CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01884 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01884

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

Case Profile
Decision Date11/6/2024
Statusunknown
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the hearing decision (Case 23-01884) →See the hearing decision (Case 23-01884) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie
Government Counsel: John G. Hannink, Julie R. Mendez
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 55-year-old employee of a government contractor who had held a security clearance since 2009. The Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) due to the applicant's admission of purchasing and using marijuana from October to December 2022 while having access to classified information. The applicant acknowledged his drug use in his security clearance application and reported it to his facility security officer.
The administrative judge found that the applicant's drug involvement was limited and that he had ceased using marijuana prior to his security clearance renewal. The judge concluded that the applicant did not intend to use marijuana in the future and that his self-disclosure demonstrated a willingness to acknowledge his past actions. However, the appeal board identified a significant error in the judge's decision, specifically the failure to address disqualifying condition AG ¶ 25(f), which pertains to illegal drug use while holding a sensitive position. As a result, the appeal board remanded the case for further consideration, emphasizing the need to evaluate the applicant's understanding of the implications of his drug use in the context of DoD policies.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · For 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. 23-01884

Nov 6, 2024· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

This case involves an applicant who, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The denial stemmed from the applicant's use of marijuana while holding a sensitive position.

Upon review, the appeal board found that the original judge's analysis of the disqualifying conditions under Guideline H contained errors. Consequently, the board remanded the case.

The remand requires further consideration of the applicant's understanding of the implications of his drug use, indicating that the initial decision did not adequately address this aspect. No final outcome has been reached in this matter.

Procedural Posture

Decision DateNov 6, 2024

Cite For

Remand for Further Consideration of Applicant's Understanding of Drug Use Implications
Errors in Analysis of Disqualifying Conditions
Guideline H Drug Involvement Cases

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

Remanded

The Department of Defense denied the Applicant a security clearance based on drug involvement. The Administrative Judge granted the clearance on appeal, but the Government contended that the Judge erred by not addressing a specific disqualifying condition and misapplying mitigating conditions. The Appeal Board found merit in the Government's arguments and remanded the case for further consideration.

Appealed bythe Government (Department Counsel)

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCharles C. Hale — granted the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline H

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the Government (Department Counsel)Error sustained
The Judge erred by failing to discuss or analyze the applicability of disqualifying condition AG ¶ 25(f).
Mitigation wrongly applied / not applied — raised by the Government (Department Counsel)Not reached
The Judge's application of mitigating conditions AG ¶¶ 26(a) and 26(b) was erroneous.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Judge's failure to address AG ¶ 25(f) was clearly erroneous and is best remedied through remand. The allegations of error regarding the application of mitigating conditions AG ¶¶ 26(a) and 26(b) are not ripe for consideration at this time.

Ignored material evidence

On remand, the judge must

The decision on remand should address the basis for Applicant’s assertion that he believed marijuana use is 'treated like alcohol consumption' in the context of DoD drug policies.

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
Allison Marie
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.