CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02891 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02891

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

Case Profile
Decision Date5/21/2025
Statusgranted
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 23-02891) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie, Jennifer I. Goldstein
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales, Brittany C. M. White
Case Summary
Applicant, a man in his early 40s, sought a security clearance from the Department of Defense (DoD) but faced allegations under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse), Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) in the Statement of Reasons (SOR) issued on February 16, 2024. The SOR detailed a history of illegal drug use, including methamphetamine and opioids, as well as a significant criminal record that included multiple arrests and convictions for various offenses, including burglary and assault.
During the proceedings, Applicant admitted to a troubled past marked by drug use and criminal behavior but asserted that he had turned his life around since 2016. He provided evidence of rehabilitation, including completing his education, maintaining steady employment as a software engineer, and engaging in community service. The administrative judge acknowledged the disqualifying nature of Applicant's past conduct but found that the mitigating factors, particularly his demonstrated rehabilitation and positive changes in his life, outweighed the security concerns.
The administrative judge ultimately ruled in favor of Applicant, granting him national security eligibility. The judge's decision emphasized the Whole-Person Concept, which considers the applicant's entire life circumstances, and concluded that Applicant's significant efforts at rehabilitation and the time elapsed since his last drug use and criminal activity were sufficient to mitigate the concerns raised by the government. The appeal by the government was subsequently affirmed, as the judge's findings were deemed reasonable and supported by the evidence presented.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · For Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · For Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · For 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. 23-02891

May 21, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

This case involved an applicant, a man in his early 40s, whose security clearance was initially questioned under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), H (Drug Involvement), and J (Criminal Conduct). Disqualifying conditions were raised due to a history of drug involvement and criminal conduct, including multiple arrests and convictions.

However, the Appeal Board ultimately granted the clearance, citing significant mitigating factors. The applicant demonstrated substantial rehabilitation and positive life changes since 2012. This included successfully completing probation, engaging in therapy, and pursuing education and community involvement.

The Board found that the favorable evidence of the applicant's rehabilitation and personal development outweighed the unfavorable evidence of his past conduct, indicating a sustained commitment to personal growth. Mitigating conditions applied under AG ¶ 17(c), (d), (e), (g), AG ¶ 26(a), (b), and AG ¶ 32(a), (d) supported the decision to grant the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(c)raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 24raisedDrug Involvement
AG ¶ 30raisedPersonal Conduct

Mitigating

AG ¶ 17(c)appliedTime Elapsed Since Conduct
AG ¶ 17(d)appliedParticipation in Counseling
AG ¶ 17(e)appliedPositive Changes in Life
AG ¶ 17(g)appliedDisassociation From Criminal Contacts
AG ¶ 26(a)appliedBehavior Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 26(b)appliedAcknowledgment of Drug Involvement
AG ¶ 32(a)appliedTime Elapsed Since Criminal Behavior
AG ¶ 32(d)appliedEvidence of Successful Rehabilitation

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility determinations be made through a careful weighing of multiple variables of an applicant’s life using all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable.”
— Directive ¶ 6.3; AG ¶¶ 2(a), 2(d)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 16, 2024
Answer filednull
Hearing heldnull
Decision dateMay 21, 2025

Cite For

Application of the Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Cases
Mitigation of Drug Involvement and Criminal Conduct Through Evidence of Rehabilitation
Importance of Personal Development and Community Involvement in Security Clearance Determinations.

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 security clearance denial based on concerns under Guidelines H, J, and E. The Administrative Judge granted the clearance, finding sufficient mitigation through the Whole-Person Concept. The Government appealed, arguing the Judge's analysis was flawed. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the analysis or conclusions reached.

Appealed bythe Government (Department Counsel)

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowWilford H. Ross — granted the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline HGuideline JGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the Government (Department Counsel)Rejected
The Government argued that the Judge's application of the mitigating conditions and analysis under the Whole-Person Concept were arbitrary and not supported by the record.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the application of mitigating conditions was not arbitrary or capricious.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Brittany M. White, 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.