Loading case…

ISCR 23-00595: Guideline B security clearance appeal, denied (2025) · CASE

ISCR Case 23-00595denied

Case headnote

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, arguing that the Judge should have weighed the evidence differently. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

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 argued that the Judge should have weighed the evidence differently.

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 was sustainable on the record. The Board noted that the applicant did not demonstrate harmful error and that the Judge's conclusions were not arbitrary or capricious.

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.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

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

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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