CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-01865 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 22-01865

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

Case Profile
Decision Date6/17/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 22-01865) →
Participants
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie, Jennifer I. Goldstein
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a mid-40s independent contractor for a defense contractor, who sought a security clearance but was denied due to concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined allegations of the applicant's extensive history of marijuana use, including cultivation, from 1993 until March 2022. The applicant admitted to the drug use but provided explanations regarding his circumstances and the legality of his actions in his state.
The administrative judge found that the applicant had a long history of marijuana use, which included periods of abstinence and medical use related to health issues. The applicant claimed he was unaware that his medical marijuana use could disqualify him from obtaining a security clearance and took steps to cease use after receiving the SOR. Despite his assertions of compliance with state laws and mitigating factors, the judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that the overall pattern of drug use raised significant security concerns that were not sufficiently mitigated by his subsequent actions or explanations. The judge's decision emphasized the need for a comprehensive assessment of the applicant's behavior in relation to national security eligibility.
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. 22-01865

Jun 17, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A mid-40s independent contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) due to extensive marijuana use and cultivation. The applicant admitted to using marijuana from 1993 until March 2022, a history the judge found to raise significant unmitigated security concerns.

The applicant's arguments for mitigating factors were deemed insufficient to overcome the disqualifying conditions. The appeal board upheld the denial, affirming the judge's comprehensive analysis of the applicant's drug involvement.

Ultimately, the security clearance was denied.

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 issuedNov 18, 2022
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 21, 2025
Decision dateJun 17, 2025Decision affirmed on appeal.

Cite For

Affirmation of Extensive Drug Use as a Disqualifying Factor Under Guideline H
Insufficient Mitigating Factors in Drug Involvement Cases
Application of the Whole-person Concept in Adjudications Involving Drug Use

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 under Guideline H. The Applicant argued that the Judge failed to apply mitigating conditions and the Whole-Person Concept. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowGatha LaFaye — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline H

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge failed to properly apply the Guideline H mitigating conditions and the Whole-Person Concept.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge's adverse finding regarding marijuana use was arbitrary and capricious.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge's discussion of prescription opioid use was arbitrary and capricious.

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 was sustainable on the record. The Judge's findings were not arbitrary or capricious, and the adverse decision was consistent with national security interests.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
Allison Marie
Jennifer Goldstein

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.