CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02872 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02872

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

Case Profile
Decision Date5/16/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 23-02872) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie, Jennifer I. Goldstein
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a security clearance but was denied by the Department of Defense (DoD) due to concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated that the applicant had used marijuana from 2015 until approximately November 2022 and had failed to disclose this use on his security clearance applications in 2017 and 2023. Additionally, the applicant faced over a dozen traffic-related charges and citations from 2015 to mid-2023.
During the proceedings, the administrative judge found in favor of the applicant regarding the alleged falsification of the 2023 security clearance application but ruled adversely on all other allegations. The applicant did not assert any specific errors made by the judge during the appeal but requested reconsideration and the opportunity to continue his career. The Appeal Board noted that it does not review cases de novo and that the applicant's failure to raise claims of harmful error limited their review. Consequently, the judge's decision to deny the applicant national security eligibility was affirmed.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · Against Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · 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. 23-02872

May 16, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

The applicant was denied a security clearance under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), H (Drug Involvement), and J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from the applicant's undisclosed marijuana use on security applications and a history of multiple traffic violations.

Specifically, the applicant failed to report his marijuana use on official forms. Additionally, his record included numerous traffic infractions, such as driving without a license and failing to appear in court for these violations. These issues triggered disqualifying conditions under the cited guidelines.

Representing himself, the applicant appealed the decision. However, the appeal was denied because he did not present any claims of error regarding the initial determination. Consequently, the original decision to deny the security clearance was affirmed.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 14raisedPersonal Conduct
AG ¶ 24raisedDrug Involvement

Key Rule Quoted

“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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 24, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 14, 2025
Decision dateMay 16, 2025

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· Full written decision

Affirmed

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCharles C. Hale — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline HGuideline EGuideline J

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant made no assertion of error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision as Applicant did not raise any claims of harmful error, and the adverse impact of the decision on his career was not relevant to the security suitability evaluation.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealBurden of persuasion

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
Jennifer I. Goldstein
Allison Marie

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.