CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-01005 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-01005

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

Case Profile
Decision Date4/11/2025
Statusunknown
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-01005) →
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 woman in her early 30s, married with three children, who sought a security clearance from the Department of Defense (DoD). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) cited concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The core allegations included her history of marijuana use, which began in her teenage years and escalated to daily use by 2018, as well as her employment at a marijuana dispensary from August 2020 to September 2021, where she received marijuana as part of her compensation.
The applicant admitted to the allegations in the SOR but asserted that she ceased using marijuana in January 2023 and had no plans to resume. She continued to associate with marijuana users, including her husband, for whom she purchased marijuana after her cessation. The administrative judge ruled against her on the Guideline H concerns, citing her lengthy history of marijuana use and ongoing associations with users as undermining her commitment to abstinence. However, upon appeal, the Board found errors in the judge's factual findings and concluded that the applicant's commitment to abstinence was credible, ultimately reversing the judge's decision. The Board noted that the applicant's circumstances and the evolving legal landscape regarding marijuana use were significant factors in their ruling.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · For Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · 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. 24-01005

Apr 11, 2025· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

This case involves a security clearance denial for a woman in her early 30s, initially based on Guideline H (Drug Involvement) due to marijuana use. The appeal board, however, reversed the judge's denial.

The board found the judge's conclusions to be arbitrary and capricious because they did not adequately consider the applicant's stated commitment to abstain from marijuana. Furthermore, the judge failed to account for the legal status of marijuana in the applicant's state of residence.

The mitigating conditions applied were AG ¶ 26(a) and AG ¶ 26(b). Ultimately, there was no denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)appliedBehavior Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 26(b)appliedAcknowledgment of Drug Involvement and Actions Taken to Overcome It

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 issuedJul 30, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 18, 2025
Decision dateApr 11, 2025Appeal decision

Cite For

Arbitrary and Capricious Standard in Security Clearance Decisions
Mitigation of Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Impact of State Marijuana Laws on Security Clearance Eligibility

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

Reversed

The appeal involved a denial of security clearance based on drug involvement and financial considerations. The Applicant challenged several factual findings and the Judge's mitigation analysis. The Board found merit in the Applicant's arguments and reversed the Judge's decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRoger C. Wesley — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline HGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantError sustained
The Judge's finding that Applicant did not provide a written statement of intent to avoid marijuana use in the future was incorrect.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantError sustained
The Judge's finding regarding Applicant's association with marijuana users was based on inaccurate information.
Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the applicantError sustained
The Judge incorrectly found that Applicant tested positive for marijuana in drug tests administered by her former employers.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious, failing to consider relevant factors and important aspects of the case, and offering explanations contrary to the record evidence.

Ignored material evidenceNo rational connection between facts and conclusion

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

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.