CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-00093 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-00093

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

Case Profile
Decision Date11/21/2023
Statusunknown
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the hearing decision (Case 23-00093) →See the hearing decision (Case 23-00093) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Gregg A. Cervi, Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Case Summary
The applicant, a 25-year-old federal contractor, sought a security clearance but was denied by the Department of Defense (DoD) due to concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated that the applicant had used marijuana from 2015 until May 2022, including after submitting his security clearance application (SCA) in April 2022. The applicant admitted to using marijuana for pain relief but claimed he ceased use in March 2022, prior to the SCA, and denied any use after that date.
The administrative judge found that the applicant had indeed used marijuana through May 2022 but ruled in his favor regarding the allegation of post-SCA use, stating it did not constitute a separate disqualifying condition. However, the judge expressed concerns about the applicant's reliability and judgment based on the marijuana use. On appeal, the Board identified issues with the judge's findings, particularly regarding the conflicting evidence about the timing of the applicant's marijuana use and the lack of clarity on whether the applicant understood the security implications of his actions. The Board remanded the case for further consideration, emphasizing the need for a new decision that addresses these concerns.
Guidelines Evaluated
- 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. 23-00093

Nov 21, 2023· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

A 25-year-old federal contractor's security clearance application was denied under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) due to admitted marijuana use. The applicant stated he used marijuana from 2015 until March 2022, but denied any use after submitting his application in April 2022.

The Judge found against the applicant regarding the general marijuana use, determining that insufficient time had passed to mitigate the security concern (Disqualifying Condition H1). However, the Judge ruled in the applicant's favor concerning post-application use, applying Mitigating Condition H2.

Ultimately, the case was remanded for further processing. This outcome was due to errors in the Judge's initial findings and analysis, meaning no final security clearance decision was reached at this stage.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

H1raisedDrug Involvement and Substance Misuse

Mitigating

H2appliedThe Drug Involvement Was Not Recent and Was Not Likely to Recur

Key Rule Quoted

“Prior recreational marijuana use by an individual may be relevant to adjudications but not determinative.”
— SecEA Clarifying Guidance

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 6, 2023
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateNov 21, 2023Decision remanded for further processing.

Cite For

Remand Due to Errors in Judge's Findings and Analysis
Consideration of Conflicting Evidence in Marijuana Use Cases
Application of the Whole-person Concept in Adjudications.

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

Remanded

The appeal involved a denial of security clearance based on allegations of marijuana use. The Applicant challenged the Judge's findings regarding the timing of his marijuana use and whether he understood the security implications of his actions. The Board remanded the case for the Judge to correct identified errors and issue a new decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert E. Coacher — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline H

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantError sustained
The Judge erred by not adequately resolving conflicting evidence regarding the timing of Applicant's marijuana use.
Legal error — raised by the applicantError sustained
The Judge failed to consider whether Applicant understood the security significance of his marijuana use after submitting his SCA.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge did not adequately resolve conflicting evidence regarding the timing of Applicant's marijuana use and failed to consider the implications of Applicant's understanding of the security significance of his actions. The case was remanded for further processing consistent with the Directive.

Ignored material evidenceNo rational connection between facts and conclusion

On remand, the judge must

The Judge must correct the identified harmful errors and issue a new decision.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski
Gregg A. Cervi
Allison Marie

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.