CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-01023 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-01023

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

Case Profile
Decision Date9/12/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-01023) →
Participants
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie, Jennifer I. Goldstein
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant, a civilian engineer in his early 30s with two bachelor's degrees in applied physics and mechanical engineering, sought a security clearance after previously holding a Secret clearance. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons citing concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The allegations included the applicant's marijuana use during 2020 and 2021 while holding a security clearance and his failure to disclose this use on his 2023 security clearance application.
The applicant admitted to using marijuana during the specified period and acknowledged that he intentionally failed to disclose this information on his 2023 application due to a lapse in judgment. He argued that he had not used marijuana since 2021 and expressed understanding of the seriousness of his actions. However, the administrative judge found that the applicant's pattern of omissions, including previous misrepresentations on his 2019 application, undermined his credibility and trustworthiness.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, affirming the concerns raised under Guideline E due to the intentional falsification of his security clearance applications. The judge noted that the applicant's admissions and the pattern of misleading disclosures did not sufficiently mitigate the security concerns, leading to the conclusion that granting the clearance was not consistent with national security interests. The decision was subsequently affirmed by the Appeal Board.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- 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. ISCR Case No. 24-01023

Sep 12, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A civilian engineer in his early 30s was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The applicant admitted to using marijuana while already holding a security clearance and failed to disclose this on his security clearance application. These actions raised disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 15 and AG ¶ 26.

While mitigating conditions AG ¶ 26(a) and AG ¶ 26(b) were considered, the applicant's explanations for his omissions were deemed insufficient. The appeal board found that his pattern of omissions and intentional falsification of security clearance applications created significant doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Ultimately, the appeal board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant's conduct, particularly the intentional falsification of his application, was not adequately mitigated. The security clearance was therefore denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 15appliedFailure to Provide Truthful Information
AG ¶ 26raisedDrug Involvement

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)appliedBehavior Occurred Long Ago
AG ¶ 26(b)appliedAcknowledgment of Drug Involvement

Key Rule Quoted

“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
— Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 26, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 31, 2025
Decision dateSep 12, 2025Appeal decision

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Intentional Falsification of Security Clearance Application
Impact of Drug Involvement on Security Clearance Eligibility
Importance of Full Disclosure in Security Clearance Applications

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 and personal conduct. The applicant argued that the judge erred in analyzing the evidence related to his conduct. The Board affirmed the judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the analysis.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowMark Harvey — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline HGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge erred in his analyses under Guideline E and the Whole-Person Concept.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the adverse decision, which was not arbitrary or capricious.

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
Jennifer I. Goldstein
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.