CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-00468 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-00468

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

Case Profile
Decision Date4/16/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-00468) →
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 was a 52-year-old research scientist and adjunct professor who sought a security clearance from the Department of Defense (DoD). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) raised concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse), Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The core allegations included the applicant's history of marijuana use, which he initially failed to disclose in his 2019 security clearance application, and incidents of domestic violence leading to criminal charges.
The applicant admitted to using marijuana intermittently since 1991, including after he had been granted a security clearance. He characterized his use as infrequent and claimed he had no intention of using it again. However, the administrative judge found that the applicant's history of drug use was unmitigated due to the pattern of use followed by periods of abstinence. Regarding the criminal conduct, the applicant had two domestic violence incidents, resulting in probation and counseling. The judge noted that the applicant's wife testified about ongoing volatility in their relationship, which contributed to the concerns under Guideline J.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that his history of drug involvement, criminal conduct, and failure to disclose information raised significant questions about his trustworthiness. The judge determined that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient rehabilitation or mitigation of the concerns raised in the SOR.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · Against Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · 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. 24-00468

Apr 16, 2025· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

A 52-year-old research scientist and adjunct professor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement), Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The denial was based on a history of marijuana use and multiple domestic violence incidents.

Specifically, the applicant's accounts of his marijuana use were inconsistent, leading to questions about his trustworthiness. He also falsified his 2019 security clearance application by omitting information about his drug use. Furthermore, the domestic violence incidents demonstrated poor judgment and indicated ongoing volatility in his personal conduct.

The appeal board upheld the denial, citing the applicant's lack of credibility and his failure to mitigate the security concerns raised against him.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 24raisedDrug Involvement
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

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 issuedMar 19, 2024
Answer filedApr 24, 2024
Hearing heldFeb 25, 2025
Decision dateApr 16, 2025

Cite For

Lack of Credibility in Self-reported Drug Use
Impact of Domestic Violence on Security Clearance
Falsification of Security Clearance Application as Disqualifying Conduct

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 concerns under Guidelines H, J, and E. The Applicant argued bias and challenged factual findings. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the analysis of the Applicant's drug use and criminal conduct.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJennifer I. Goldstein — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline HGuideline JGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge was biased against him and challenged her factual findings and mitigation analysis.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's decision, affirming that the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that her conclusions were not arbitrary or capricious.

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
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.