A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 19-03026
Appeal BoardDecided Mar 2, 2022 · Administrative Judge James E. Moody · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to admitted marijuana use during the relevant periods, including while holding a security clearance. The appeal was affirmed as the applicant did not contest the judge's findings and failed to demonstrate any harmful error in the initial decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant admitted to using marijuana during the relevant periods, including while holding a security clearance.
- The applicant had previously stated to a Government investigator that he would not use illegal drugs in the future, which he did not uphold.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- H.1 Drug involvementraised
- E.2 Personal conductraised
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2021-06-15
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2021-12-14 Decision made by Administrative Judge Moira Modzelewski.
- Decision date
- 2022-03-02 Appeal affirmed.
Cite for
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
- Admission of Drug Use as a Significant Factor in Clearance Decisions
- Lack of Contestation of Judge's Findings Leading to Affirmation of Denial on Appeal.
Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.
Appeal at a glance
The appeal involved an applicant who was denied a security clearance due to drug involvement and personal conduct issues. The applicant did not claim any error in the Administrative Judge's decision but requested a reduction in penalty. The Board affirmed the denial as the applicant did not raise any harmful error.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Appearances
_______________________________________________ ) In the matter of: )
)
)
--------- )
ISCR Case No. 19-03026
)
) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS APPEAL BOARD POST OFFICE BOX 3656 ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22203 (703) 696-4759 Date: March 2, 2022
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On June 15, 2021, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision―security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On December 14, 2021, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Moira Modzelewski denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Under Guidelines H and E, the SOR alleged that Applicant used marijuana in the early 2000s and again from about 2012 to 2016, including while being granted a security clearance, and that he continued to use marijuana despite telling a Government investigator in 2010 that he did not intend to use illegal drugs in the future, in part, due to a concern about losing his security
clearance. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted the SOR allegations. The Judge found against Applicant on all of the allegations. In his appeal brief, Applicant stated, “I do not claim that the presiding Judge made an error in my case.” Appeal Brief at 1. Instead, he contends that he is trustworthy and requests “a reduction in the penalty.” Id at 2. The record, however, does not support the application of any of the exceptions listed under Appendix C of the Directive. The Appeal Board is tasked to address material issues raised by the parties to determine whether the Judge committed harmful error. Directive ¶ E3.1.32. Because Applicant has not made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying him a security clearance is sustainable.
Order
The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Jennifer I. Goldstein Jennifer I. Goldstein Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board