Statistics
Outcome patterns across decided public DOHA cases. The filters below narrow the view by concern, time period, representation, and judge. Descriptive statistics, not predictions. Data through September 2026.
Reference dates for comparisons: the current adjudicative guidelines took effect in June 2017, and updated marijuana guidance was issued in December 2021.
Key findings
Cases in view
70
decided public DOHA cases
Hearing decisions
70
decided after a hearing or on the written record
Appeal decisions
0
Appeal Board decisions, counted separately
Decisions span 2005 to 2005
Using this page: the filters above narrow every section, selecting a chart row opens the cases underneath it, and each section downloads as a CSV file.
Grant rates over time
How often clearances were granted, by year.
23% granted overall (16 of 70). Yearly rates ranged 23 to 23% where the yearly sample is large enough.
Swipe the chart for earlier years. Select any year to filter the page to it.
How to read this chart
Grey bars count the decisions published in each year, read against the left axis. The blue line is the grant rate for that year, read against the right axis, and it is drawn only for years with 20 or more decided cases. The shaded band over 1999 and 2000 marks two years when very few decisions were published: DOHA published few decisions online before 2002, and almost none survive for those two years. The dashed lines mark the June 2017 adjudicative guidelines and the December 2021 marijuana guidance taking effect. They do not claim that either change caused what the chart shows.
Outcomes by concern
How each type of concern was resolved.
- E · Personal Conduct
11% granted · 4 granted · 32 denied
- Falsified the security form
5% granted · 1 granted · 19 denied
- Omission / failure to disclose
0% granted · 0 granted · 12 denied
- Falsified the security form
- J · Criminal Conduct
18% granted · 6 granted · 27 denied
- DUI / DWI (criminal)
7% granted · 1 granted · 13 denied
- Criminal conduct (unspecified)
31% granted · 4 granted · 9 denied
- Fraud / deception criminal
17% granted · 2 granted · 10 denied
- DUI / DWI (criminal)
- F · Financial Considerations
18% granted · 4 granted · 18 denied
- Financial (unspecified)
15% granted · 3 granted · 17 denied
- Financial (unspecified)
- B · Foreign Influence
33% granted · 5 granted · 10 denied
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
- G · Alcohol Consumption
13% granted · 2 granted · 13 denied
- Binge / intoxication pattern
17% granted · 2 granted · 10 denied
- Binge / intoxication pattern
- H · Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse
11% granted · 1 granted · 8 denied
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
- C · Foreign Preference
33% granted · 2 granted · 4 denied
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
- D · Sexual Behavior
40% granted · 2 granted · 3 denied
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
† marks fewer than 20 cases, too few to be reliable. A case can raise several concerns, so the rows overlap.
Mitigations judges credited most
How often each mitigation was expressly accepted by the judge, not merely claimed, across the cases in this view. This is a count of how often something was credited, so the bars are neutral: they carry no outcome.
Outcomes by representation
Whether represented and self-represented applicants were granted at different rates.
Represented by a lawyer
47% granted · 7 granted · 8 denied
Self-represented
16% granted · 9 granted · 46 denied
Difference
2.9 times
the grant rate with a lawyer
| Representation | Cases | Granted | Denied | Grant rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self-represented | 55 | 9 | 46 | |
| Represented by a lawyer | 15 | 7 | 8 |
- Cases
- 55
- Granted
- 9
- Denied
- 46
- Grant rate
- Cases
- 15
- Granted
- 7
- Denied
- 8
- Grant rate
An association, not proof of cause: the groups being compared differ in many ways. Select a row to filter the page.
Outcomes by judge
How the cases each judge decided were resolved.
