CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01784 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01784

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

Case Profile
Decision Date4/29/2024
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 23-01784) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Gregg A. Cervi, James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski
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). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated that the applicant had used marijuana while granted access to classified information from January 2022 to June 2022, as well as from January 2015 to August 2017. The administrative judge found against the applicant regarding the more recent use of marijuana but ruled in the applicant's favor concerning the earlier allegations.
During the proceedings, the applicant did not dispute the judge's findings of fact but argued that the overall determination was unfavorable despite positive character references from a witness. The applicant contended that the judge's ruling implied a denial of a top-secret clearance rather than an overall unfavorable outcome affecting his existing secret clearance. However, the appeal board clarified that the judge's decision pertained to the applicant's security eligibility, not a specific clearance level, and emphasized that the determination of security eligibility is based on national interest considerations.
The administrative judge's ruling was affirmed, with the board stating that the applicant failed to demonstrate any harmful error in the judge's decision-making process. The board noted that the judge provided a satisfactory explanation for the ruling, consistent with the standard that security clearances may only be granted when clearly aligned with national security interests.
Guidelines Evaluated
- 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. ISCR Case No. 23-01784

Apr 29, 2024· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) by the Department of Defense. The denial stemmed from the applicant's past marijuana use, specifically noting that this use occurred while he had access to classified information.

The judge determined that the applicant's conduct was inconsistent with national security interests, leading to the denial. This decision was based on the national interest rather than specific clearance levels.

The applicant's appeal was subsequently denied, affirming the judge's initial findings and the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25raisedDrug Involvement

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 issuedAug 16, 2023
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateApr 29, 2024Appeal decision

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Emphasis on National Interest in Security Clearance Determinations
Clarification That Clearance Levels Do Not Affect Eligibility Assessments

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 concerned the denial of the Applicant's security clearance based on allegations of drug involvement under Guideline H. The Administrative Judge found against the Applicant on one allegation and in favor on another. The Applicant appealed, arguing that the overall determination was unfavorable. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEdward W. Loughran — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline H

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant asserted that the Judge erred in the overall unfavorable determination.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the Applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error in the Judge's findings or conclusions. The Board affirmed the denial of security clearance eligibility based on the evidence presented.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
Gregg A. Cervi
James B. Norman

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.