CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-00913 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-00913

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

Case Profile
Decision Date6/9/2025
Statusunknown
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the hearing decision (Case 24-00913) →See the hearing decision (Case 24-00913) →
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-20s individual employed by a government contractor, seeking a security clearance. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons citing security concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The core allegations included the applicant's use of marijuana, psychedelic mushrooms, and cocaine, including instances of use while holding a security clearance, as well as intentional omissions of this drug use on two security clearance applications.
The administrative judge found that the applicant had used marijuana four times, psychedelic mushrooms once, and cocaine once, all while under the influence of alcohol. The applicant admitted to the drug use but denied the intentionality of his omissions on the security clearance applications, claiming he disclosed his drug history to an investigator in 2023 out of guilt. The judge ruled against the applicant on the Guideline E allegations, citing the intentional failure to disclose drug use, while finding in favor of the applicant on the Guideline H and J allegations. However, the decision was later remanded due to multiple factual errors and miscalculations in the judge's analysis, which undermined the presumption of a fair adjudication. The appeal board ordered a new decision to be issued after correcting these errors.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against 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. 24-00913

Jun 9, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

This case involves a mid-20s government contractor employee facing security clearance allegations under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline H (Drug Involvement), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant was specifically accused of failing to disclose drug use on security clearance applications, as well as general drug involvement and criminal conduct.

The judge initially found against the applicant on the Guideline E allegations concerning the failure to disclose drug use. However, the appeal board remanded the case for reconsideration. This decision was based on errors made by the judge regarding the applicant's drug use disclosures, highlighting the necessity for an accurate assessment of these disclosures and the potential impact of factual errors on the case's outcome.

Disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 15 were raised, while mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 17(a) and AG ¶ 17(e) were applied. As of the appeal board's decision, no final outcome has been reached, as the case was returned for further review.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal ConductThe applicant's failure to disclose drug use on security clearance applications raised security concerns.

Mitigating

AG ¶ 17(a)rejectedPrompt DisclosureThe judge failed to apply this mitigating condition due to factual errors.
AG ¶ 17(e)rejectedPositive Steps to Reduce VulnerabilityThe judge did not consider the applicant's circumstances under the Whole-Person Concept.

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 issuedSep 17, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateJun 9, 2025Decision was appealed.

Cite For

Remand for Reconsideration of Errors in Assessing Drug Use Disclosures Under Guideline E
Impact of Factual Errors on Security Clearance Decisions
Application of the Whole-person Concept in Adjudications.

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 allegations under Guidelines H, E, and J. The Applicant challenged the Judge's findings and the application of mitigating conditions. The Board identified harmful errors in the Judge's decision and remanded the case for further consideration.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowRoger C. Wesley — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline HGuideline EGuideline J

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantError sustained
The Judge made multiple incorrect or contradictory findings regarding the Applicant's background and analysis.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantError sustained
The Judge failed to apply mitigating conditions and consider the Whole-Person Concept.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found multiple factual errors in the Judge's decision that undermined the presumption of a fair adjudication. The errors impacted the analysis of the Applicant's eligibility for a security clearance.

Ignored material evidenceNo rational connection between facts and conclusion

On remand, the judge must

The Judge must address the identified errors and determine if the Applicant has sufficiently mitigated the Government's concerns under Guideline E.

Standard of review applied

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

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.