CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-00121 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 24-00121

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/5/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-00121) →
Participants
Judge: James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a military veteran in his early thirties who sought a security clearance from the Department of Defense (DoD). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) raised security concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct) and H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse). The core allegations included the applicant's admitted use of marijuana and THC gummies, as well as accusations of falsifying responses regarding his drug use on security clearance applications in 2012 and 2022.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to the drug use and one instance of falsification but denied the other. He explained that his 2012 falsification was motivated by concerns about military enlistment, while he claimed the 2022 error was a simple mistake. The administrative judge found the drug use to be mitigated but concluded that the applicant intentionally failed to disclose his marijuana use on both applications, finding his explanation for the 2022 falsification lacking in credibility.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant under Guideline E, affirming the denial of security clearance eligibility. The Appeal Board upheld this decision, stating that the judge's findings were well-supported by the record and that the applicant's arguments did not demonstrate any harmful error in the judge's handling of the case. The Board emphasized that the decision was consistent with national security interests, as any doubts regarding personnel eligibility should be resolved in favor of national security.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · 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. 24-00121

Feb 5, 2025· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

This security clearance application, submitted by a military veteran in his early thirties, was denied under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The applicant admitted to drug use, which the judge found mitigated under AG ¶ H2. However, the primary disqualifying factor, AG ¶ E2, stemmed from allegations of falsification on security clearance applications.

Specifically, the applicant intentionally failed to disclose his marijuana use on both his 2012 and 2022 security clearance applications. The judge found the applicant's explanation for the 2022 falsification lacked credibility. Furthermore, the applicant's voluntary disclosure of drug use only occurred after he tested positive in a drug test.

Ultimately, the judge determined that while the drug use itself was mitigated, the intentional failure to disclose this information constituted a serious personal conduct issue. The appeal affirmed the judge's findings, emphasizing the lack of credibility in the applicant's explanations, leading to the denial of security clearance eligibility.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ E2appliedPersonal Conduct

Mitigating

AG ¶ H2raisedDrug Involvement and Substance Misuse

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 11, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing held—Applicant requested a decision based on the written record.
Decision dateFeb 5, 2025Appeal affirmed the judge's decision.

Cite For

Credibility Determinations in Falsification Cases Under Guideline E
Mitigating Circumstances Regarding Drug Use Under Guideline H
The Standard for National Security Eligibility and the Presumption in Favor of National Security

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 allegations under Guidelines E and H. The Applicant contested the Judge's findings and credibility determinations. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the handling of the case.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowJennifer I. Goldstein — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline H

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant asserted that the Judge erred in her findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Credibility determination — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contested the Judge's credibility determination.
Whole-person analysis — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant challenged the Judge's whole person analysis.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's factual findings and conclusions were supported by the record, and Applicant's arguments did not demonstrate harmful error. The Judge's credibility assessment was upheld, and the decision was consistent with national security interests.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
Allison Marie
James B. Norman

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.