CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-02143 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-02143

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/3/2026
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-02143) →
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 B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated that the applicant's immediate family members, including her parents and brother, were citizens of Taiwan, and that she had a history of drug use, including marijuana, LSD, and MDMA over several years.
The applicant admitted to all allegations in the SOR and chose to proceed with a decision based on the written record. While she provided an update on her family's immigration status and expressed a willingness to abstain from drug use, the administrative judge found that she had mitigated the concerns related to foreign influence but failed to address the issues surrounding her drug involvement adequately. The applicant did not assert any errors in the judge's decision during her appeal.
The Appeal Board affirmed the administrative judge's ruling, stating that the applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error in the original decision. Consequently, the denial of national security eligibility was upheld.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline BForeign Influence · 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. ISCR Case No. 24-02143

Feb 3, 2026· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing herself, was denied clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The denial stemmed from her family's citizenship in Taiwan and her admitted extensive history of drug use.

The applicant acknowledged all allegations concerning her family's foreign citizenship and her past drug involvement. Disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 7 and AG ¶ 25 were raised, while mitigating conditions AG ¶ 8 and AG ¶ 21 were applied.

Ultimately, the appeal was denied because the board found no harmful error in the original judge's decision to deny the clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7raisedForeign Influence
AG ¶ 25raisedDrug Involvement

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8appliedMitigating Conditions for Foreign InfluenceThe judge found that the applicant mitigated the concerns raised under Guideline B.
AG ¶ 21rejectedMitigating Conditions for Drug InvolvementThe applicant failed to mitigate the Guideline H concerns.

Key Rule Quoted

“There is no presumption of error below and the appealing party has the burden of raising claims of error with specificity.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 20, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing held—Decision based on written record.
Decision dateFeb 3, 2026Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Foreign Influence and Drug Involvement
Burden of Proof on the Appealing Party to Demonstrate Harmful Error
Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority

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 foreign influence and drug involvement. The Applicant did not assert any harmful errors on appeal, leading the Board to affirm the Administrative Judge's decision denying national security eligibility. The decision was based on the lack of specific error claims from the Applicant.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRichard A. Cefola — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline BGuideline H

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not allege any specific harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the Applicant did not allege any specific harmful error, and the decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

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.