Loading case…

ISCR 24-01925: Guideline E security clearance appeal, denied (2026) · CASE

ISCR Case 24-01925denied

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 spending and the conclusion 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 regarding his average weekly spending on marijuana.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge's conclusion of intentional falsification of his SCAs was erroneous.

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 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.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

APPEARANCES

_______________________________________ ) In the matter of: )

)

-------------- )

ISCR Case No. 24-01925

)

) 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: February 10, 2026

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 January 16, 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) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) in Appendix A of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective June 8, 2017) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). On December 17, 2025, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Candace Le’i Garcia denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.

DISCUSSION

Under Guideline H, the SOR alleged that Applicant used marijuana from about 2012 to February 2022, and his deliberate failures to disclose the full extent of that use on his 2021 and 2024 security clearance applications (SCAs) were alleged under Guideline E. In response to the SOR, Applicant admitted all allegations without further explanation, and he requested that his case be decided based on the written record. On March 26, 2025, he received a complete copy of the

Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) and was notified of his ability to respond with any objections or additional information for the Judge to consider. Applicant did not respond to the FORM and the Judge found adversely on all allegations. On appeal, Applicant challenges the Judge’s finding that he “spent an average of $300 to $500 weekly on marijuana” and her conclusion that he intentionally falsified his SCAs.1 Neither challenge is persuasive. The record reflects that, during his February 2022 background interview, Applicant told the investigator that he “on average spends anywhere from $300 to $500 a week on Marijuana and that has basically been since he started using.” Government Exhibit 6 at 3. Applicant later reviewed and adopted the statement as accurate in his January 2025 response to interrogatories. The Judge’s finding is therefore fully supported by the record. The Judge’s conclusion that Applicant intentionally falsified his SCAs is also amply supported, not just by his admission of both concerns in response to the SOR, but by other record evidence. Specifically, the Judge relied upon Applicant’s acknowledgement during his 2022 interview that “he intentionally falsified his 2021 SCA . . . because he did not want it to jeopardize his employment” and that he “indicated that the disclosures he made on his 2021 SCA regarding purchasing marijuana legally from marijuana dispensaries in his state were to cover himself in case he was randomly drug tested.” Decision at 3. She cited his 2025 interrogatory response and lengthier marijuana use he disclosed therein to conclude that Applicant also intentionally underreported his marijuana use in his 2024 SCA. Her conclusions on both allegations were reasonable.

CONCLUSION

Applicant has not established that the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Our review of the record confirms that the Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which is sustainable on this record. “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). “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” AG ¶ 2(b). 1 Applicant also contends that the Judge misrepresented that he “continues to live with his parents, and they sometimes contribute funds to support his use.” Appeal Brief at 1 (emphasis in original). Neither this quotation nor the underlying sentiment appears in the Judge’s decision, and Applicant’s argument in this regard is moot.

ORDER

The decision in ISCR Case No. 24-01925 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Jennifer I. Goldstein Jennifer I. Goldstein Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board