CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-01625 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 22-01625

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/28/2024
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 22-01625) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Gregg A. Cervi, Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie
Government Counsel: Julie R. Mendez
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 H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated that the applicant had used marijuana multiple times between January and April 2020 while holding a security clearance and had failed to disclose this drug use on his November 2021 security clearance application.
The administrative judge found that the applicant admitted to using marijuana but contested the timeline of his last use, initially stating it was in 2020 before later suggesting it was in 2019. The applicant provided additional materials in response to the Government’s File of Relevant Material, including letters of support, but the judge determined that the evidence did not sufficiently mitigate the security concerns. The judge ruled against the applicant on both allegations, concluding that the applicant's conduct raised significant doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.
On appeal, the administrative judges affirmed the original decision, stating that the judge had adequately considered the evidence and provided a satisfactory explanation for the ruling. They noted that any discrepancies in the timeline of drug use were either a matter of weighing conflicting evidence or harmless error, and ultimately, the adverse decision was based on sustainable grounds related to Guideline E, which justified the denial of the security clearance.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · 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. 22-01625

Feb 28, 2024· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance primarily under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The denial stemmed from the applicant's admitted use of marijuana while he possessed an active security clearance, a fact he subsequently failed to disclose on his security clearance application.

The adjudicator cited Disqualifying Conditions H1, pertaining to drug involvement, and E2, related to personal conduct, as the basis for the denial. Specifically, the applicant's marijuana use while holding a clearance and his omission of this information on his application were the key factors.

The appeal board reviewed the case and found no harmful error in the judge's initial decision. Consequently, the board upheld the denial of the applicant's security clearance, affirming the findings regarding his drug use and the failure to disclose it.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

H1raisedDrug Involvement
E2raisedDeliberate Omission of Information

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”
— AG ¶ 2(b)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 5, 2022
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 12, 2024
Decision dateFeb 28, 2024

Cite For

Grounds for Denial Based on Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Failure to Disclose Drug Use Under Guideline E
Standards for Evaluating Harmful Error in Security Clearance Decisions

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 and personal conduct. The Applicant argued that evidence was omitted and that the Judge mischaracterized the date of his last marijuana use. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error and that the Judge's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMarc E. Curry — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline HGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant asserted that the Judge omitted evidence and mischaracterized the date of his last marijuana use.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's decision, affirming that the evidence was adequately considered and the decision was sustainable based on the record.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
Gregg A. Cervi
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.