CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01790 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01790

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

Case Profile
Decision Date10/24/2024
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Gregg A. Cervi, Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
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 a history of drug use, including marijuana, LSD, hallucinogenic mushrooms, cocaine, and unprescribed Adderall, which he failed to disclose in his initial security clearance application.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to the allegations in the SOR but provided explanations for his actions. He acknowledged his drug use and the omission on his Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive Positions (SF85), which the administrative judge found to demonstrate poor judgment. The judge concluded that the applicant's actions, including the continued use of illegal drugs and the failure to disclose this information, warranted a denial of security clearance eligibility.
On appeal, the applicant argued that the judge did not adequately consider the nine adjudicative factors outlined in the Directive and expressed concern about the impact of the decision on his employment. However, the Appeal Board affirmed the judge's decision, stating that the evidence was properly evaluated and that the denial was consistent with national security interests, emphasizing that any doubts regarding personnel suitability must favor national security.
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. ISCR Case No. 23-01790

Oct 24, 2024· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

A male applicant in his mid-20s was denied a security clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The denial stemmed from his admitted drug misuse and his failure to disclose this information on his security clearance application.

Specifically, the applicant's actions triggered Disqualifying Conditions H1 (drug misuse) and E2 (deliberate misrepresentation or falsification). The judges emphasized the applicant's poor judgment in both using illegal drugs and subsequently lying about it during the application process.

The appeal was denied, with the judges underscoring the paramount importance of national security considerations. The adverse impact of the clearance decision on the applicant's employment was deemed irrelevant to the determination of security suitability.

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 issuedFeb 12, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 3, 2024
Decision dateOct 24, 2024Appeal decision

Cite For

Security Concerns Related to Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Personal Conduct Issues Under Guideline E
Importance 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 was filed by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his security clearance eligibility based on concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant argued that the Judge failed to consider certain factors and that the decision was arbitrary. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEdward W. Loughran — 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 contends that the Judge failed to consider the nine adjudicative factors set forth in the Directive and argues how he believes those factors should be weighed differently.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argues that the Judge's conclusions were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Other — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant asserts that the loss of his security clearance may jeopardize his current and future employment.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which is sustainable on the record. The Board concluded that the adverse impact of an unfavorable clearance decision on an applicant’s employment or career is not relevant in evaluating his security suitability.

Standard of review applied

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

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.