CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-01718 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-01718

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

Case Profile
Decision Date5/5/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-01718) →
Participants
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie, Jennifer I. Goldstein
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a federal contractor in his early thirties who sought a security clearance after previously being granted public trust eligibility in 2018. The Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse), alleging that the applicant used marijuana from July 2017 until September 2024 and intended to continue its use. The applicant admitted to past marijuana use but denied any future intent to use it, stating he would stop if granted a clearance.
The administrative judge found that the applicant's marijuana use was frequent and recent, continuing even after he was aware of its illegality under federal law. Although the applicant claimed he could abstain from use, the judge noted that he resumed using marijuana after leaving a position of trust and continued to do so during the security clearance process. The judge ruled against the applicant, determining that the disqualifying conditions applied and that the mitigating conditions did not sufficiently address the applicant's recent conduct, which raised concerns about his reliability and judgment. The decision was affirmed on appeal, with the board concluding that the applicant's actions demonstrated a disregard for national security standards.
Guidelines Evaluated
- 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. 24-01718

May 5, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

An applicant's security clearance appeal was denied under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) due to admitted past marijuana use. The applicant acknowledged using marijuana, which raised concerns about their eligibility for a security clearance.

The judges determined that these admissions demonstrated a disregard for federal law concerning drug use. Consequently, the initial unfavorable decision was affirmed, and the applicant's security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

HraisedDrug Involvement

Procedural Posture

Decision DateMay 5, 2025

Cite For

Disregard for Federal Law Regarding Drug Use Under Guideline H
Impact of Past Drug Use Admissions on Security Clearance Decisions
Affirmation of Unfavorable Decisions Based on Drug Involvement Concerns

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 under Guideline H. The Applicant argued that the Judge erred in the mitigation analysis and improperly considered non-alleged criminal conduct. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the analysis of the Applicant's drug use and its implications for national security eligibility.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowRobert E. Coacher — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline H

What the Board reviewed

Mitigation wrongly applied / not applied — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge erred in his mitigation analysis by failing to consider that Applicant's prior use happened under circumstances that are unlikely to recur.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge improperly considered criminal conduct which was not raised in the Statement of Reasons.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence and were not arbitrary or capricious. The Applicant's continued marijuana use after being aware of its illegality and the implications for national security eligibility were significant factors in the decision.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

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.