CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01986 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-01986

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

Case Profile
Decision Date6/3/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie, Jennifer I. Goldstein
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a senior data architect in his mid-60s, previously granted national security eligibility in 1984. The Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The allegations included the applicant's marijuana use from 2014 to September 2022, cocaine use from 2015 to June 2022, and failure to disclose this drug history on his May 2022 security clearance application.
The applicant admitted to the drug use allegations but denied any intention to continue using marijuana and characterized his cocaine purchases as indirect. He acknowledged the omission on his application but claimed it was an oversight based on his interpretation of the questions. The administrative judge found the applicant's explanations unconvincing, noting that he had a history of similar omissions in previous applications. The judge concluded that the applicant intentionally falsified his security clearance application, as he did not correct his omissions until confronted with evidence, and found that the mitigating conditions did not apply.
Ultimately, the administrative judge denied the applicant's request for national security eligibility, emphasizing the importance of honesty in the security clearance process and the applicant's inconsistent disclosures regarding his drug use. The decision was upheld on appeal, with the board affirming the judge's findings and reasoning.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- 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. 23-01986

Jun 3, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A senior data architect in his mid-60s was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The applicant admitted to past use of marijuana and cocaine. However, the appeal board found his explanations for these issues unconvincing and noted a lack of transparency in his disclosures.

Specifically, the applicant failed to clearly demonstrate an intent to abstain from future drug use, despite admitting to past involvement. His explanations for omissions on his security clearance application were deemed inconsistent and unconvincing. Furthermore, he did not provide sufficient evidence of reform or a consistent pattern of abstinence from drug use.

While mitigating conditions were considered, the disqualifying conditions related to personal conduct and drug involvement ultimately led to the denial. The appeal board upheld the decision, concluding that the applicant had not adequately resolved the security concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 15raisedRefusal to Provide Full, Frank, and Truthful Answers

Mitigating

AG ¶ 17(a)rejectedPrompt, Good-faith Efforts to Correct the OmissionThe applicant did not attempt to correct omissions until confronted with evidence.
AG ¶ 17(c)rejectedMinor Offense or Unlikely to RecurThe applicant's drug involvement was recent and frequent.
AG ¶ 26(a)rejectedBehavior Happened so Long Ago or Was InfrequentThe applicant's drug use was characterized as recent and not under unusual circumstances.
AG ¶ 26(b)rejectedAcknowledgment of Drug Involvement and Evidence of Actions TakenThe applicant failed to demonstrate a sufficient pattern of abstinence.

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”
— AG ¶ 2(b)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 7, 2024
Answer filedMar 18, 2025
Hearing held—
Decision dateJun 3, 2025Decision affirmed on appeal.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Importance of Transparency in Security Clearance Applications
Rejection of Mitigating Conditions Based on Recent and Frequent Drug Use

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 a denial of security clearance based on drug involvement and personal conduct. The Applicant argued that the Judge erred in not considering all evidence and misapplying mitigating conditions. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline HGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge failed to consider all the evidence and did not properly apply the mitigating conditions and Whole-Person Concept.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the Judge properly applied the relevant legal standards. The Board concluded that the Applicant's arguments did not demonstrate harmful error in the Judge's decision.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
Allison Marie
Jennifer I. Goldstein

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.