CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-03026 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-03026denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-03026

Mar 2, 2022· Hon. James E. Moody· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The denial stemmed from the applicant's admitted marijuana use during relevant periods, specifically while already holding a security clearance.

Further contributing to the denial was the applicant's failure to uphold a previous commitment made to a Government investigator, where he stated he would refrain from future illegal drug use. These actions raised disqualifying conditions H.1 and E.2.

The appeal affirmed the initial denial. The applicant did not contest the judge's findings regarding his marijuana use or the breach of his prior commitment, nor did he demonstrate any harmful error in the initial decision-making process.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

H.1raisedDrug Involvement
E.2raisedPersonal Conduct

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 15, 2021
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldDec 14, 2021Decision made by Administrative Judge Moira Modzelewski.
Decision dateMar 2, 2022Appeal 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· Full written decision

Affirmed

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMoira Modzelewski — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline HGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not claim that the presiding Judge made an error in his case.

Why the Board ruled this way

Applicant did not allege any harmful error in the Judge's decision, and the Board found the decision sustainable based on the record.

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
James E. Moody
Jennifer I. Goldstein

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision — what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

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

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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 2000sand 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