CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-01925 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-01925

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/10/2026
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-01925) →
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 H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated that the applicant had used marijuana from approximately 2012 until February 2022 and had failed to fully disclose this usage on his security clearance applications in 2021 and 2024.
The applicant admitted to all allegations in the SOR without providing further explanation and opted for a decision based on the written record. During a background interview in February 2022, he stated that he spent between $300 to $500 weekly on marijuana, a claim he later confirmed in his responses to interrogatories. The administrative judge found that the applicant intentionally falsified his security clearance applications, supported by his admissions and the evidence presented, including his acknowledgment of underreporting his marijuana use to avoid jeopardizing his employment.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, affirming the denial of his security clearance. The appeal board found that the judge's decision was well-supported by the record and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the ruling, emphasizing that national security interests take precedence in clearance determinations. The decision was ultimately affirmed.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · 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. 24-01925

Feb 10, 2026· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The denial stemmed from his admitted marijuana use and his failure to fully disclose this information on his security clearance applications.

Specifically, the applicant acknowledged using marijuana from 2012 until February 2022. The judge determined that the applicant intentionally falsified his applications to safeguard his employment, which constituted disqualifying conditions H.1 and E.2.

The appeal board upheld the denial, concluding that the applicant's actions were inconsistent with national security interests.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

H.1raisedDrug Involvement
E.2raisedDeliberate Omission of Information

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 issuedJan 16, 2025
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself.
Hearing held—Decision based on written record.
Decision dateFeb 10, 2026Appeal affirmed the denial.

Cite For

Adverse Findings Under Guideline H for Drug Involvement
Adverse Findings Under Guideline E for Personal Conduct
Intentional Falsification of Security Clearance Applications

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 and personal conduct. The applicant challenged the findings regarding his marijuana expenditure and allegations of intentional falsification of his security clearance applications. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding the challenges unpersuasive and supported by the record.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCandace Le’i Garcia — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline HGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant challenged the Judge's finding that he spent an average of $300 to $500 weekly on marijuana.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant challenged the Judge's conclusion that he intentionally falsified his SCAs.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that her conclusions were reasonable based on the record. The Board determined that the Judge's decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

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.