national security law - security clearance
Marijuana, Security Clearances, and the “Honesty Trap”: Lessons from a Recent DOHA Case
The federal government’s position on marijuana use by Security Clearance Applicants and Holders has evolved—slowly.
While more than half of U.S. states allow medical or recreational use, federal law and national-security vetting rules continue to treat marijuana as an illegal Schedule I substance. This disconnect creates a growing compliance minefield for federal employees and contractors seeking or maintaining a security clearance.
A recent Department of Defense (DoD) Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) decision illustrates the issue clearly: the misconduct wasn’t ultimately the marijuana use—it was the dishonesty about it.
The Case: Marijuana Use While Holding a Clearance
In ISCR Case No. 24-01023, the applicant—an engineer in his early thirties—used marijuana several times during 2020–2021 while holding a Secret clearance and working in a sensitive DoD position. He later admitted the drug use and even took proactive steps demonstrating responsibility, remorse, and rehabilitation, including:
Completing drug education
Passing a drug test
Signing a written pledge never to use again
Demonstrating nearly four years of abstinence
The Administrative Judge found that the drug use was mitigated. The applicant showed credible abstinence, understood policy violations, and demonstrated changed behavior.
Though the security clearance concern under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) was proven by the Department, the judge found that applicant presented sufficient evidence to mitigate the concern. Thus, the marijuana use itself, even though it occurred while holding a clearance and working in a sensitive DoD position, was not a reason to deny the clearance.
Where the Case Went Wrong: Falsifying the Security Forms
Despite success under Guideline H, the applicant failed under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) because he answered “No” to drug-use questions on his 2023 clearance application—even though he knew the information was required.
He later disclosed the use only after being interviewed by an investigator.
The judge noted: “His falsification of two SCAs (security clearance applications) is more persuasive than the mitigating information.”
The applicant appealed the judge’s decision to deny the clearance, and appeal decision reinforced that point: “The concern raised by his 2023 falsification was amplified by his 2019 falsification… the pattern of omissions prevented full mitigation.”
The “Honesty Trap” in Security Clearances
This case demonstrates a predictable trend:
Even as marijuana use becomes socially normal, clearance applicants still fear it will be grounds to deny or revoke a clearance and continue to downplay or omit use—especially casual or past experimentation.
But DOHA decisions consistently show: Marijuana use can be forgiven. Dishonesty cannot.
The security clearance adjudicative guidelines explicitly warn that failing to provide truthful answers during the clearance process creates significant security risk. Once an applicant lies on a clearance form, reviewers begin asking:
What else hasn’t been disclosed?
Can this person be trusted with classified information?
Would they self-report a security violation in the future?
No drug raises more clearance flags than dishonesty.
Key Takeaways for Clearance Holders and Applicants
✔ 1. Past Marijuana Use Is Not Automatically Disqualifying
Current DOHA case law—consistent with agency guidance—shows adjudicators weigh:
How long ago the use occurred
Whether the applicant had a clearance at the time
Whether state law permitted the use
Whether abstinence is credible
Simply put: time + honesty + abstinence = mitigation.
⚠ 2. Drug Use After Initiating a Clearance Process Is High-Risk
The Security Executive Agent has advised that marijuana use after submitting an SF-86 is a serious concern. Even if legal at the state level, it violates federal suitability rules.
🚨 3. Lying Creates a Presumption Against Trustworthiness
Even a single false answer on a clearance form can override years of good service, education, and performance evaluations.
This case makes it clear: If you’ve used marijuana—disclose it. Hiding it and having it discovered later carries far higher consequences.
Cautionary Example
ISCR Case 24-01023 is a cautionary example of the modern reality of federal security clearance adjudications. The applicant did many things right—rehabilitated, abstained for nearly four years, and demonstrated a strong professional record. That was enough to mitigate marijuana use.
But it wasn’t enough to overcome dishonesty.
As the DOHA Appeal Board succinctly put it:
“Any doubt concerning national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of national security.”
Need Help Navigating Marijuana-Related Clearance Issues?
Every case is different, and full, honest disclosure of past substance abuse can be grounds to deny or revoke a clearance, especially without proper mitigation.
If you have to report past substance use such as marijuana use, even if the use was legal under state laws, or respond to a Statement of Reasons under the security clearance adjudicative guidelines, legal advice and representation can prevent costly mistakes—including the kind that sank this case. The attorneys at Korody Law have more than 20 years national security law experience and have handled hundreds of security clearance cases across the Department of Defense and Intelligence Community.