CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-00595 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-00595

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

Case Profile
Decision Date1/31/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 23-00595) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie
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 Guidelines B (Foreign Influence), H (Drug Involvement and Substance Abuse), and J (Criminal Conduct) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated that the applicant had used marijuana while granted access to classified information, had been arrested on weapons and marijuana charges, and had a relative residing in Ukraine. The applicant admitted to the allegations under Guidelines J and B but denied some specifics related to the drug involvement allegations under Guideline H.
The administrative judge found that the applicant's admissions and the circumstances surrounding the allegations raised significant security concerns. The applicant's drug use while in a sensitive position and the criminal charges were particularly troubling. On appeal, the applicant did not assert any harmful errors made by the judge but argued for a different interpretation of the evidence. The Appeal Board concluded that the judge had adequately examined the evidence and provided a satisfactory explanation for the decision, affirming that the clearance could only be granted if it was clearly consistent with national security interests. The decision was ultimately upheld.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline BForeign Influence · For Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · Against Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · For 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. 23-00595

Jan 31, 2025· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline H (Drug Involvement), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). Disqualifying conditions included admitted drug use while in a sensitive position and an arrest on weapons and marijuana charges. Additionally, the applicant has a relative who is a citizen and resident of Ukraine.

While mitigating conditions were considered, they were not sufficient to overcome the security concerns. The applicant's appeal was denied, affirming the original decision. The denial was based on the applicant's failure to demonstrate harmful error in the judge's findings regarding his admitted drug use, criminal conduct, and foreign influence concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 26(a)raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 25(a)raisedDrug Involvement

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedNo Evidence of Intent to Violate Laws
AG ¶ 22(a)rejectedRehabilitation

Key Rule Quoted

“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)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 5, 2023
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateJan 31, 2025Appeal 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· Full written decision

Affirmed

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRoss D. Hyams — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline BGuideline HGuideline J

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant made no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which is sustainable on the record. The Board noted that the applicant's disagreement with the Judge's weighing of the evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate harmful error.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious review

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
James B. Norman
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.