Loading case…

ISCR 23-00367: Guideline F security clearance appeal, denied (2025) · CASE

ISCR Case 23-00367denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 23-00367

deniedMay 13, 2025· Hon. Catherine M. Engstrom· appeal

Summary

This security clearance application was denied due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The applicant, a man in his early 40s, admitted to using hallucinogenic mushrooms and marijuana, and indicated an intent to continue this drug use.

Additionally, the applicant acknowledged a significant delinquent debt of approximately $25,000. Despite having available funds, he made no effort to resolve this debt. These issues raised disqualifying conditions under both guidelines.

The judge found substantial doubt regarding the applicant's national security eligibility, supported by the record and precedent. Consequently, the appeal was denied, and the security clearance was not granted.

Why the applicant was denied

The applicant admitted to using hallucinogenic mushrooms and marijuana, indicating an intention to continue such use.
The applicant acknowledged a significant delinquent debt of approximately $25,000 and made no effort to resolve it despite having available funds.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25raisedDrug Involvement
AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key rule quoted

“A trustworthiness determination will be granted only when "clearly consistent with the national security interests of the United States."”
Kaplan v. Conyers, 733 F.3d 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2013)

Procedural posture

SOR issuedJun 30, 2023
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateMay 13, 2025Appeal affirmed.

Cite for

Substantial Doubt Regarding National Security Eligibility Due to Drug Involvement
Financial Irresponsibility Impacting Trustworthiness
Burden of Proof on the Applicant to Demonstrate Error on Appeal

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Full decision

The complete, official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

APPEARANCES

_______________________________________ ) In the matter of: ) ) ) ----- ) ADP Case No. 23-00367 ) ) Applicant for Public Trust Position ) _______________________________________) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS APPEAL BOARD POST OFFICE BOX 3656 ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22203 (703) 696-4759 Date: May 13, 2025

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT Andrea M. Corrales, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a trustworthiness designation. On June 30, 2023, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) in Appendix A of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective June 8, 2017) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). On January 10, 2025, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge David M. White denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.

DISCUSSION

Applicant is in his early 40s. Under Guideline H, the SOR alleged, and Applicant admitted, that he used hallucinogenic mushrooms from 2008 to at least June 2020, that he had used marijuana since October 2020, and that he intended to continue to use both drugs in the future. The Judge found that Applicant uses marijuana on a weekly basis and intends to continue such use in the

future because it helps him relax and sleep. Applicant acknowledged his understanding that, despite recreational marijuana’s legality under his residential state law, it remains illegal under federal law. Regarding his hallucinogenic mushroom use, Applicant submitted a statement of intent declaring that he would stop using hallucinogens in the United States but intended to use them during future overseas trips. Under Guideline F, the SOR alleged one delinquent lease account, placed for collection for about $25,000. Applicant acknowledged that he cosigned the lease with a friend and that they both stopped paying the rent after the friend relocated in 2019, but he denied the allegation on the basis that the debt might be charged off. He has decided to make no effort to resolve the debt, despite having funds available after his monthly expenses are paid. Based on the foregoing, the Judge found that the evidence creates substantial doubt about Applicant’s national security eligibility and held adversely on all allegations. There is no presumption of error below and the appealing party has the burden of raising claims of error with specificity. Directive ¶ E3.1.30. Applicant makes no assertion of error on appeal. Instead, he reiterates his intentions against using hallucinogens while holding national security eligibility and highlights that he is not a drug abuser. He also reiterates that he is not liable for the alleged debt because it has been charged off. None of Applicant’s arguments are persuasive. The Judge’s findings of fact are amply supported by the record, and his conclusions are well-rooted in Appeal Board precedent and are sustainable. Applicant also provides new evidence in the form of updates regarding his use of marijuana, which the Appeal Board is prohibited from considering on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29.

CONCLUSION

Applicant has not established that the Judge committed any error. Based on our review of the record, we conclude the Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. A trustworthiness determination will be granted only when “clearly consistent with the national security interests of the United States.” AG ¶ 1(d). See also Kaplan v. Conyers, 733 F.3d 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Dept. of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)); ADP Case No. 17-03252 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 13, 2018). “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” AG ¶ 2(b).

ORDER

The decision in ADP Case No. 23-00367 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Catherine M. Engstrom Catherine M. Engstrom Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board