A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 24-02143
Appeal BoardDecided Feb 3, 2026 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement) due to her family's citizenship in Taiwan and her extensive history of drug use. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error in the original decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant admitted to all allegations regarding her family's citizenship and her drug use history.
- The appeal board found no harmful error in the judge's decision.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 7 Foreign Influenceraised
- AG ¶ 25 Drug Involvementraised
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 8 Mitigating Conditions for Foreign Influenceapplied
- AG ¶ 21 Mitigating Conditions for Drug Involvementrejected
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 issued
- 2024-12-20
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- Decision based on written record.
- Decision date
- 2026-02-03 Appeal 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
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.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Appearances
_______________________________________ ) In the matter of: )
)
)
----------- )
ISCR Case No. 24-02143
)
) 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 3, 2026
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 December 20, 2024, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) 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 Richard A. Cefola denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Discussion
Under Guideline B, the SOR alleged that Applicant’s parents and brother are citizens of Taiwan, and that her grandmother is a citizen and resident of Taiwan. Under Guideline H, the SOR alleged that Applicant: used marijuana from April 2013 to about May 2024 with varying frequency; purchased marijuana from April 2013 to about July 2018 with varying frequency; used lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) from February 2015 to about April 2023 with varying frequency; and used methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) from September 2017 to about March 2018 with varying frequency. Applicant admitted all allegations in her Answer to the SOR and elected
a decision on the written record. Applicant was provided a complete copy of the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) on April 28, 2025, and was notified of her ability to respond to the FORM with any objections or additional information for the Judge to consider. Applicant responded to the FORM in an undated letter. The Judge found that Applicant mitigated the concerns raised under Guideline B but failed to mitigate the Guideline H concerns. There is no presumption of error below and the appealing party has the burden of raising claims of error with specificity. Directive ¶ E3.1.30. On appeal, Applicant makes no assertion of error but rather offers an update on her family’s immigration status and a clarification on her interrogatory response. She also offered to sign a statement of intent to abstain from all drug involvement and substance misuse. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the judge committed harmful error. Because Applicant has not made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant national security eligibility is sustainable.
Order
The decision in ISCR Case No. 24-02143 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