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
86
decided public DOHA cases
Hearing decisions
76
decided after a hearing or on the written record
Appeal decisions
10
Appeal Board decisions, counted separately
Most common concern
Guideline F
Financial Considerations · 30% granted of 786 decided
Decisions span 2011 to 2011
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.
38% granted overall (29 of 76). Yearly rates ranged 38 to 38% 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.
- F · Financial Considerations
30% granted · 239 granted · 547 denied
- Financial (unspecified)
27% granted · 180 granted · 483 denied
- Credit-card debt
28% granted · 68 granted · 172 denied
- Medical debt
28% granted · 56 granted · 145 denied
- Mortgage / home-loan debt
38% granted · 75 granted · 120 denied
- Unpaid taxes
28% granted · 37 granted · 97 denied
- Auto-loan debt
18% granted · 23 granted · 108 denied
- Utility / phone debt
30% granted · 38 granted · 90 denied
- Civil judgment against applicant
20% granted · 23 granted · 92 denied
- Student-loan debt
24% granted · 20 granted · 64 denied
- Bankruptcy filing
27% granted · 20 granted · 53 denied
- Child support debt
17% granted · 6 granted · 29 denied
- Personal-loan debt
24% granted · 8 granted · 25 denied
- Failure to file taxes
18% granted · 5 granted · 23 denied
- Financial (unspecified)
- E · Personal Conduct
25% granted · 102 granted · 311 denied
- Personal conduct (unspecified)
26% granted · 45 granted · 128 denied
- Falsified the security form
12% granted · 15 granted · 115 denied
- Omission / failure to disclose
22% granted · 25 granted · 88 denied
- Lack of candor in an interview
14% granted · 13 granted · 81 denied
- Questionable judgment
28% granted · 23 granted · 60 denied
- Pattern of dishonesty / rule violations
11% granted · 4 granted · 33 denied
- Workplace rules violation
11% granted · 4 granted · 33 denied
- Personal conduct (unspecified)
- B · Foreign Influence
45% granted · 85 granted · 103 denied
- Foreign relationship (unspecified)
44% granted · 58 granted · 75 denied
- Parent in a foreign country
45% granted · 49 granted · 61 denied
- Sibling in a foreign country
53% granted · 45 granted · 40 denied
- In law in foreign country
54% granted · 33 granted · 28 denied
- Spouse dual / foreign citizen
32% granted · 12 granted · 25 denied
- Extended family in foreign country
37% granted · 11 granted · 19 denied
- Foreign real estate
59% granted · 16 granted · 11 denied
- Foreign relationship (unspecified)
- H · Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse
31% granted · 48 granted · 108 denied
- Marijuana
31% granted · 43 granted · 96 denied
- Drug involvement (unspecified)
28% granted · 19 granted · 48 denied
- Cocaine
24% granted · 9 granted · 28 denied
- Drug distribution / dealing
28% granted · 8 granted · 21 denied
- Marijuana
- J · Criminal Conduct
24% granted · 30 granted · 95 denied
- Criminal conduct (unspecified)
23% granted · 15 granted · 50 denied
- DUI / DWI (criminal)
13% granted · 4 granted · 26 denied
- Drug related criminal charge
19% granted · 5 granted · 22 denied
- Criminal conduct (unspecified)
- G · Alcohol Consumption
24% granted · 20 granted · 64 denied
- DUI / DWI (alcohol)
22% granted · 14 granted · 49 denied
- Binge / intoxication pattern
29% granted · 14 granted · 35 denied
- Alcohol incident (unspecified)
26% granted · 11 granted · 31 denied
- Alcohol use disorder diagnosed
27% granted · 9 granted · 24 denied
- Continued use after treatment
21% granted · 6 granted · 23 denied
- DUI / DWI (alcohol)
- C · Foreign Preference
38% granted · 29 granted · 47 denied
- Foreign passport possession / use
37% granted · 18 granted · 31 denied
- Foreign passport possession / use
- D · Sexual Behavior
7% granted · 2 granted · 26 denied
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
