ISCR Case No. 25-01357

______________ ______________ DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

n the matter of: Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 25-01357 Appearances For Government: Alison P. O’Connell, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 08/28/2026 Decision DORSEY, Benjamin R., Administrative Judge: Applicant did not mitigate the drug involvement and substance misuse security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Statement of the Case On November 7, 2024, Applicant submitted and certified a security clearance application (SCA). On February 9, 2026, the Department of Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline H (drug involvement and substance misuse). Applicant respond

d to the Statement of Reasons (Answer) and requested a hearing before an administrative judge from the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). The case was assigned to me on June 25, 2026. The hearing was convened as scheduled on August 18, 2026, over the Microsoft Teams online network. Government Exhibits (GE) 1 through 4 were admitted in evidence, without objection. One witness testified during the Government’s case in chief. Applicant testified but did not offer any documents into evidence. DOHA received a transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on August 25, 2026.

Findings of Fact Applicant is a 51-year-old employee of a government contractor (Company A) for which he worked from August 2023 until about January 2025. Company A is sponsoring him for security clearance eligibility, and he will return to work there if his clearance is granted. He has also been self-employed as the owner of a sole proprietorship and then of a limited liability company (LLC) since 2005. His LLC is currently a subcontractor of Company A. He has been a mechanical engineer in the defense aerospace industry for 30 years. He earned a high school diploma in 1993 and a bachelor’s degree in 1998. He has been married since 1994 and has four children, three of whom are adults. He has never held security clearance eligibility. (Tr. 33-34, 41-43, 53-56; GE 1, 3, 4) From about July 2021 to at least December 2025, Applicant used and purchased marijuana with varying frequency (SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b). In his response to the SOR, Applicant admitted both allegations with additional comments. He denied the SOR allegation that he stated that he intended to use marijuana in the future during his security interview with a DOD authorized investigator dated March 4, 2025 (SI), and in his responses to DOD interrogatories dated December 10, 2025 (SOR ¶ 1.c). (Tr. 35-39, 44, 51-52; Answer; GE 1-3) In the SCA, Applicant wrote that he has a prescription from State A from a medical doctor for the medical use of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). He estimated that he began using THC in July 2021 and his most recent use was in November 2024. He wrote the following regarding his use of THC: I have used small amounts of THC, as required for pain management, outside my working hours using my [State A] provided medical marijuana prescription for mild chronic pain management as prescribed by my medical doctor. I have never purchased or used any illegal drugs outside of those prescribed by my medical doctor and at the approval of [State A]. (GE 1) In the SCA, Applicant responded, “no” to the question, “[d]o you intend to use this drug or controlled substance in the future.” He further elaborated, “[w]hile I would prefer to continue its use I will seek alternative federally approved pain remedies from my medical doctor, if required, to obtain a security clearance.” He testified that he knew that marijuana was illegal under federal law at the time he completed the SCA. He also had some understanding that his marijuana use could impact his security clearance eligibility when he completed the SCA. (Tr. 44-46; GE 1) Applicant responded to DCSA interrogatories on October 3, 2025 and DOHA interrogatories from Department Counsel on December 10, 2025. In his DCSA interrogatory responses, he detailed his continued weekly use of marijuana (last use on September 27, 2025) pursuant to his medical marijuana card and prescription from a medical doctor. He wrote that he used it for pain relief from inflammatory arthritis. He wrote that he did not intend to use marijuana in the future, and elaborated on that response, stating, “[w]hile I find the use of medical prescription, outside working hours, 2

effective for my treatment with zero impact to my ability to perform work I will seek alternative treatment, if required, to obtain and retain a security clearance.” He acknowledged that his employer has a drug policy, but that policy is not in evidence. He claimed that he is not subject to random or periodic drug screenings by his employer. He wrote that he understood that marijuana use is illegal under federal law and that any future use of marijuana could affect his security clearance eligibility. (Tr. 37-38, 43-45, 48-49; GE 2, 3) In Applicant’s responses to DOHA interrogatories, he updated his last date of marijuana use to December 2025 and wrote that he used marijuana a few times a month only as prescribed, if needed. He reiterated that he had a medical marijuana card from State A and a prescription to use marijuana from a medical doctor. He wrote, “I may use edible THC/CBD as prescribed if needed outside working hours.” (Tr. 37-38, 43-45, 50; GE 3) In Applicant’s responses to DOHA interrogatories, he swore or affirmed that the information contained in the SI was accurate. He was provided the opportunity to identify any portion of the SI that was inaccurate and make corrections to it. He did not make any corrections. He was also provided the opportunity to provide additional information regarding the matters he discussed with the investigator during the SI. He did not provide any additional information. The SI does not contain any language regarding whether marijuana involvement impacts security clearance eligibility, but it does contain information regarding Applicant’s marijuana involvement up to the date of the SI. In the SI, the investigator wrote, “[t]he subject has not used the legal marijuana products since 11/20

