CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-01713 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-01713

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

Case Profile
Decision Date7/30/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-01713) →
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 federal contractor in his mid-20s, who had been employed since August 2022 and held a bachelor's degree obtained in May 2022. 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 and purchased marijuana from January 2018 to March 2024. The applicant admitted to these allegations, acknowledging his medical marijuana card obtained in July 2019 and his use of marijuana products until approximately 2021 or 2022, with a single instance of use in 2024.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that his marijuana use raised significant security concerns. The judge noted the applicant's admission of past use and the fact that he resumed use after a period of abstinence. The applicant's claims of mitigating circumstances, including his assertion that he had stopped using marijuana prior to his employment and his agreement with his girlfriend regarding her use, were not sufficient to overcome the concerns raised. The appeal board affirmed the judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the judge's findings or conclusions, and emphasized that any doubts regarding national security eligibility must be resolved in favor of national security.
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. 24-01713

Jul 30, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A federal contractor in their mid-20s was denied a security clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The applicant admitted to using and purchasing marijuana over several years, including obtaining a medical marijuana card. This history of drug involvement, specifically marijuana use, was cited as a disqualifying condition under Adjudicative Guideline Paragraph 25(a).

A key concern was the applicant's judgment regarding drug use, particularly a relapse in 2024 after a period of abstinence. This recent use, following previous commitments to stop, contributed to the denial.

The applicant appealed the decision, arguing issues such as bias and improper weighing of evidence. However, the Board found no harmful error in the judge's initial ruling, determining that the applicant's arguments were insufficient to overturn the denial. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)raisedDrug 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 the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 11, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 21, 2025
Decision dateJul 30, 2025

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Insufficient Evidence of Bias in Adjudication
Standard for Reviewing Judge's Decisions on Appeal

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. The Applicant raised issues regarding factual findings, alleged bias, and the weighing of evidence. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error that would affect the outcome.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman — 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 erred in weighing the evidence under the applicable mitigating conditions and the Whole-Person Concept.
Judge bias or partiality — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge was biased toward the Government due to their familiarity.
Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the applicantError found, but harmless
Applicant claimed the Judge erred in the Findings of Fact regarding the date he stopped using marijuana.

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 errors claimed by the Applicant were either harmless or did not demonstrate bias or improper weighing of evidence.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
Allison Marie
Jennifer 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.