A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 23-02872
Appeal BoardDecided May 16, 2025 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial under Guidelines H, E, and J due to marijuana use and failure to disclose this on applications, along with multiple traffic violations. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not raise any claims of error, affirming the original decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant failed to disclose marijuana use on security applications.
- The applicant had numerous traffic violations, including driving without a license and failing to appear in court.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 25 Criminal Conductraised
- AG ¶ 14 Personal Conductraised
- AG ¶ 24 Drug Involvementraised
Key rule quoted
“There is no presumption of error below and the appealing party has the burden of raising claims of error with specificity.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2024-01-24
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2025-03-14
- Decision date
- 2025-05-16
Cite for
- Failure to Disclose Drug Use Under Guideline E
- Impact of Traffic Violations on Security Clearance Under Guideline J
- Burden of Proof on Appeal Regarding Claims of Error
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
The appeal involved a denial of security clearance for the Applicant based on drug involvement, personal conduct, and criminal conduct. The Applicant did not assert any errors in the Judge's decision but requested reconsideration. The Board affirmed the decision as no harmful error was alleged.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Appearances
_______________________________________ ) In the matter of: )
)
)
----- )
ISCR Case No. 23-02872
)
) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________)
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 16, 2025
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 security clearance. On January 24, 2024, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) 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 March 14, 2025, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Charles C. Hale denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Discussion
Under Guideline H, the SOR alleged that Applicant used marijuana from 2015 to about November 2022, and further alleged under Guideline E that he deliberately failed to disclose his marijuana use on his 2017 and 2023 security clearance applications (SCA). Additionally, under Guideline E and Guideline J, the SOR alleged that Applicant had amassed over a dozen charges
and citations for a variety of traffic violations between 2015 and mid-2023, including for having expired tags, speeding, failing to display license plates, failing to have vehicle inspected, driving without a license, and related failures to appear. The Judge found in Applicant’s favor regarding the alleged falsification of his 2023 SCA and adversely regarding all other 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. On appeal, Applicant makes no assertion of error on the part of the Judge, but rather requests reconsideration and the opportunity to continue on his career path. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and our authority to review a case is limited to matters in which the appealing party has raised a claim of harmful error. Applicant has not alleged any such error, and the adverse impact of an unfavorable eligibility determination on an applicant’s career is not relevant in evaluating his security suitability. See DISCR OSD Case No. 91-0322, 1993 WL 99569 at *3 (App. Bd. Mar. 9, 1993). Accordingly, the Judge’s decision is affirmed.
Order
The decision in ISCR Case No. 23-02872 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Jennifer I. Goldstein Jennifer I. Goldstein Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board