Loading case…

ISCR 24-02290: Guideline H security clearance appeal, denied (2025) · CASE

ISCR Case 24-02290denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 24-02290

Nov 17, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A male applicant in his early 40s, holding both bachelor's and master's degrees, was denied a U.S. DOHA security clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The denial stemmed from a documented history of marijuana use spanning from 2002 to 2009, and again from 2014 until November 2023. Critically, some of this use occurred while the applicant already possessed a security clearance.

The judges identified Disqualifying Condition H.1, finding the applicant's years-long drug use while cleared to be particularly egregious. Although the applicant claimed to have ceased use in November 2023 and asserted no future intent to use, these claims were discounted. The judges noted a pattern of prior broken promises regarding abstinence, which undermined the credibility of his current assertions.

Ultimately, the appeal was denied, affirming the original decision. The judges concluded that the applicant's past drug involvement was insufficiently mitigated, leading to the denial of his security clearance based on national security interests.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

H.1raisedDrug 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 issuedMar 11, 2025
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateNov 17, 2025Appeal decision

Cite for

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Importance of National Security in Clearance Determinations
Judicial Discretion in Weighing Mitigating Factors Against Disqualifying Conduct

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 an applicant who was denied a security clearance due to drug involvement under Guideline H. The applicant appealed, raising no specific harmful errors but challenging the sufficiency of the Judge's analysis. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding it reasonable and supported by the evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRoger C. Wesley denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline H

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant raised no specific harmful error regarding the Judge's decision.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's conclusions were not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, and that the record supported the Judge's findings and conclusions.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski (Chair)
Jennifer I. Goldstein
Allison Marie

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.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

APPEARANCES

_______________________________________ ) In the matter of: )

)

-------- )

ISCR Case No. 24-02290

)

) 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: November 17, 2025

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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 March 11, 2025, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – security concerns raised under 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) (SEAD 4) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). On August 22, 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

Applicant, in his early 40s, earned a bachelor’s degree in 2007 and a master’s degree in 2009. He began working for his current employer and submitted an initial security clearance application (SCA) in July 2009, wherein he disclosed no illegal drug use. During his personal subject interview two months later, Applicant volunteered that he began using marijuana in 2002 while in high school and continued using the drug during college. He asserted that he had not used

marijuana since about early 2006 and had no intention to use again in the future, and Applicant was granted national security eligibility in October 2009. Applicant submitted a new SCA in January 2024, disclosing that he used marijuana from 2002 to November 2023 and acknowledging that some of that use occurred while he possessed a security clearance. During his October 2024 interview, he elaborated that he resumed recreational marijuana use in 2014 but stopped in November 2023 due to the potential negative impact on his security clearance and job, and he again asserted that he had no intention of using the drug in the future. He also volunteered that he had intentionally omitted information about his then-ongoing marijuana use during a periodic reinvestigation in about 2016 or 2017. Based on the foregoing, the SOR alleged that Applicant used marijuana from about 2002 to 2009, and that he used from about 2014 to November 2023 while granted access to classified information or employed in a sensitive position. Applicant admitted both allegations with explanation and reiterated that he had no intention to use marijuana again in the future. The Judge held adversely on both 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 raises no claim of harmful error on the part of the Judge and instead challenges the sufficiency of his analysis under the Whole-Person Concept. This argument is unpersuasive. In reaching his adverse decision, the Judge acknowledged and credited Applicant’s contributions to the defense industry and latest 21 months of marijuana abstinence, but he ultimately found Applicant’s years-long use while holding a security clearance “particularly egregious” and discounted Applicant’s latest commitment to abstinence considering his prior similar broken promise. Decision at 6. The Judge’s analysis reflects that he weighed the record evidence and reached a reasonable conclusion, including in consideration of the Whole-Person Concept, and Applicant’s disagreement with that weighing is insufficient to demonstrate that the Judge’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See ISCR Case No. 04-08975 at 1 (App. Bd. Aug. 4, 2006) (citation omitted). Applicant’s appeal also requests conditional security eligibility. Appendix C of SEAD 4 provides authority to grant conditional security eligibility, “despite the presence of issue information that can be partially but not completely mitigated, with the provision that additional security measures shall be required to mitigate the issue(s).” Applicant did not request conditional eligibility at hearing and nothing in the record supports a conclusion that the Judge erred in not granting it. Moreover, although Appendix C provides authority to grant conditional security eligibility,1 our review of this case reflects no evidence of proposed additional security measures or the efficacy thereof in the record below. Accordingly, Applicant has not established that the granting of an exception under Appendix C is merited. 1 DIR. FOR DEF. INT. (INT. & SEC.), Memorandum (Jan. 12, 2018) (“Effective immediately, authority to grant clearance eligibility with one of the exceptions enumerated in Appendix C is granted to any adjudicative, hearing, or appeal official or entity now authorized to grant clearance eligibility when they have jurisdiction to render the eligibility determination.”).

CONCLUSION

Applicant has not established that the Judge’s conclusions were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Rather, the Judge examined and weighed the disqualifying and mitigating evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The record is sufficient to support that the Judge’s findings and conclusions are sustainable. “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). “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” AG ¶ 2(b).

ORDER

The decision in ISCR Case No. 24-02290 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