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.

Years

Concern

Representation

Judge: Charles C. Hale · remove Clear all

Reference dates for comparisons: the current adjudicative guidelines took effect in June 2017, and updated marijuana guidance was issued in December 2021.

Filtered viewYears: 2023 to 2023 · remove Judge: Charles C. Hale · remove Clear all

Key findings

Cases in view

decided public DOHA cases

Hearing decisions

decided after a hearing or on the written record

Appeal decisions

Appeal Board decisions, counted separately

Granted overall

31%

15 granted of 49 decided

Grant rates over time

Granted with counsel

50%

2 granted of 4 decided

Outcomes by representation

Granted self-represented

29%

13 granted of 45 decided

Outcomes by representation

Range across judges

15 to 42%

grant rate across the 20 busiest judges, 2023 to 2023

Outcomes by judge

Most common concern

Guideline F

Financial Considerations · 31% granted of 32 decided

Outcomes by concern

Decisions span 2023 to 2023

View these cases

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.

31% granted overall (15 of 49). Yearly rates ranged 31 to 31% 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.

Granted against denied for each concern, counted per concern: a case raising more than one concern appears under each of them, so these rows add up to more than the number of cases in this view. Case-level totals are in the section above. Open a row for the specific issues inside it.

F · Financial Considerations
31% granted · 10 granted · 22 denied
- Financial (unspecified)
  38% granted · 9 granted · 15 denied
H · Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse
0% granted · 0 granted · 11 denied
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
E · Personal Conduct
20% granted · 2 granted · 8 denied
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
J · Criminal Conduct
17% granted · 1 granted · 5 denied
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
G · Alcohol Consumption
17% granted · 1 granted · 5 denied
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
B · Foreign Influence
75% granted · 3 granted · 1 denied
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
D · Sexual Behavior
0% granted · 0 granted · 2 denied
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
I · Psychological Conditions
0% granted · 0 granted · 1 denied
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
K · Handling Protected Information
0% granted · 0 granted · 1 denied
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
L · Outside Activities
0% granted · 0 granted · 1 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.

No credited mitigations in this view.

Outcomes by representation

Whether represented and self-represented applicants were granted at different rates.

Represented by a lawyer

50% granted · 2 granted · 2 denied

Self-represented

29% granted · 13 granted · 32 denied

Difference

1.7 times

the grant rate with a lawyer

Outcomes by representation
Representation	Cases	Granted	Denied	Grant rate
Self-represented	45	13	32
Represented by a lawyer	4	2	2

Self-represented
Cases
45
Granted
13
Denied
32
Grant rate
Represented by a lawyer
Cases
4
Granted
2
Denied
2
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.

Window: 2023 to 2023. Adjust the time range above to change it.

Outcomes by judge
Administrative Judge	Cases	Granted	Denied	Grant rate
Carol G. Ricciardello	66	14	52	Filter
Edward W. Loughran	59	16	43	Filter
Benjamin R. Dorsey	51	10	41	Filter
Charles C. Hale	49	15	34	Remove filter
Braden M. Murphy	49	12	37	Filter
Darlene Lokey Anderson	48	7	41	Filter
Richard A. Cefola	48	14	34	Filter
Candace Le'i Garcia	48	20	28	Filter
Robert E. Coacher	44	7	37	Filter
LeRoy F. Foreman	43	7	36	Filter
Pamela C. Benson	41	6	35	Filter
Roger C. Wesley	36	8	28	Filter
John Bayard Glendon	33	11	22	Filter
Marc E. Curry	27	6	21	Filter
Philip J. Katauskas	27	10	17	Filter

Carol G. Ricciardello
Cases
66
Granted
14
Denied
52
Grant rate
Filter
Edward W. Loughran
Cases
59
Granted
16
Denied
43
Grant rate
Filter
Benjamin R. Dorsey
Cases
51
Granted
10
Denied
41
Grant rate
Filter
Charles C. Hale
Cases
49
Granted
15
Denied
34
Grant rate
Remove filter
Braden M. Murphy
Cases
49
Granted
12
Denied
37
Grant rate
Filter
Darlene Lokey Anderson
Cases
48
Granted
7
Denied
41
Grant rate
Filter
Richard A. Cefola
Cases
48
Granted
14
Denied
34
Grant rate
Filter
Candace Le'i Garcia
Cases
48
Granted
20
Denied
28
Grant rate
Filter
Robert E. Coacher
Cases
44
Granted
7
Denied
37
Grant rate
Filter
LeRoy F. Foreman
Cases
43
Granted
7
Denied
36
Grant rate
Filter
Pamela C. Benson
Cases
41
Granted
6
Denied
35
Grant rate
Filter
Roger C. Wesley
Cases
36
Granted
8
Denied
28
Grant rate
Filter
John Bayard Glendon
Cases
33
Granted
11
Denied
22
Grant rate
Filter
Marc E. Curry
Cases
27
Granted
6
Denied
21
Grant rate
Filter
Philip J. Katauskas
Cases
27
Granted
10
Denied
17
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 165 appeal decisions with a verified outcome. Year and concern filters apply here; judge and representation filters do not.

affirmed · 145 of 165 (88%)
reversed · 6 of 165 (4%)
remanded · 14 of 165 (8%)

Most appeals do not change the outcome: the Board overturned about 4% 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.

Appeals by party
Appealed by	Appeals	Affirmed	Reversed	Remanded
The applicant	157	144 (92%)	2 (1%)	11 (7%)
The Government (Department Counsel)	7	0 (0%)	4 (57%)	3 (43%)
Both parties	1	1 (100%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)

The applicant
Appeals
157
Affirmed
144 (92%)
Reversed
2 (1%)
Remanded
11 (7%)
The Government (Department Counsel)
Appeals
7
Affirmed
0 (0%)
Reversed
4 (57%)
Remanded
3 (43%)
Both parties
Appeals
1
Affirmed
1 (100%)
Reversed
0 (0%)
Remanded
0 (0%)

Grounds for reversal or remand

The grounds the Board gave. A case can have more than one.

Ignored material evidence16

No rational connection from the facts to the conclusion10

Missing findings4

Other4

Errors alleged on appeal

The errors the parties raised, across every appeal in this selection.

Arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law99

The judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence59

No specific harmful error alleged57

Mitigation wrongly applied25

Erroneous finding of fact17

Due process or fairness7

Procedural error5

Whole-person analysis4

Judge bias or partiality2

Credibility determination2

Error found, but harmless

17%

of affirmances · 25 of 145

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. Egan99
ISCR Case No. 06-1740917
ISCR Case No. 21-01169 at 5 (App. Bd. May 1316
ISCR Case No. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 1215
ISCR Case No. 19-01400 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 312
ISCR Case No. 19-0140010
ISCR Case No. 19-01220 at 3 (App. Bd. Jun. 17
ISCR Case No. 18-02872 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 155

Appeal Board judges by number of appeals

Appeals are decided by three-member panels, so an outcome belongs to the panel and not to any single judge. There is no per-judge rate for that reason.

James F. Duffy · 148 appealsMoira D. Modzelewski · 111 appealsAllison Marie · 110 appealsGregg A. Cervi · 95 appeals

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 decisions

Questions 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 details

Publications 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.