CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-01911 — CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date1/18/2024
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 22-01911) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Gregg A. Cervi, Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie
Government Counsel: Julie R. Mendez
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · For 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…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-01911denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 22-01911

Jan 18, 2024· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

The applicant was denied a security clearance under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), and H (Drug Involvement). The denial was primarily based on two positive marijuana tests and the falsification of information on her security clearance application.

Specifically, the applicant tested positive for marijuana on two separate occasions but failed to disclose these incidents on her application. Additionally, she falsified material facts concerning both her employment history and her drug use. While the applicant represented herself and there were favorable findings regarding her tax debt, these mitigating factors were outweighed by the disqualifying conditions.

The appeal was denied, with the judges underscoring the paramount importance of national security considerations. The decision highlighted the applicant's failure to disclose significant information and her deliberate falsification of material facts, leading to the denial of her security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25raisedDrug Involvement
AG ¶ 16raisedPersonal Conduct

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20appliedFinancial ConsiderationsThe judge found favorably regarding the applicant's tax debt.
AG ¶ 17rejectedPersonal ConductThe judge did not find sufficient mitigation for the falsification of information.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 23, 2023
Answer filed—
Hearing heldNov 1, 2023
Decision dateJan 18, 2024Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Falsification of Information on Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Considerations of National Security in 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, financial considerations, and personal conduct. The applicant argued that the judge's decision was unfavorable and sought reconsideration. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCharles C. Hale — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline HGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the judge's decision was unfavorable and sought reconsideration.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the denial of the security clearance.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious review

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.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

APPEARANCES

_______________________________________________ ) In the matter of: )

)

) ----- )

ISCR Case No. 22-01911

)

) 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: January 18, 2024

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT Julie R. Mendez, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On February 23, 2023, 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), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) in Appendix A of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective June 8, 2017) and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On November 1, 2023, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Charles C. Hale denied Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Under Guideline H, the SOR alleges that Applicant twice tested positive for marijuana on an employer’s urinalysis test—in about March 2021 and September 2021—and that she used marijuana with varying frequency from at least August 2014 to at least September 2021. Under Guideline E, the SOR alleges that Applicant falsified material facts in her response to Government interrogatories in asserting that the two positive urinalyses were the result of secondhand

inhalation; that she falsified material facts on her July 2021 security clearance application (SCA) in failing to disclose the marijuana use described under Guideline H and in listing her dates of employment at Company A as continuous from March 2011, when in fact she had been terminated in September 2020 and later reinstated in March 2021; that she tested positive for marijuana in March 2021 and did not disclose the same on her SCA; and that she was terminated from employment in October 2021 after testing positive for marijuana during a post-accident urinalysis. Under Guideline F, the SOR alleged that Applicant was indebted to the Federal government for delinquent taxes in the amount of approximately $6,200 for tax year 2017. The Judge found favorably for Applicant on the Guideline F allegation and on the Guideline E allegation regarding her March 2021 positive urinalysis and the failure to disclose the same. He found adversely to her on the Guideline H and remaining Guideline E allegations. On appeal, Applicant first highlights her efforts to resolve her tax debt and states that it is “difficult to comprehend how the judge arrived at an unfavorable decision” regarding that allegation. Appeal Brief (AB) at 1. The Judge, however, found favorably for Applicant on the tax debt allegation. The remainder of Applicant’s appeal concerns her ingestion of marijuana in September 2021 that resulted in a positive urinalysis. She provides “further context and clarification” of that incident and seeks reconsideration of the adverse security clearance decision. AB at 2, 3. The Appeal Board, however, is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal and does not review cases de novo. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant has not established that the Judge committed harmful error. Our review of the record reflects that the Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which is sustainable on this record. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” AG ¶ 2(b).

ORDER

The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Gregg A. Cervi Gregg A. Cervi Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board