CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-02363 — CASE

ISCR Case 21-02363denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 21-02363

Jul 20, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing herself, was denied a clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The denial stemmed from her admitted marijuana use, which occurred with varying frequency from approximately 2012 until about November 2021. This history of drug use constituted a disqualifying condition under H.1.

Upon appeal, the applicant did not assert any harmful error committed by the administrative judge in the initial decision. The Appeal Board, which is prohibited from considering new evidence, therefore did not take into account additional information the applicant presented regarding her cessation of marijuana use.

Given the lack of asserted harmful error and the inability to consider new evidence, the Appeal Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

H.1raisedDrug Involvement

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board does not review cases de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 7, 2021
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldMay 18, 2022Decision made by Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason.
Decision dateJul 20, 2022Appeal affirmed by the Appeal Board.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Pro Se Representation in Security Clearance Cases

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 a denial of security clearance based on drug involvement under Guideline H. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision and requested consideration of new information regarding her marijuana use, which the Board could not accept. The Board affirmed the denial of security clearance eligibility.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPaul J. Mason — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline H

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not assert any harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the Judge's decision was sustainable based on the evidence presented.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
Jennifer I. Goldstein
Moira D. Modzelewski

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. 21-02363

)

) 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: July 20, 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 December 7, 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) of DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On May 18, 2022, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant received Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) on March 7, 2022, and was given 30 days from its receipt to file objections or submit additional matters for the Judge’s consideration. She did not submit a response to the FORM. The Judge found against Applicant on the sole SOR allegation asserting that she used marijuana with varying frequency from about 2012 to about November 2021.

In her July 2022 appeal brief, Applicant’s brief makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, she indicates that, due to therapy and lifestyle changes, she has not needed to use marijuana in over three months. She asks that “the Appeal Board take this new information into consideration when reviewing [her] case[.]” Appeal Brief at 1. The Board, however, is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board does not review cases de novo. The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Because Applicant has not alleged any harmful error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant security clearance eligibility is sustainable.

ORDER

The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jennifer I. Goldstein Jennifer I. Goldstein Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Moira D. Modzelewski Moira D. Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board