4, but may use it in the future if needed for pain management as prescribed by his medical doctor.” (Tr. 37-38, 50; GE 3) In the Answer, Applicant expounded on his denial of the allegations contained in SOR ¶ 1.c. He incorrectly claimed that Department Counsel from DOHA interviewed him during the SI. Instead, Mr. A, a duly authorized investigator interviewed him. Despite what he said in his SI about his future use, the SI, Applicant provided different information in the Answer. He wrote that when Mr. A asked him if he planned to use THC/CBD in the future, he told Mr. A the following: . . . while I would prefer to maintain my prescription, and use it as needed for pain management, I had other prescribed medications that were effective and I would not renew my prescription or continue to use THC/CBD if that was a requirement for the security clearance. He [Mr. A] stated that, while technically it was prohibited, changes were underway and it would not be a primary determining factor. On December 10, 2025, I submitted written interrogatories regarding past and future use of THC/CBD. Based on the representations of [Mr. A] during our conversation on March 4, 2025, as well as my own personal expectation of an upcoming federal declassification, I did not believe that maintaining my prescription would be detrimental to my application. I answered that I would continue to use THC/CBD as prescribed and as needed. I clarified, once again, in a subsequent telephone interview 3

that I would not maintain my prescription if it would impact my ability to obtain a security clearance. I added that I had been successful in managing gout with allopurinol. (Tr. 16-19, 35, 38; Answer) Applicant claimed that if he had known that his marijuana use would prevent him from holding a security clearance, he would have agreed to terminate any use immediately. He also claimed he never would have sought a medical marijuana prescription if he thought it would tarnish his otherwise impeccable professional reputation. He noted that his medical marijuana prescription was set to expire in July 2026, and, in December 2025, he notified his doctor to cancel any prescription renewals. He stopped using federally p

ohibited THC/CBD products in December 2025. He noted that he never used any drug or medication outside of a state approved medical prescription under doctor supervision. He also noted that he has not reported to work while under the influence of a drug or intoxicant. (Tr. 34-39; Answer) Mr A. testified for the Government. He conducted Applicant’s subject interview. Mr. A testified that he did not remember interviewing Applicant or what they discussed during the interview. He has conducted hundreds of security interviews. However, he can say with certainty that he conducted the interview with Applicant because Mr. A verified that his identifying “SID” number appears in the SI. He shared his standard procedure for drafting a security interview summary after conducting an interview. He testified that he normally takes handwritten notes during an interview. His interview style involves him asking questions and the interviewee responding. He then types up a summary of his notes either immediately after the interview or within one or two days after it concluded. He does not make a practice of excluding statements from an interview. After he has typed up a summary, he sends that summary to his “reconciliation office” and then loses access to that summary. (Tr. 16-20, 27-29) Mr. A testified that he never told any of his interviewees that marijuana use is or is not a primary determining factor of security clearance eligibility, and that he never opined to an interviewee whether using marijuana would affect their security clearance eligibility. He testified that he does not opine on these subjects because he is not familiar with how the adjudication process works and does not know what conduct is disqualifying. So, he does not advise interviewees concerning information with which he is unaware. His practice is to tell an interviewee, “I don’t know,” if they question him about whether certain conduct is disqualifying. He also testified that to the extent the SI refers to “legal” marijuana involvement, the term “legal” was used by the interviewee. (Tr. 20-27) Applicant testified that he inaccurately conflated a DOHA department counsel with Mr. A, and acknowledged that Mr. A conducted his security interview. Applicant testified that Mr. A told him that past marijuana use is not a sole determining factor in deciding security clearance eligibility. Applicant testified that Mr. A told him that laws were changing and that marijuana use by itself would not prevent him from obtaining a security clearance. He testified that Mr. A led him to believe that he could continue to use marijuana in the manner he had been using it, and this use would not disqualify him from gaining security clearance eligibility. He did not seek advice from his facility security 4

officer (FSO) or other security official with Company A to clarify his perceptions about his marijuana involvement. He testified that it did not become clear to him that holding a marijuana prescription and a security clearance were mutually exclusive until he received the SOR. However, he also testified that it became clear to him that his marijuana involvement was a problem when he received the DOHA interrogatories in December 2025. He confirmed that his doctor prescribed him alternative medication that alleviated the symptoms that led him to use marijuana. He also found relief from these symptoms through a change in diet. (Tr. 35-39, 45-51) Throughout the record evidence, Applicant maintained that his marijuana involvement had no impact on his personal or professional life other than providing him pain relief. He noted that he has been open and honest about his marijuana involvement and the prospects for his future use throughout the clearance process. He has not been involved with marijuana while holding security clearance eligibility, he never tested positive on a drug test, does not associate with others who are involved with marijuana or other illegal substances, and his marijuana involvement is common knowledge among his family. There is no evidence that his employer is aware of his marijuana involvement. He consistently claimed that he would stop using marijuana if it was required for him to obtain security clearance eligibility, and that he ceased using it once that requirement became clear to him in December 2025. He also testified that he has no intent