| Administrative Judge | Cases | Granted | Denied | Grant rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thomas M. Crean | 77 | 26 | 51 | Filter |
| Carol G. Ricciardello | 73 | 16 | 57 | Filter |
| Henry Lazzaro | 72 | 32 | 40 | Filter |
| James A. Young | 70 | 16 | 54 | Remove filter |
| Barry M. Sax | 55 | 26 | 29 | Filter |
| Claude R. Heiny II | 55 | 26 | 29 | Filter |
| Charles D. Ablard | 54 | 24 | 30 | Filter |
| Matthew E. Malone | 53 | 17 | 36 | Filter |
| Elizabeth M. Matchinski | 53 | 20 | 33 | Filter |
| Michael J. Breslin | 46 | 23 | 23 | Filter |
| Kathryn Moen Braeman | 43 | 25 | 18 | Filter |
| Joseph Testan | 43 | 15 | 28 | Filter |
| Roger C. Wesley | 39 | 11 | 28 | Filter |
| John Grattan Metz, Jr. | 38 | 12 | 26 | Filter |
| Joan Caton Anthony | 37 | 3 | 34 | Filter |
- Cases
- 77
- Granted
- 26
- Denied
- 51
- Grant rate
- Filter
- Cases
- 73
- Granted
- 16
- Denied
- 57
- Grant rate
- Filter
- Cases
- 72
- Granted
- 32
- Denied
- 40
- Grant rate
- Filter
- Cases
- 70
- Granted
- 16
- Denied
- 54
- Grant rate
- Remove filter
- Cases
- 55
- Granted
- 26
- Denied
- 29
- Grant rate
- Filter
- Cases
- 55
- Granted
- 26
- Denied
- 29
- Grant rate
- Filter
- Cases
- 54
- Granted
- 24
- Denied
- 30
- Grant rate
- Filter
- Cases
- 53
- Granted
- 17
- Denied
- 36
- Grant rate
- Filter
- Cases
- 53
- Granted
- 20
- Denied
- 33
- Grant rate
- Filter
- Cases
- 46
- Granted
- 23
- Denied
- 23
- Grant rate
- Filter
- Cases
- 43
- Granted
- 25
- Denied
- 18
- Grant rate
- Filter
- Cases
- 43
- Granted
- 15
- Denied
- 28
- Grant rate
- Filter
- Cases
- 39
- Granted
- 11
- Denied
- 28
- Grant rate
- Filter
- Cases
- 38
- Granted
- 12
- Denied
- 26
- Grant rate
- Filter
- Cases
- 37
- Granted
- 3
- Denied
- 34
- Grant rate
- Filter
† marks judges with fewer than 20 decided cases in this window. Judges hear different mixes of cases, so these rates describe the decided record, not the judges.
Appeal outcomes
How appealed decisions were treated by the Appeal Board.
The Appeal Board reviews the specific errors a party claims. It can affirm a decision, leaving it in place; reverse it, replacing the outcome; or remand it, sending it back to the judge. It does not rehear the case. Based on 19 appeal decisions with a verified outcome. Year and concern filters apply here; judge and representation filters do not.
- affirmed · 17 of 19 (89%)
- reversed · 0 of 19 (0%)
- remanded · 2 of 19 (11%)
Most appeals do not change the outcome: the Board overturned about 0% of the decisions brought to it.
Appeals by party, with outcomes
Applicants appeal denials; the Government appeals grants it disagrees with. Whether an outcome helped the applicant therefore depends on who appealed.
| Appealed by | Appeals | Affirmed | Reversed | Remanded |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The applicant | 19 | 17 (89%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (11%) |
The applicant
- Appeals
- 19
- Affirmed
- 17 (89%)
- Reversed
- 0 (0%)
- Remanded
- 2 (11%)
Grounds for reversal or remand
The grounds the Board gave. A case can have more than one.
Errors alleged on appeal
The errors the parties raised, across every appeal in this selection.
Error found, but harmless
12%
of affirmances · 2 of 17
The Board agreed the judge erred but left the outcome in place, because the error did not change the result.
Most-cited authorities
- ISCR Case No. 00-0050 (July 2314
- ISCR Case No. 97-0435 (July 1413
- ISCR Case No. 00-0423 (June 812
- ISCR Case No. 99-0454 (October 1710
- ISCR Case No. 00-0250 (July 1110
- ISCR Case No. 99-9020 (June 43
- National Archives and Records Administration v. Favish3
- ISCR Case No. 02-01395 (November 132
A structured reading of the decided public Appeal Board record. The outcome the Board stated matched our independent read in 100% of cases.
Browse appeal decisionsQuestions about these statistics
The statistics assistant is part of Professional.
The statistics on this page are free, with or without a subscription.
It answers questions about the figures on this page, inside the filters you have set, with the denominator behind every number.
Professional plan detailsPublications and measured series
Ongoing analyses computed from the decided record, each on its own page, with its method and the counts behind every rate.
- Measured timelines
How long each stage took, measured from dates stated in the decisions.
- Time since the conduct
How long before the decision the last incident occurred.
- Candor in the record
How falsification and omission allegations were resolved.
- Veterans in the record
Decisions that state United States military service, counted by branch.
- Decisions by country
Foreign-influence decisions arranged by the country involved.
- The Issue Encyclopedia
Every specific issue inside each guideline, with its decided record.
- The statutory bars
The bars set by statute, and how they appear in decided cases.
- Docket reports
The decided record summarized the same way every quarter and every year.
Granted ÷ decided; † marks groups under 20 cases. Full methodology
Reading the statistics
- Granted = access granted or continued; Denied = denied or revoked.
- Grant rate = granted ÷ (granted + denied).
- † marks figures based on fewer than 20 cases, too few to be reliable.
- Hovering any rate shows its statistical range (a 95% confidence interval).
- Figures are descriptive counts over decided, public DOHA ISCR decisions, never predictions or assessments of any pending case.
Decided public cases: descriptive, never a prediction.