CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-01939 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-01939

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

Case Profile
Decision Date9/4/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
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 mid-20s manufacturing engineer working for a government contractor, who sought a security clearance but was denied due to concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse). The Statement of Reasons outlined multiple allegations, including the applicant's use of marijuana, hallucinogenic mushrooms, prescription Adderall, and cocaine over several years, with some use occurring after he submitted his security clearance application.
The administrative judge found that the applicant admitted to using marijuana from May 2016 to October 2024, hallucinogenic mushrooms from June 2019 to December 2022, and misusing Adderall from September 2019 to May 2023. Although the applicant claimed his drug use was experimental and attributed some of it to anxiety following the deaths of friends, he acknowledged that he made a mistake. He provided a signed statement of intent to abstain from drug use but had not undergone treatment for substance abuse. The judge noted that the applicant's recent drug use raised concerns about his reliability and judgment.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, stating that his decisions to use drugs while in a sensitive position indicated a lack of the qualities expected of individuals with access to national secrets. The judge concluded that the applicant's recent involvement with various substances continued to cast doubt on his trustworthiness. The Appeal Board affirmed the judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the ruling and emphasizing that any doubts regarding national security eligibility should 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. 24-01939

Sep 4, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A mid-20s manufacturing engineer was denied a security clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) due to a history of drug use. The applicant's drug involvement included marijuana, hallucinogenic mushrooms, and prescription drugs. The appeal board affirmed the denial, citing the applicant's recent drug use and insufficient evidence of rehabilitation or abstinence, which raised concerns about his reliability and judgment.

Disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 25(a), AG ¶ 25(b), and AG ¶ 25(c) were raised. While mitigating conditions AG ¶ 26(a) and AG ¶ 26(b) were applied, they were deemed insufficient to overcome the security concerns.

The denial was based on the applicant's history of drug use, including recent use while holding an interim clearance, which indicated a lack of responsibility. The judge determined that the applicant's claims of maturity and intent to abstain were not enough to mitigate the established security risks.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)raisedDrug Involvement
AG ¶ 25(b)raisedIllegal Drug Use
AG ¶ 25(c)raisedSubstance Misuse

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)rejectedAbstinenceThe applicant's recent drug use undermined claims of abstinence.
AG ¶ 26(b)rejectedRehabilitationThe applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence of rehabilitation.

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 issuedJan 2, 2025
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 14, 2025
Decision dateSep 4, 2025Decision affirmed on appeal.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Recent Drug Use Under Guideline H
Insufficient Evidence of Rehabilitation or Abstinence From Drug Use
Emphasis on National Security Interests 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 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 and that the Judge's conclusions were sustainable based on the record.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMark Harvey — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline H

What the Board reviewed

Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the applicantError found, but harmless
The Judge erred in stating that Applicant was arrested for possession of marijuana and paraphernalia.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge's adverse determination was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.

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 Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence, and the errors identified were deemed harmless as they did not affect the outcome of the case. The Judge's analysis of the evidence was reasonable and consistent with the standards for national security eligibility.

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.