CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-01001 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-01001

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

Case Profile
Decision Date4/22/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-01001) →
Participants
Judge: James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a mid-40s electromechanical engineer employed by a defense contractor since September 2023. The Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) due to the applicant's history of marijuana use from 2005 until February 2024. The SOR alleged that the applicant had used and purchased marijuana during this period, which he admitted, while asserting that he had ceased all use and intended to abstain in the future.
The administrative judge found that the applicant's admissions regarding his marijuana use triggered disqualifying conditions. Although the applicant had abstained from marijuana for about a year and submitted a signed Statement of Intent to avoid future drug involvement, the judge concluded that the extent of the applicant's drug history raised significant questions about his judgment and reliability. The judge ruled against the applicant, stating that his continued use of marijuana after being aware of its inconsistency with holding a security clearance demonstrated a disregard for national security standards. The appeal board affirmed the judge's decision, noting that the applicant had not established any legal or factual errors in the ruling.
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. 24-01001

Apr 22, 2025· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

An electromechanical engineer in his mid-40s, employed by a defense contractor, was denied a security clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The denial stemmed from his admitted extensive marijuana use, which spanned from 2005 until February 2024. Disqualifying conditions included AG ¶ 25(a) and AG ¶ 25(c), reflecting concerns about his judgment and reliability due to this prolonged drug involvement.

Despite the applicant's assertions of intent to abstain from further use, the judge found his history problematic. Notably, he continued using marijuana for four months after submitting his security clearance application, even though he was aware that such use was inconsistent with holding a clearance.

While mitigating conditions AG ¶ 26(a) and AG ¶ 26(b) were considered, they were insufficient to overcome the judge's concerns. The judge concluded that the applicant's drug involvement history left unresolved questions regarding his eligibility for national security access, and the denial was subsequently upheld on appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)appliedSubstance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(c)appliedIllegal Possession of a Controlled Substance

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)rejectedBehavior Unlikely to RecurThe judge concluded that the extent of the applicant's marijuana use history raised doubts about his reliability.
AG ¶ 26(b)rejectedAcknowledgment and Evidence of RehabilitationThe judge found that the applicant's post-SCA conduct demonstrated a disregard for national security standards.

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 dateApr 22, 2025Decision affirmed on appeal.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Impact of Continued Drug Use on National Security Eligibility
Judicial Emphasis on Judgment and Reliability in Security Clearance Cases

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 based on drug involvement under Guideline H. The Applicant argued that the Judge erred in applying mitigating conditions and the Whole-Person Concept. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's conclusions.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowRichard A. Cefola — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline H

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge erred by not properly applying the mitigating conditions and Whole-Person Concept.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's conclusions were not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, and the record supported the Judge's findings and conclusions.

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

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.