CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-01543 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-01543

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/27/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-01543) →
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 sought a security clearance from the Department of Defense (DoD) but was denied due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined allegations including the applicant's failure to file income tax returns for three years, significant unpaid tax obligations, and a history of drug use, including marijuana and other controlled substances.
The applicant denied the financial allegations but admitted to the drug-related claims, including past charges for possession of drug paraphernalia and other controlled substances. He acknowledged his failure to appear in court for one of the charges but contended that his credit rating was improving and that he intended to abstain from illegal substances in the future. However, the administrative judge found all allegations against the applicant to be substantiated and ruled adversely, stating that the applicant's history raised significant concerns regarding his judgment and reliability.
On appeal, the applicant did not challenge the judge's findings or assert any specific errors in the decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the administrative judge's ruling, noting that the applicant had not demonstrated any harmful error and that the evidence supported the conclusion that granting a clearance would not be consistent with national security interests.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · 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. 24-01543

Aug 27, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), and H (Drug Involvement). The denial stemmed from admitted ongoing drug use and related legal issues, as well as significant financial obligations due to unfiled tax returns.

The applicant denied the financial allegations but admitted to the drug use and associated charges. Disqualifying conditions cited included AG ¶ 20, AG ¶ 24, and AG ¶ 15.

The appeal board affirmed the judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the judge's findings. The board emphasized the paramount importance of national security considerations in upholding the denial.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 24raisedDrug Involvement
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 2, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateAug 27, 2025

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Consideration of Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
Importance of National Security in 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 financial, drug involvement, and personal conduct concerns. The Applicant did not challenge the Judge's findings or assert specific errors but claimed improvements in his credit rating and abstinence from illegal substances. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMarc E. Curry — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline HGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not challenge any of the Judge’s findings of fact or assert any specific error.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which was sustainable on the record. The Board noted that the Applicant did not establish that the Judge committed harmful error.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious review

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.