CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-01403 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 23-01403

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/28/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 23-01403) →
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-twenties individual who previously held a Secret security clearance while working for the U.S. military. He applied for a Top Secret clearance in January 2023 after being hired by a federal contractor. The Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse), alleging that the applicant used marijuana while holding a security clearance and expressed an intent to continue using it in the future.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to using marijuana edibles approximately four times between March and October 2022 and acknowledged his intent to continue using them in a legal context. He later expressed regret for his past use and stated he had not used marijuana since October 2022, but he declined to answer questions regarding any potential use after that date. The administrative judge found that the applicant's refusal to answer questions about recent drug use raised doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness, which ultimately influenced her decision.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, denying his national security eligibility. She determined that the applicant's refusal to answer questions about his drug use undermined his claims of having moved past his substance misuse. Although she recognized some mitigating factors, such as his acknowledgment of past drug use and intent to abstain, the judge concluded that the applicant's lack of full disclosure and the potential for future drug use were significant concerns that could not be overlooked.
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. 23-01403

Aug 28, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

An applicant in their mid-twenties, previously holding a Secret security clearance, was denied a Top Secret clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The denial stemmed from the applicant's admitted marijuana use while already possessing a security clearance, coupled with an expressed intent to continue this use.

During the review process, the applicant declined to answer questions regarding recent drug use. This refusal raised significant concerns about their reliability and trustworthiness, contributing to the final decision.

Ultimately, the appeal was denied, affirming the initial decision to withhold the Top Secret clearance. Disqualifying condition AG ¶ 25(a) was raised, while mitigating condition AG ¶ 26(b) was applied but did not overcome the security concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)raisedDrug Involvement

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(b)appliedAcknowledgment of Drug InvolvementThe applicant acknowledged his illegal drug use and signed a statement of intent to abstain, but this was given less weight due to his refusal to answer questions about recent use.

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 issuedAug 15, 2023
Answer filedNov 1, 2023
Hearing heldApr 17, 2025
Decision dateAug 28, 2025Decision affirmed on appeal.

Cite For

Denial of Clearance Due to Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Impact of Refusal to Answer Questions on Credibility
Weight of Mitigating Conditions in Light of Ongoing Drug Use Concerns

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 his Fifth Amendment rights were violated when he refused to answer questions about recent drug use. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowErin C. Hogan — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline H

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge violated his rights under the Fifth Amendment.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious. The Judge properly considered the Applicant's refusal to answer questions regarding recent drug use, which raised doubts about his trustworthiness.

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
Jennifer I. 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.