ISCR Case No. 24-01925

_______________________________________ ) 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

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.

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.

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.

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