oducts in December 2025. He noted that he never used any drug or medication outside of a state approved medical prescription under doctor supervision. He also noted that he has not reported to work while under the influence of a drug or intoxicant. (Tr. 34-39; Answer) Mr A. testified for the Government. He conducted Applicant’s subject interview. Mr. A testified that he did not remember interviewing Applicant or what they discussed during the interview. He has conducted hundreds of security interviews. However, he can say with certainty that he conducted the interview with Applicant because Mr. A verified that his identifying “SID” number appears in the SI. He shared his standard procedure for drafting a security interview summary after conducting an interview. He testified that he normally takes handwritten notes during an interview. His interview style involves him asking questions and the interviewee responding. He then types up a summary of his notes either immediately after the interview or within one or two days after it concluded. He does not make a practice of excluding statements from an interview. After he has typed up a summary, he sends that summary to his “reconciliation office” and then loses access to that summary. (Tr. 16-20, 27-29) Mr. A testified that he never told any of his interviewees that marijuana use is or is not a primary determining factor of security clearance eligibility, and that he never opined to an interviewee whether using marijuana would affect their security clearance eligibility. He testified that he does not opine on these subjects because he is not familiar with how the adjudication process works and does not know what conduct is disqualifying. So, he does not advise interviewees concerning information with which he is unaware. His practice is to tell an interviewee, “I don’t know,” if they question him about whether certain conduct is disqualifying. He also testified that to the extent the SI refers to “legal” marijuana involvement, the term “legal” was used by the interviewee. (Tr. 20-27) Applicant testified that he inaccurately conflated a DOHA department counsel with Mr. A, and acknowledged that Mr. A conducted his security interview. Applicant testified that Mr. A told him that past marijuana use is not a sole determining factor in deciding security clearance eligibility. Applicant testified that Mr. A told him that laws were changing and that marijuana use by itself would not prevent him from obtaining a security clearance. He testified that Mr. A led him to believe that he could continue to use marijuana in the manner he had been using it, and this use would not disqualify him from gaining security clearance eligibility. He did not seek advice from his facility security 4

officer (FSO) or other security official with Company A to clarify his perceptions about his marijuana involvement. He testified that it did not become clear to him that holding a marijuana prescription and a security clearance were mutually exclusive until he received the SOR. However, he also testified that it became clear to him that his marijuana involvement was a problem when he received the DOHA interrogatories in December 2025. He confirmed that his doctor prescribed him alternative medication that alleviated the symptoms that led him to use marijuana. He also found relief from these symptoms through a change in diet. (Tr. 35-39, 45-51) Throughout the record evidence, Applicant maintained that his marijuana involvement had no impact on his personal or professional life other than providing him pain relief. He noted that he has been open and honest about his marijuana involvement and the prospects for his future use throughout the clearance process. He has not been involved with marijuana while holding security clearance eligibility, he never tested positive on a drug test, does not associate with others who are involved with marijuana or other illegal substances, and his marijuana involvement is common knowledge among his family. There is no evidence that his employer is aware of his marijuana involvement. He consistently claimed that he would stop using marijuana if it was required for him to obtain security clearance eligibility, and that he ceased using it once that requirement became clear to him in December 2025. He also testified that he has no intent

when he received the DOHA interrogatories in December 2025. He confirmed that his doctor prescribed him alternative medication that alleviated the symptoms that led him to use marijuana. He also found relief from these symptoms through a change in diet. (Tr. 35-39, 45-51) Throughout the record evidence, Applicant maintained that his marijuana involvement had no impact on his personal or professional life other than providing him pain relief. He noted that he has been open and honest about his marijuana involvement and the prospects for his future use throughout the clearance process. He has not been involved with marijuana while holding security clearance eligibility, he never tested positive on a drug test, does not associate with others who are involved with marijuana or other illegal substances, and his marijuana involvement is common knowledge among his family. There is no evidence that his employer is aware of his marijuana involvement. He consistently claimed that he would stop using marijuana if it was required for him to obtain security clearance eligibility, and that he ceased using it once that requirement became clear to him in December 2025. He also testified that he has no intent

to use marijuana in the future and noted that his expired medical marijuana prescription (as of July 2026) is evidence of this lack of intent. (Tr. 34-39; Answer; GE 1-3) 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 Clearan

e 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 cle