A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 24-01400
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 12, 2025 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a security clearance but was denied due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), while some issues under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) were found favorably. The applicant admitted to all allegations, including drug use and falsification of information, and did not raise any claims of error on appeal. The appeal was affirmed, emphasizing the lack of error claims and the serious nature of the criminal conduct.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant admitted to all allegations, including drug use and falsification of information.
- The judge found adverse issues under Guideline J related to criminal conduct and falsification.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 16 Criminal Conductraised
- AG ¶ 15 Personal Conductraised
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 20 Drug Involvementapplied
Key rule quoted
“There is no presumption of error below and the appealing party has the burden of raising claims of error with specificity.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2024-08-30
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested decision based on written record.
- Hearing held
- No hearing; decision based on written record.
- Decision date
- 2025-08-12 Appeal affirmed.
Cite for
- Adverse Findings Under Guideline J for Criminal Conduct
- Applicant's Admission of Allegations as a Critical Factor
- Burden of Proof on the Appealing Party Regarding Claims of Error
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
The appeal involved an Applicant who was denied a security clearance based on concerns under multiple guidelines, including personal conduct and criminal conduct. The Applicant did not assert any specific harmful errors in the appeal, leading the Board to affirm the Administrative Judge's decision.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Appearances
_______________________________________ ) In the matter of: )
)
)
-------------------- )
ISCR Case No. 24-01400
)
) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS APPEAL BOARD POST OFFICE BOX 3656 ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22203 (703) 696-4759 Date: August 12, 2025
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT Andrea M. Corrales, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On August 30, 2024, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), and Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) in Appendix A of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective June 8, 2017) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). On June 17, 2025, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Discussion
Under Guideline J, the SOR alleged that Applicant was cited or charged on approximately 15 occasions for various drug, alcohol, property, driving, and obstruction offenses between 2005 and 2014. The SOR cross-alleged the drug offenses under Guideline H and further alleged that Applicant used methamphetamine from about 2006 to 2014. Finally, the SOR alleged that
Applicant falsified certain information about her criminal and drug use histories during her current national security eligibility determination, including in her May 2023 security clearance application and August 2024 interrogatory response. In response to the SOR, Applicant admitted all allegations without further explanation and requested that her case be decided based on the written record. She received a complete copy of the Government’s File of Relevant Material on January 31, 2025, and was notified of her ability to respond with any objections or additional information for the Judge to consider. Applicant did not respond to the FORM. The Judge found favorably regarding the Guideline H concerns and drug-related falsifications alleged under Guideline E, and adversely regarding the Guideline J concerns and the related falsification allegations. There is no presumption of error below and the appealing party has the burden of raising claims of error with specificity. Directive ¶ E3.1.30. On appeal, Applicant makes no assertion of error on the part of the Judge, but rather requests reconsideration and the opportunity to continue in her job. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and our authority to review a case is limited to matters in which the appealing party has raised a claim of harmful error. Applicant has not alleged any such error, and the adverse impact of an unfavorable eligibility determination on an applicant’s employment is not relevant in evaluating her security suitability. See DISCR OSD Case No. 91-0322, 1993 WL 99569 at *3 (App. Bd. Mar. 9, 1993). Accordingly, the Judge’s decision is affirmed.
Order
The decision in ISCR Case No. 24-01400 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Jennifer I. Goldstein Jennifer I. Goldstein Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board