CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-01307 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-01307

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

Case Profile
Decision Date7/17/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-01307) →
Participants
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie, Jennifer I. Goldstein
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a late-20s information technology site lead who sought a security clearance after previously obtaining public trust eligibility. The Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse), alleging that the applicant used marijuana from March 2021 to April 2024, including during a period when he held a sensitive position. The applicant admitted to using marijuana but claimed it was for medical purposes, supported by a state-issued medical marijuana card.
The administrative judge found that the applicant's marijuana use raised significant concerns regarding his judgment and reliability, particularly since he admitted to using the substance while in a position of trust. Although the applicant argued that his use was legal under state law and that he intended to abstain from future use, the judge determined that the applicant had not established a sufficient pattern of abstinence, as he had only been abstinent for less than a year at the time of the hearing. The judge ruled against the applicant, affirming that the evidence supported the denial of national security eligibility, emphasizing that any doubt regarding personnel considered for such eligibility must be resolved in favor of national security. The decision was subsequently affirmed by the Appeal Board.
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. 24-01307

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

Summary

An information technology site lead in their late twenties was denied a security clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The denial stemmed from the applicant's admitted marijuana use between March 2021 and April 2024, which continued even after the applicant had been granted public trust eligibility.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, citing disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 25(a) and AG ¶ 25(c). While mitigating condition AG ¶ 26(b) was considered, it did not overcome the security concerns. The judge found that the applicant's marijuana use, particularly after receiving public trust eligibility, raised significant questions about their judgment and reliability.

The applicant's argument that they did not possess a security clearance during the period of marijuana use was deemed immaterial to the decision. Ultimately, the board concluded that the admitted drug involvement presented an unacceptable risk to national security eligibility.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(b)rejectedAcknowledgment of Drug Involvement and Actions Taken to Overcome the ProblemThe applicant did not establish a sufficient pattern of abstinence from marijuana use.

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 the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 13, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 6, 2025
Decision dateJul 17, 2025

Cite For

Adverse Findings Based on Marijuana Use Under Guideline H
Implications of Drug Use on National Security Eligibility
Consideration of Applicant's Admission of Drug Use in Security Clearance Decisions

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's decision was arbitrary and unsupported by evidence. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the analysis of the Applicant's marijuana use and its implications for national security eligibility.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowMark Harvey — 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 contends that the Judge’s adverse determination was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law and unsupported by the record evidence.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge’s conclusions regarding Applicant’s marijuana use from 2021 to 2024 are sustainable and sufficient to support denial of his national security eligibility. Applicant failed to establish the Judge committed any harmful error.

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
Jennifer I. Goldstein

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.