Skip to content
← The Issue Encyclopedia

Issue Encyclopedia · Guideline H · Drug Involvement

Drug Test Failure

What the decided record shows for this issue, computed from public DOHA hearing-level decisions. Descriptive history, not a prediction.

Does drug test failure affect a security clearance?

Drug Test Failure is an issue decided under Guideline H, Drug Involvement. In the decided DOHA record it appears in 376 hearing-level cases, and 16% of the 375 decided ended with access granted (59 granted, 316 denied). The mitigating conditions judges credited most often, and example decisions either way, are below.

Basis: 375 decided hearing-level cases raising this issue. Descriptive history of decided cases, not a prediction.

More questions people ask the record

Decided cases

376

hearing-level decisions raising this issue

Granted

16%

59 granted · 316 denied or revoked

Official mitigating conditions cited

The formal mitigating conditions the case profiles identified on this issue, in cases that were granted and in cases that were denied. Each is shown with its paragraph number and a plain name. Read what each condition says.
  • ¶ 26(a) · So long ago, or so infrequent, that it is unlikely to recur

    In granted cases
    19
    In denied cases
    7
  • ¶ 26(b) · The involvement acknowledged, with abstinence established

    In granted cases
    15
    In denied cases
    3
  • ¶ 26(d) · Treatment completed, with a favorable prognosis

    In granted cases
    7
    In denied cases
    1
  • ¶ 26(c) · Prescription misuse followed a prolonged illness and has ended

    In granted cases
    4
    In denied cases
    2

Circumstances credited in granted cases

The specific circumstances the judge expressly credited among the granted cases on this issue where that detail was extracted.
  • acknowledgment and remorse · credited in 2 granted cases
  • signed intent with revocation clause · credited in 1 granted case
  • substance treatment completed · credited in 1 granted case

Recent decided examples

  • The applicant mitigated security concerns related to drug involvement, criminal conduct, and personal conduct. He demonstrated significant rehabilitation efforts, including participation in a veterans…

  • Applicant, a 26-year-old DOD contractor employee, was granted eligibility for access to classified information. The SOR alleged marijuana use on two occasions, a positive urinalysis in February 2024, …

  • The case involves an applicant seeking a security clearance who faced allegations under multiple guidelines, including alcohol consumption, drug involvement, criminal conduct, and personal conduct. Th…

  • The applicant's security clearance was denied due to unresolved concerns under Guideline E related to personal conduct, despite mitigating factors for drug involvement and psychological conditions. Th…

See all 376 decisions on this issue

Related issues under Guideline H

How these numbers are measured

Scope: decided hearing-level cases whose per-allegation profile records this issue, matched to the same issue value the search filters use, so a count here and a filtered search always agree. A case raising several issues counts under each one. The mitigating conditions and the credited circumstances below were extracted for a subset of the record, so both are counts of cases rather than rates. Pages exist only for issues with at least 25 decided cases, and † marks any split built on fewer than 20.

Reading the statistics

  • Granted = access granted or continued; Denied = denied or revoked.
  • Grant rate = granted ÷ (granted + denied).
  • † marks figures based on fewer than 20 cases, too few to be reliable.
  • Hovering any rate shows its statistical range (a 95% confidence interval).
  • Figures are descriptive counts over decided, public DOHA ISCR decisions, never predictions or assessments of any pending case.

Where to go from here

Get help with my case

Send us your question, or the Statement of Reasons you received. No charge, and a CASE analyst reads it. Usually five to ten business days.

Ask a question →

I do this for clients

Rank every decision by how closely it matches a matter, see how the assigned judge has ruled, and keep it together with cited exports.

For attorneys and firms →

Decided public cases: descriptive, never a prediction.