CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-01030 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-01030

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

Case Profile
Decision Date11/17/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-01030) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie, Jennifer I. Goldstein
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a woman in her late 20s, employed by a government contractor since 2018, who sought a security clearance after being initially granted eligibility in 2018. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse), alleging that she used marijuana from June 2020 until October 2024, including during her sensitive position, and intended to continue its use in the future.
The applicant admitted to her marijuana use during the specified period and acknowledged that it occurred while holding a sensitive position. She provided documentation of a medical marijuana license and claimed her employer was aware of her usage. However, she denied any future intent to use marijuana if it jeopardized her security clearance. Despite her claims of abstaining from marijuana since March 2025 and signing a letter of intent against future drug involvement, the administrative judge found that the extent of her marijuana use raised significant concerns regarding her reliability and judgment.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that the disqualifying conditions were applicable due to her admitted drug involvement. The judge acknowledged her attempts at mitigation but ultimately determined that her history of marijuana use left unresolved questions about her national security eligibility. The decision was affirmed on appeal, with the Board finding no evidence of bias or error in the judge's analysis.
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. 24-01030

Nov 17, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A woman in her late 20s was denied a security clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) due to her marijuana use while holding a sensitive position. The judge cited Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 25(a) and AG ¶ 25(c), noting the applicant admitted to using marijuana in a sensitive role and continued to do so despite warnings about its impact on her clearance eligibility.

Although the applicant had a medical marijuana license and ceased use in March 2025, the judge found her history of use raised significant concerns about her judgment and reliability. Mitigating Conditions AG ¶ 26(a) and AG ¶ 26(b) were considered but ultimately did not overcome the disqualifying factors.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, emphasizing that national security standards require a high degree of judgment and reliability, which the applicant's past conduct did not meet.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)rejectedBehavior Happened so Long Ago or Was InfrequentThe judge concluded that the applicant's marijuana use history was significant enough to raise concerns.
AG ¶ 26(b)rejectedAcknowledgment of Drug Involvement and Actions Taken to Overcome ItThe judge found that the applicant's actions did not sufficiently mitigate the concerns raised.

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 issuedOct 29, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 12, 2025
Decision dateNov 17, 2025

Cite For

Disqualifying Conditions Related to Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Importance of Judgment and Reliability in Security Clearance Decisions
Affirmation of Decisions Based on National Security Standards

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 the applicant's marijuana use while in a sensitive position. The applicant challenged the Judge's findings and alleged bias. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the analysis or conclusions reached.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPamela C. Benson — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline H

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge misinterpreted factual findings and overlooked favorable evidence.
Judge bias or partiality — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant alleged that the Judge was biased against her.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious. The Judge properly considered the applicant's marijuana use and its implications for national security eligibility.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
Jennifer 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.