CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-00914 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-00914

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

Case Profile
Decision Date4/9/2025
Statusunknown
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the hearing decision (Case 24-00914) →See the hearing decision (Case 24-00914) →
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 federal contractor in his late 20s who sought a security clearance but was denied due to concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined allegations of the applicant's extensive history of drug use, including recreational marijuana use from 2016 to July 2023, as well as the use of psilocybin mushrooms, LSD, cocaine, and unprescribed Adderall during various periods. The applicant admitted to these allegations but provided explanations regarding his drug use and asserted that he had ceased all illegal drug use.
The administrative judge found that the applicant's drug use history raised significant security concerns and did not apply any mitigating conditions, citing a lack of sustained abstinence from drug use. The judge characterized the applicant's behavior as longstanding illegal drug use and failed to distinguish between the different types of drugs used, which impaired the analysis of the applicant's overall situation. On appeal, the Board determined that the judge did not adequately consider the mitigating factors or the Whole-Person Concept, which requires a comprehensive evaluation of an applicant's life circumstances. Consequently, the Board remanded the case for further consideration, emphasizing the need for a more nuanced analysis of the applicant's drug use history and its implications for national security eligibility.
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. 24-00914

Apr 9, 2025· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

A federal contractor in their late twenties faced a security clearance denial under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) due to a history of drug use. The applicant admitted to using marijuana, psilocybin mushrooms, cocaine, and unprescribed Adderall. Disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 25(a) and AG ¶ 25(c) were raised based on this history.

However, the appeal board found that the judge failed to properly apply mitigating conditions AG ¶ 26(a) and AG ¶ 26(b). Specifically, the judge did not conduct a distinct analysis of the applicant's marijuana use compared to other illegal drugs and overlooked relevant mitigating circumstances.

Consequently, the case was remanded for further consideration. The appeal board instructed the judge to re-evaluate the applicant's specific circumstances and any actions taken to mitigate the drug involvement concerns, ensuring a proper application of all relevant mitigating conditions. No final outcome on the clearance decision has been reached.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)raisedAny Substance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(c)raisedIllegal Possession of a Controlled Substance

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)rejectedInvolvement Happened so Long Ago or InfrequentlyThe judge did not distinguish between the applicant's marijuana use and other illegal drug use.
AG ¶ 26(b)rejectedAcknowledges Drug Involvement and Provides Evidence of Actions Taken to Overcome the ProblemThe judge failed to analyze the applicant's mitigating evidence.

Key Rule Quoted

“A judge’s decision can be arbitrary or capricious if: it does not examine relevant evidence; it fails to articulate a satisfactory explanation for its conclusions, including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made; it does not consider relevant factors; it reflects a clear error of judgment; it fails to consider an important aspect of the case; it offers an explanation for the decision that runs contrary to the record evidence; or it is so implausible that it cannot be ascribed to a mere difference of opinion.”
— Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 12, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateApr 9, 2025Appeal decision remanding the case.

Cite For

Failure to Apply Mitigating Conditions Under Guideline H
Importance of Distinguishing Between Types of Drug Use in Security Clearance Cases
Whole-person Concept in Evaluating Drug Involvement and Mitigating Circumstances

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 under Guideline H. The Applicant argued that the Judge failed to apply mitigating conditions and the Whole-Person Concept. The Board found merit in the appeal and remanded the case for further consideration.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRoger C. Wesley — denied the clearance

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 properly apply the Guideline H mitigating conditions and the Whole-Person Concept.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantError sustained
The Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious as it failed to examine relevant evidence and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its conclusions.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious, failing to examine relevant evidence and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its conclusions. The Board found that the errors could be corrected on remand, allowing for a significant chance of reaching a different result.

Ignored material evidenceNo rational connection between facts and conclusion

On remand, the judge must

The Judge must address the errors identified and determine if Applicant has sufficiently mitigated the Government’s concerns.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural compliance

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
Allison Marie
James B. Norman

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.