- M · Use of Information Technology
44% granted · 8 granted · 10 denied
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
- K · Handling Protected Information
33% granted · 4 granted · 8 denied
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
- I · Psychological Conditions
0% granted · 0 granted · 5 denied
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
- L · Outside Activities
33% granted · 1 granted · 2 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
59% granted · 10 granted · 7 denied
Self-represented
32% granted · 19 granted · 40 denied
Difference
1.8 times
the grant rate with a lawyer
| Representation | Cases | Granted | Denied | Grant rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self-represented | 59 | 19 | 40 | |
| Represented by a lawyer | 17 | 10 | 7 |
- Cases
- 59
- Granted
- 19
- Denied
- 40
- Grant rate
- Cases
- 17
- Granted
- 10
- Denied
- 7
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carol G. Ricciardello | 5 | 2 | 3 | Filter |
| LeRoy F. Foreman | 5 | 3 | 2 | Filter |
| Marc E. Curry | 5 | 1 | 4 | Filter |
| Henry Lazzaro | 4 | 1 | 3 | Filter |
| Rita C. O'Brien | 4 | 1 | 3 | Filter |
| Matthew E. Malone | 3 | 2 | 1 | Filter |
| Mary E. Henry | 3 | 2 | 1 | Filter |
| Joan Caton Anthony | 3 | 0 | 3 | Filter |
| Noreen A. Lynch | 3 | 2 | 1 | Filter |
| Thomas M. Crean | 3 | 2 | 1 | Filter |
| Arthur E. Marshall, Jr. | 2 | 1 | 1 | Filter |
| Claude R. Heiny II | 2 | 1 | 1 | Filter |
| Darlene Lokey Anderson | 2 | 1 | 1 | Filter |
| David M. White | 2 | 0 | 2 | Filter |
| Elizabeth M. Matchinski | 2 | 1 | 1 | Filter |
- Cases
- 5
- Granted
- 2
- Denied
- 3
- Grant rate
- Filter
- Cases
- 5
- Granted
- 3
- Denied
- 2
- Grant rate
- Filter
- Cases
- 5
- Granted
- 1
- Denied
- 4
- Grant rate
- Filter
- Cases
- 4
- Granted
- 1
- Denied
- 3
- Grant rate
- Filter
- Cases
- 4
- Granted
- 1
- Denied
- 3
- Grant rate
- Filter
- Cases
- 3
- Granted
- 2
- Denied
- 1
- Grant rate
- Filter
- Cases
- 3
- Granted
- 2
- Denied
- 1
- Grant rate
- Filter
- Cases
- 3
- Granted
- 0
- Denied
- 3
- Grant rate
- Filter
- Cases
- 3
- Granted
- 2
- Denied
- 1
- Grant rate
- Filter
- Cases
- 3
- Granted
- 2
- Denied
- 1
- Grant rate
- Filter
- Cases
- 2
- Granted
- 1
- Denied
- 1
- Grant rate
- Filter
- Cases
- 2
- Granted
- 1
- Denied
- 1
- Grant rate
- Filter
- Cases
- 2
- Granted
- 1
- Denied
- 1
- Grant rate
- Filter
- Cases
- 2
- Granted
- 0
- Denied
- 2
- Grant rate
- Filter
- Cases
- 2
- Granted
- 1
- Denied
- 1
- 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 9 appeal decisions with a verified outcome. Year and concern filters apply here; judge and representation filters do not.
- affirmed · 7 of 9 (78%)
- reversed · 2 of 9 (22%)
- remanded · 0 of 9 (0%)
Most appeals do not change the outcome: the Board overturned about 22% 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 | 7 | 7 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| The Government (Department Counsel) | 2 | 0 (0%) | 2 (100%) | 0 (0%) |
The applicant
- Appeals
- 7
- Affirmed
- 7 (100%)
- Reversed
- 0 (0%)
- Remanded
- 0 (0%)
The Government (Department Counsel)
- Appeals
- 2
- Affirmed
- 0 (0%)
- Reversed
- 2 (100%)
- Remanded
- 0 (0%)
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
14%
of affirmances · 1 of 7
The Board agreed the judge erred but left the outcome in place, because the error did not change the result.
Most-cited authorities
- Department of the Navy v. Egan9
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.8
- ISCR Case No. 02-028921
- ISCR Case No. 03-228611
- ISCR Case No. 03-22861 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jun. 21
- ISCR Case No. 03-26176 at 5 (App. Bd. Oct. 141
- ISCR Case No. 04-11181 at 2 (App. Bd. May 81
- ISCR Case No. 02-02892 at 10 (App. Bd. Jun. 281
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.