CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-00256 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-00256

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

Case Profile
Decision Date1/16/2025
Statusunknown
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the hearing decision (Case 24-00256) →See the hearing decision (Case 24-00256) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a mid-20s individual who sought a security clearance from the Department of Defense (DoD). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) raised security concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse), alleging that the applicant had used and purchased marijuana from March 2018 to July 2023, used cocaine from April 2019 to September 2021, used ecstasy in July and August 2019, and used Adderall without a prescription from May to November 2018. The administrative judge found the applicant's marijuana use to be unmitigated while favorably considering the other three allegations.
The applicant admitted to the marijuana use and explained that he had only used it once in July 2023 after previously stopping in February 2022. He expressed his intention to abstain from future use. However, the judge concluded that the applicant had not submitted a signed statement of intent to abstain from drug use, which was deemed a critical factor in the decision. The judge also incorrectly determined that the applicant held a sensitive position at the time of the marijuana use, which influenced the application of disqualifying conditions.
The Appeal Board remanded the case, citing harmful errors in the judge's findings, particularly regarding the applicant's status as holding a sensitive position and the failure to consider the applicant's updated statement of intent. The Board indicated that these errors could significantly affect the outcome of the case and required the judge to issue a new decision upon remand.
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. 24-00256

Jan 16, 2025· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

This case involves a security clearance applicant in their mid-20s, residing in a state where recreational marijuana use is legal. The applicant was initially denied a security clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) due to their use of marijuana. The specific disqualifying condition raised was AG ¶ 25(f).

Upon appeal, the board identified errors in the judge's initial findings. These errors pertained to the applicant's employment status and the extent to which the judge considered the applicant's stated intent to abstain from future drug use. The mitigating condition AG ¶ 26(b) was applied during this review.

As a result of these identified errors, the case was remanded for further consideration. There was no final outcome determined at this stage of the proceedings.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(f)raisedIllegal Drug Use While Holding a Sensitive PositionThe judge found that the applicant's marijuana use occurred while he was employed in a sensitive position.

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(b)appliedAcknowledgment of Drug Involvement and Intent to AbstainThe applicant provided a signed statement of intent to abstain from drug involvement.

Key Rule Quoted

“An individual cannot hold a national security position, to include a sensitive position, until they are found eligible to do so.”
— ISCR Case No. 22-02623 at 4 and n.3 (App. Bd. Jan. 24, 2024)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 11, 2024
Answer filedMay 1, 2024
Hearing heldOct 16, 2024
Decision dateJan 16, 2025Decision remanded for further consideration.

Cite For

Remand Due to Failure to Consider Relevant Evidence
Impact of Employment Status on Drug Involvement Findings
Significance of Signed Statements of Intent in Mitigating 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

Remanded

The appeal involved a denial of security clearance based on drug involvement. The Applicant challenged the Administrative Judge's findings regarding his marijuana use and the classification of his employment. The Board found harmful errors in the Judge's analysis and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert Robinson Gales — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline H

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantError sustained
The Judge failed to consider the Applicant's updated Statement of Intent to abstain from drug use.
Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the applicantError sustained
The Judge erroneously found that the Applicant held a sensitive position at the time of his marijuana use.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge failed to consider relevant evidence regarding the Applicant's intent to abstain from drug use and erroneously concluded that the Applicant held a sensitive position at the time of his marijuana use, which warranted remand for correction of these errors.

Ignored material evidenceMisapplied mitigation

On remand, the judge must

The Judge must correct the identified errors and issue a new decision consistent with the Directive.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural compliance

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
James B. Norman
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.