CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-01854 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-01854

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/8/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-01854) →
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 data engineer for a Department of Defense (DoD) contractor, who had a military background and multiple academic degrees, including a master's in biomedical science. The Department of Defense denied the applicant a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleged that the applicant purchased and used marijuana from March 2023 to November 2024 while in a sensitive position, although it was found that he did not intend to continue using marijuana.
The administrative judge found that the applicant admitted to using marijuana during the specified period but argued that his use was legal under state law and limited in frequency. He maintained that his marijuana use did not pose a risk to national security and expressed a commitment to adhere to all relevant regulations. However, the judge ruled against the applicant on two of the three allegations, concluding that the evidence supported the concerns raised in the SOR. The appeal board affirmed the judge's decision, stating that the applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error in the judge's findings or conclusions, which were deemed sufficient to deny national security eligibility.
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. ISCR Case No. 24-01854

Aug 8, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance application was denied under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) due to the applicant's marijuana use while in a sensitive position. The applicant, representing himself, used marijuana from March 2023 to November 2024. This activity raised national security concerns, leading to the application's denial.

The Department of Defense cited Disqualifying Conditions H.1 and H.2, while Mitigating Condition H.3 was applied. However, the judge ultimately found that the applicant's marijuana use in a sensitive role warranted denial.

The applicant appealed the decision, but the appeal affirmed the denial. The appellate authority concluded that the applicant's arguments did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate an error in the judge's initial findings. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

H.1raisedDrug Involvement
H.2raisedSubstance Misuse

Mitigating

H.3appliedNo Intent to Continue Drug Use

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 26, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 16, 2025
Decision dateAug 8, 2025Appeal decision

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Insufficient Evidence to Overturn a Judge's Decision on Appeal
Affirmation of Adverse Findings Related to Substance Misuse in Sensitive Positions

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 erred in the adverse finding regarding his marijuana use. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error.

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

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant asserted that the Judge erred in the adverse finding.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's conclusions regarding Applicant's marijuana purchase and use were sustainable and supported the denial of national security eligibility. The Applicant failed to establish any harmful error in the Judge's decision.

Standard of review applied

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

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.