CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-01749 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-01749

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/9/2026
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-01749) →
Participants
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie, Jennifer I. Goldstein
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant, a man in his mid-40s, had been employed by Department of Defense (DoD) contractors since 2009 and previously held a public trust position. The DoD denied his application for a security clearance based on concerns under multiple adjudicative guidelines, including Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse), Guideline I (Psychological Conditions), Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) highlighted his history of opioid use, including a diagnosis of Opioid Use Disorder (OUD), and his failure to disclose relevant information during the security clearance process.
The applicant admitted to using opioids intermittently since 2001 and acknowledged a hospitalization for substance use issues in 2022. However, he denied the severity of his substance use and the accuracy of hospital records that indicated ongoing dependence on opioids and benzodiazepines. He claimed that his 2022 hospitalization was due to a medication side effect and that he had not participated in any rehabilitation programs. The administrative judge found the applicant's explanations inconsistent with the medical records and determined that he had not fully disclosed his drug use history.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he failed to demonstrate trustworthiness and honesty throughout the security clearance process. The judge noted that the applicant's lack of credibility and his failure to engage in recommended treatment undermined his case. The decision was affirmed on appeal, with the appeal board finding no evidence of bias or improper consideration by the judge, and confirming that the decision was consistent with national security interests.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · Against Applicant
- Guideline IPsychological Conditions · Against Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · 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. 24-01749

Feb 9, 2026· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A mid-40s male, employed by DoD contractors since 2009, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), H (Drug Involvement), I (Psychological Conditions), and J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed primarily from his history of opioid use, including a diagnosis of severe Opioid Use Disorder.

Key disqualifying conditions included the applicant's resistance to accepting his Opioid Use Disorder diagnosis and his refusal of recommended follow-up treatment after a hospitalization for substance use. The applicant's explanations regarding his substance use were found to be inconsistent and less credible when weighed against the medical records and other evidence presented.

Ultimately, the appeal was denied, as the judge determined that the applicant's explanations lacked credibility compared to the evidence. The security clearance was therefore DENIED.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

HraisedDrug Involvement and Substance Misuse
IraisedPsychological Conditions
JraisedCriminal Conduct
EraisedPersonal Conduct

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 28, 2025
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateFeb 9, 2026Appeal decision

Cite For

Credibility of Applicant's Explanations Regarding Substance Use
Impact of Substance Use Disorders on Security Clearance Eligibility
Deference to Judge's Weighing of Evidence in Security Clearance Cases

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 concerns under multiple guidelines related to drug involvement, psychological conditions, criminal conduct, and personal conduct. The Applicant's Counsel argued that the Judge was biased and did not properly consider mitigating evidence. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowJohn Bayard Glendon — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline HGuideline IGuideline JGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Counsel argued that the Judge was not an impartial decisionmaker and failed to consider all relevant evidence.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Counsel challenged the Judge's mitigation analyses, claiming reliance on hospital records over Applicant's explanations.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the Judge properly weighed the evidence and applied the relevant guidelines.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionDeference 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.