Skip to content
← The Issue Encyclopedia

Issue Encyclopedia · Guideline H · Drug Involvement

Stated Intent to Use Again

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

Does stated intent to use again affect a security clearance?

Stated Intent to Use Again is an issue decided under Guideline H, Drug Involvement. In the decided DOHA record it appears in 497 hearing-level cases, and 15% of the 497 decided ended with access granted (75 granted, 422 denied). The mitigating conditions judges credited most often, and example decisions either way, are below.

Basis: 497 decided hearing-level cases raising this issue. Descriptive history of decided cases, not a prediction.

More questions people ask the record

Decided cases

497

hearing-level decisions raising this issue

Granted

15%

75 granted · 422 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(b) · The involvement acknowledged, with abstinence established

    In granted cases
    25
    In denied cases
    7
  • ¶ 26(a) · So long ago, or so infrequent, that it is unlikely to recur

    In granted cases
    21
    In denied cases
    8
  • ¶ 26(c) · Prescription misuse followed a prolonged illness and has ended

    In granted cases
    16
    In denied cases
    9

Circumstances credited in granted cases

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

Recent decided examples

  • The applicant, a 51-year-old retired Army major, was granted eligibility for a security clearance after mitigating concerns related to drug involvement. He admitted to using marijuana for pain managem…

  • Applicant, a 40-year-old president and CEO of a family maritime business, was granted a clearance after the judge found he mitigated Guideline H concerns. He admitted long-term marijuana use and purch…

  • The case involves security concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant admitted to using psilocybin mushrooms in June 2024 but …

  • Applicant, a 27-year-old defense contractor employee, was denied eligibility for a security clearance. He admitted monthly marijuana use from January 2022 to September 2025, a 2022 arrest for drug par…

See all 497 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.