a sensitive position.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Regular	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 (g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue	—	—
1.d	Marijuana purchase from March to November 2025 while in a sensitive position.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Regular	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 (g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue	—	—

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

LA, Richard A. Administrative Judge: Applicant has not mitigated the security c

DECISION

ncerns raised under the Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse adjudicative guideline. National security eligibility for access to classified informa

STATEMENT OF CASE

ion is denied. Statement of the Case Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions on February 5, 2025 (Questionnaire). On January 5, 2026, 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 (DoD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within DoD after June 8, 2017. On January 28, 2026, 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 alle

FINDINGS OF FACT

ations. On February 19, 2026, 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 6 and the Government’s arguments in support of the SOR, was received by the Applicant on February 23, 2026. 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 1, 2026, and all exhibits were admitted without objection. Findings of Fact Applicant is 41 years old and has worked for a DoD contractor as a supply chain operations coordinator since March 2022. He completed the Questionnaire in connection with his employment. Applicant has lived with the mother of his only child since 2010, but they are not married. He is a high school graduate who also completed some online course work at a technical college. (GE 2 at 5, 9-10; GE 4 at 4, 6-7) SOR Paragraph 1, 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 several decades – including after receiving a security clearance. 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. Marijuana use from 1999 to at least November 2025. Applicant denied any illegal drug use in his Questionnaire but admitted to the allegation as drafted in his Answer and responses to interrogatories. In his September 9, 2025, response to interrogatories, he acknowledged awareness of federal law restrictions on marijuana use. In his responses to a separate set of interrogatories executed on December 8, 2025, however, he admitted to additional marijuana use in late November 2025, as well as an intent to continue further use “for relaxation and recreational use.” He also noted he would “quit immediately” if so instructed. Applicant qualified in his November 2025 interrogatory responses that he did not use marijuana at all from 2004 to 2016. He stopped again fr

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

m 2017 to 2023, then resumed recreational use twice a month. (Answer; GE 2 at 26; GE 3 at 4-6, 9; GE 4 at 9, 14-15) 1.b. Marijuana purchase from 2016 to at least November 2025. Applicant

POLICIES

enied any illegal drug purchase in his Questionnaire but admitted to the allegation as drafted in his Answer and responses to interrogatories. Applicant purchased marijuana from a local dispensary – which was legal under state law – on a biweekly to monthly basis in order to relax and as a sleep aid. He did not purchase marijuana from 2017 to 2023, then resumed the purchases twice a month. (Answer; GE 2 at 26; GE 4 at 8-9) 1.c. Marijuana use from March to November 2025 while in a sensitive position. In his Answer, Applicant admitted to the allegation as drafted. He signed a classified information nondisclosure agreement (NDA) on March 3, 2025, and received 2

an interim top-secret clearance on March 26, 2025. In a subsequent interview with a DoD investigator on June 12, 2025, however, he claimed he would not use marijuana again if he obtained a security clearance. (Answer; GE 4 at 9; GE 4 at 9; GE 5; GE 6) 1.d. Marijuana purchase from March to November 2025 while in a sensitive position. The findings of fact are identical to those in ¶ 1.c. above. 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 interrogatories, however, were reviewed in their entirety. Policies When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for national securi

ANALYSIS

yeligibility, 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 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 3

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

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

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. The facts of this case establish the following potentially disqualifying conditions 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 of drug paraphernalia; (f) any illegal drug use while granted access to classified information or holding a sensitive position; and (g) expressed intent to continue drug i nvolvement and substance abuse, or failure to clearly and convincingly commit to discontinue such misuse. Applicant admits to the illegal use of marijuana from 1999 to 2004, as well as use and purchase 2016 to 2017, and then from 2023 to at least late 2025. He acknowledged 4

using the drug after starting employment with a DoD contractor, knowing of its illegality under federal law, and subsequent to both signing an NDA and receiving an interim security clearance. Applicant indicated he would only cease using the drug if so instructed in order to keep his security clearance. Therefore AG ¶¶ 25(a), (c), (f), and (g) apply. The burden then shifts to Applicant to mitigate security concerns under Guideline H. The guideline includes the following conditions in AG ¶ 26 that can mitigate security concerns arising from Applicant’s drug use: (a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; and (b) t

FORMAL FINDINGS

e individual acknowledges his or her drug involvement and substance misuse, provides evidence of actions taken to overcome the problem, and has established a pattern of abstinence, including, but not limited to: (1) disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts; (2) changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used; and (3) providing a signed statement of intent to abstain from all drug

CONCLUSION

nvolvement and substance misuse, acknowledging that any future involvement or misuse is grounds for revocation of national security eligibility. Applicant’s purchase and use of marijuana – particularly after starting his job, signing an NDA, and receiving an interim clearance – render any potential mitigating factors inapplicable. Moreover, his conditional willingness to comply with federal law does not const