CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02934 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02934

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

Case Profile
Decision Date10/22/2024
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 23-02934) →
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 from the Department of Defense (DoD) but was denied due to concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated that the applicant had used and purchased marijuana from 2006 until at least January 2024, including during his employment in a sensitive position that began in December 2021. Additionally, the applicant had tested positive for marijuana in 2019.
In response to the SOR, the applicant admitted to all allegations but provided explanations for his actions. He opted for a decision based on the written record and did not respond to the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) after being given the opportunity. The administrative judge found against the applicant on all allegations, noting that he had waived his right to a hearing and failed to demonstrate any harmful error in the decision-making process.
The Appeal Board affirmed the administrative judge's decision, stating that the judge had adequately examined the evidence and provided a satisfactory rationale for the ruling. The Board emphasized that security clearances are granted only when consistent with national security interests and that any doubts regarding personnel eligibility are resolved in favor of national security.
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. 23-02934

Oct 22, 2024· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) due to a history of marijuana use and purchase spanning from 2006 to January 2024. This included admitted use while holding a sensitive position and a positive drug test for marijuana in 2019.

The applicant's appeal was denied because he did not present new evidence and had previously waived his right to a hearing. Furthermore, he failed to respond to the Statement of Reasons (SOR).

The judges affirmed the original decision, concluding that the applicant's admitted drug involvement, particularly while in a sensitive role, and his failure to engage with the process, warranted the denial of his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)raisedDrug Involvement

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 26, 2024
Answer filed—Applicant requested decision based on written record.
Hearing held—Applicant waived hearing.
Decision dateOct 22, 2024Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Waiver of Hearing Rights Impacting Appeal Outcomes
Standard for National Security Eligibility Favoring National Security Interests

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 Department of Defense denied his security clearance based on allegations of drug involvement. The applicant admitted to the allegations but requested a decision based on the written record. The Appeal Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline H

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant alleged that the judge erred in denying his security clearance.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge examined the relevant evidence and provided a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which was sustainable on the record. The applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error in the Judge's decision.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperNo 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.