A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 23-00595
Appeal BoardDecided Jan 31, 2025 · Administrative Judge James B. Norman · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance concerns under Guidelines B, H, and J due to admitted drug use and criminal conduct, including marijuana use while in a sensitive position and a relative residing in Ukraine. The appeal was denied, affirming the original decision based on the applicant's failure to demonstrate harmful error in the judge's findings.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant admitted to drug use while in a sensitive position.
- The applicant was arrested on weapons and marijuana charges.
- The applicant has a relative who is a citizen and resident of Ukraine.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 26(a) Criminal conductraised
- AG ¶ 25(a) Drug involvementraised
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 20(a) No evidence of intent to violate lawsrejected
- AG ¶ 22(a) Rehabilitationrejected
Key rule quoted
“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2023-06-05
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- Decision date
- 2025-01-31 Appeal affirmed.
Cite for
- Admission of Drug Use While in a Sensitive Position Under Guideline H
- Impact of Criminal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline J
- Burden of Proof on the Applicant in Appeal 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
The appeal involved an applicant who was denied a security clearance based on concerns under Guidelines B, H, and J. The applicant appealed the decision but did not assert any harmful error. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding that the evidence was properly weighed and the decision was consistent with national security interests.
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. 23-00595
)
) 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: January 31, 2025
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 June 5, 2023, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – security concerns raised under Guidelines B (Foreign Influence), H (Drug Involvement and Substance Abuse), and J (Criminal 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 9, 2024, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Ross D. Hyams denied Applicant security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant used marijuana while granted access to classified information, was arrested on weapons and marijuana charges, and has a relative who is a citizen and resident of Ukraine. The allegation that Applicant used marijuana while granted access to classified information was amended to allege that Applicant’s drug use occurred while in a sensitive position. Applicant admitted the Guideline J and B allegations, and denied some of the details of the Guideline H allegations.
There is no presumption of error below, and the appealing party has the burden of demonstrating that the judge committed factual or legal error. ISCR Case No. 00-0050 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 23, 2001). The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. On appeal, Applicant makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Instead, he argues that the Judge should have weighed the evidence differently. Applicant’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. ISCR Case No. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007). Our review of the record reflects 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.’” Department of the 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).
Order
The decision in ISCR Case No. 23-00595 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: James B. Norman James B. Norman Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board