CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-02729 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 21-02729

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date2/15/2023
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 21-02729) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie, James F. Duffy
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a security clearance but was denied by the Department of Defense (DoD) due to concerns under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated that the applicant had multiple charges for marijuana possession in 2014 and 2019, admitted to using marijuana from 2012 to 2021 while holding a security clearance, and allegedly falsified information in his security clearance applications by denying drug use.
The administrative judge found that the applicant admitted to the allegations under Guidelines J and H but denied the falsification claim under Guideline E, offering an explanation that lacked supporting documentation. The judge noted that the applicant had received probation for the 2014 charge and that the 2019 charge's outcome was unknown. The applicant's arguments regarding the impact of a presidential pardon for marijuana possession and the accuracy of the dates of his drug use were deemed unpersuasive, as he failed to provide specific corrections or evidence to support his claims.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant on all allegations, concluding that he intentionally falsified his security clearance applications. The judge emphasized that the applicant's omissions were not mere oversights, given his maturity and experience, and affirmed that the decision was consistent with national security considerations. The appeal was denied, and the original decision was upheld.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · Against Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · Against Applicant
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 21-02729

Feb 15, 2023· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guidelines J (Criminal Conduct), H (Drug Involvement), and E (Personal Conduct). The denial stemmed from admitted drug use and allegations of falsification on security clearance applications.

Specifically, the applicant admitted to drug involvement and faced charges for marijuana possession in both 2014 and 2019. The appeal board found substantial evidence supporting the claim that the applicant intentionally falsified information on his security clearance applications.

The applicant's claims of error regarding the dates of his drug involvement were deemed to lack specificity and corroborating evidence. Ultimately, the appeal board upheld the denial, concluding there was insufficient evidence to support the applicant's claims of error and substantial evidence of intentional falsification.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 24raisedDrug Involvement
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with national security.’”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 21, 2022
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself.
Hearing held—Decision on the written record.
Decision dateFeb 15, 2023Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Affirmation of Intentional Falsification in Security Clearance Applications
Insufficient Evidence to Support Claims of Error in Security Clearance Cases
Criteria for Evaluating Drug Involvement and Criminal Conduct in Security Clearance Determinations

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 a security clearance based on allegations of criminal conduct, drug involvement, and personal conduct. The applicant, representing himself, argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and that evidence was ignored. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's conclusions.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowNoreen A. Lynch — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline JGuideline HGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge ignored evidence regarding the dates of his drug involvement.
Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant challenged the Judge's finding of falsification in his security clearance applications.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant failed to demonstrate any harmful error in the Judge's findings or conclusions.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
Moira Modzelewski
Allison Marie

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.