CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-00101 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-00101

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

Case Profile
Decision Date6/4/2025
Statusunknown
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie, Jennifer I. Goldstein
Government Counsel: Cassie L. Ford, Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a security clearance but faced allegations under multiple adjudicative guidelines, specifically Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined concerns stemming from three Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) arrests and multiple instances of marijuana use, including use while holding a security clearance. Additionally, the SOR alleged that the applicant had falsified information on five security clearance applications and during two personal interviews.
The administrative judge found that the applicant had a history of alcohol and drug-related incidents, including three DWI arrests between 2002 and 2020, and admitted to using marijuana on several occasions. However, the applicant claimed that he had ceased alcohol consumption since his last DWI in November 2020 and argued that his marijuana use was limited and experimental. The judge noted the applicant's participation in alcohol education programs and his assertions of abstinence, which he maintained throughout the hearing. The judge also found insufficient evidence to support the allegations of falsification, concluding that the applicant had mitigated the concerns under Guidelines G, H, and E.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled in favor of the applicant, granting him national security eligibility. The judge's decision was based on the applicant's demonstrated efforts to address his substance use issues, the time elapsed since his last incident, and the lack of credible evidence supporting the falsification claims. The government subsequently appealed the decision.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline GAlcohol Consumption · 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. 23-00101

Jun 4, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

This case involves a federal contractor whose security clearance was challenged under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), G (Alcohol Consumption), and H (Drug Involvement). The applicant faced issues due to multiple alcohol-related incidents, drug use, and the falsification of information on security clearance applications.

Initially, an administrative judge issued a favorable decision. However, the appeal board reversed this decision, citing significant credibility issues and insufficient evidence to support the applicant's claims of mitigation. The board found the administrative judge's credibility determination to be arbitrary and capricious, noting that the applicant's account of his alcohol and drug use was implausible and inconsistent with the record.

Ultimately, the applicant failed to adequately disclose his substance use history and falsified information on multiple security clearance applications. As a result, the appeal board found no basis to grant the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25raisedAlcohol Consumption
AG ¶ 26raisedDrug Involvement
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

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 issuedMar 9, 2023
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 24, 2025
Decision dateJun 4, 2025Appeal decision reversed the favorable ruling.

Cite For

Credibility Issues in Substance Use Cases Under Guideline G
Falsification of Information on Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
The Burden of Proof for Mitigation in Security Clearance 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

Reversed

The appeal involved a decision by an Administrative Judge granting the Applicant a security clearance despite multiple alcohol and drug-related incidents. The Government appealed, arguing that the Judge's findings were arbitrary and capricious. The Board reversed the decision, finding that the Judge erred in her credibility determinations and failed to adequately address the evidence against the Applicant.

Appealed bythe Government (Department Counsel)

Applicant representationPersonal representative

Judge belowStephanie C. Hess — granted the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline GGuideline HGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the Government (Department Counsel)Error sustained
The Judge's favorable credibility determination of Applicant was arbitrary and capricious.
Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the Government (Department Counsel)Error sustained
The Judge erred in adopting Applicant's narrative regarding his alcohol and drug history.
Credibility determination — raised by the Government (Department Counsel)Error sustained
The Judge failed to adequately address the inconsistencies in Applicant's statements.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's conclusions were not supported by substantial evidence and that her credibility determinations were arbitrary and capricious. The Judge failed to adequately consider the inconsistencies in Applicant's statements and the evidence presented by the Government.

Ignored material evidenceCredibility-deference error

On remand, the judge must

The Judge must reevaluate the evidence and provide a more thorough analysis of Applicant's credibility and the mitigating factors.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperArbitrary-and-capricious reviewSubstantial-evidence review

Appeal Board panel

Cassie Ford, Esq.
Andrea M. Corrales, Esq.

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.