It's not factually incorrect. The adjudication guidelines are pretty clear, and, baring continual ongoing mis-use, under Guideline M under EO 10865 and it's im

It's not factually incorrect. The adjudication guidelines are pretty clear, and, baring continual ongoing mis-use, under Guideline M under EO 10865 and it's implementation by DOD Directive 5220.6p [1], it is considered a mitigation if the misuse of systems was 'not recent' and 'not ongoing'. Same with drug use. It explicitly says under Guideline H that if it was not recent, not ongoing, if you seeked treatment, etc. that it is a mitigation to the security concern raised by use of illicit drugs. If your contacts were denied based on those reasons, they either didn't tell you the whole story (other, unmitigated risks that compounded the total risk of their position), or they had substantive grounds for an appeal of the decision. You can see the evidence yourself of the appeals process, as every appeal record is public, and the govt has no problem with former drug addicts, etc. getting clearances. [1]https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/522006p.pdf?ver=2019-04-03-105534-323 https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/do... [2] https://ogc.osd.mil/doha/industrial/2020.html https://ogc.osd.mil/doha/industrial/2020.html for this years decisions, an example: "Applicant mitigated Guideline H (drug involvement and substance misuse) security concerns because his most recent marijuana use was in 2014".