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

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: 2025 to 2025 · remove H · Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse · remove Clear all

Key findings

Cases in view

259

decided public DOHA cases

Hearing decisions

228

decided after a hearing or on the written record

Appeal decisions

Appeal Board decisions, counted separately

Granted overall

25%

56 granted of 226 decided

Grant rates over time

Granted with counsel

33%

20 granted of 61 decided

Outcomes by representation

Granted self-represented

21%

35 granted of 164 decided

Outcomes by representation

Most common concern

Guideline F

Financial Considerations · 18% granted of 322 decided

Outcomes by concern

Decisions span 2025 to 2025

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.

25% granted overall (56 of 226). Yearly rates ranged 25 to 25% 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. The concern filter narrows the other sections. In this section it highlights the row instead, so that concerns stay comparable with each other.

F · Financial Considerations
18% granted · 57 granted · 265 denied
- Financial (unspecified)
  15% granted · 39 granted · 217 denied
- Credit-card debt
  19% granted · 20 granted · 84 denied
- Failure to file taxes
  14% granted · 12 granted · 75 denied
- Auto-loan debt
  21% granted · 16 granted · 61 denied
- Unpaid taxes
  12% granted · 9 granted · 65 denied
- Medical debt
  21% granted · 9 granted · 33 denied
- Bankruptcy filing
  6% granted · 2 granted · 30 denied
- Utility / phone debt
  28% granted · 7 granted · 18 denied
- Personal-loan debt
  17% granted · 4 granted · 19 denied
- Civil judgment against applicant
  11% granted · 2 granted · 17 denied
- Student-loan debt
  28% granted · 5 granted · 13 denied
- Mortgage / home-loan debt
  25% granted · 4 granted · 12 denied
- Child support debt
  0% granted · 0 granted · 15 denied
H · Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse
25% granted · 56 granted · 170 denied
- Marijuana
  26% granted · 52 granted · 148 denied
- Drug involvement (unspecified)
  27% granted · 18 granted · 49 denied
- Psilocybin
  23% granted · 8 granted · 27 denied
- Cocaine
  20% granted · 7 granted · 28 denied
- Stated intent to use again
  12% granted · 4 granted · 29 denied
- Drug distribution / dealing
  26% granted · 6 granted · 17 denied
- Drug test failure
  18% granted · 4 granted · 18 denied
- Prescription stimulant misuse
  37% granted · 7 granted · 12 denied
- LSD
  14% granted · 2 granted · 12 denied
- MDMA
  29% granted · 4 granted · 10 denied
E · Personal Conduct
22% granted · 50 granted · 173 denied
- Falsified the security form
  8% granted · 7 granted · 79 denied
- Personal conduct (unspecified)
  15% granted · 10 granted · 58 denied
- Questionable judgment
  27% granted · 14 granted · 38 denied
- Omission / failure to disclose
  23% granted · 12 granted · 40 denied
- Lack of candor in an interview
  16% granted · 7 granted · 36 denied
- Workplace rules violation
  21% granted · 8 granted · 31 denied
- Pattern of dishonesty / rule violations
  30% granted · 6 granted · 14 denied
J · Criminal Conduct
23% granted · 25 granted · 86 denied
- Criminal conduct (unspecified)
  16% granted · 8 granted · 43 denied
- Drug related criminal charge
  26% granted · 9 granted · 25 denied
- DUI / DWI (criminal)
  29% granted · 7 granted · 17 denied
- Assault / battery
  6% granted · 1 granted · 15 denied
- Domestic violence
  8% granted · 1 granted · 12 denied
B · Foreign Influence
29% granted · 13 granted · 32 denied
- Parent in a foreign country
  31% granted · 8 granted · 18 denied
- Foreign relationship (unspecified)
  33% granted · 7 granted · 14 denied
G · Alcohol Consumption
38% granted · 17 granted · 28 denied
- DUI / DWI (alcohol)
  36% granted · 12 granted · 21 denied
- Alcohol incident (unspecified)
  35% granted · 7 granted · 13 denied
I · Psychological Conditions
19% granted · 5 granted · 21 denied
- Psychological condition (unspecified)
  13% granted · 2 granted · 13 denied
D · Sexual Behavior
24% granted · 5 granted · 16 denied
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
M · Use of Information Technology
31% granted · 4 granted · 9 denied
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
K · Handling Protected Information
60% granted · 3 granted · 2 denied
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
C · Foreign Preference
0% granted · 0 granted · 3 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.

Documented abstinence period3

Acknowledgment & remorse1

Promptly corrected the falsification1

Deep U.S. ties1

Outcomes by representation

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

Represented by a lawyer

33% granted · 20 granted · 41 denied

Self-represented

21% granted · 35 granted · 129 denied

Difference

1.5 times

the grant rate with a lawyer

Outcomes by representation
Representation	Cases	Granted	Denied
Self-represented	164	35	129
Represented by a lawyer	61	20	41
A personal representative who is not a lawyer	1	1	0

Self-represented
Cases
164
Granted
35
Denied
129
Grant rate
Represented by a lawyer
Cases
61
Granted
20
Denied
41
Grant rate
A personal representative who is not a lawyer
Cases
1
Granted
1
Denied
0
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: 2025 to 2025. Adjust the time range above to change it.

Outcomes by judge
Administrative Judge	Cases	Granted	Denied	Grant rate
Richard A. Cefola	18	4	14	Filter
Roger C. Wesley	16	1	15	Filter
Erin C. Hogan	16	5	11	Filter
Mark W. Harvey	16	5	11	Filter
Charles C. Hale	15	4	11	Filter
LeRoy F. Foreman	13	4	8	Filter
Darlene Lokey Anderson	11	2	9	Filter
Pamela C. Benson	11	5	6	Filter
Benjamin R. Dorsey	10	2	8	Filter
John Bayard Glendon	10	1	9	Filter
Robert B. Blazewick	8	2	6	Filter
Gatha LaFaye	8	1	7	Filter
Candace Le'i Garcia	8	1	7	Filter
Wilford H. Ross	7	4	3	Filter
Bryan J. Olmos	7	1	6	Filter

Richard A. Cefola
Cases
18
Granted
4
Denied
14
Grant rate
Filter
Roger C. Wesley
Cases
16
Granted
1
Denied
15
Grant rate
Filter
Erin C. Hogan
Cases
16
Granted
5
Denied
11
Grant rate
Filter
Mark W. Harvey
Cases
16
Granted
5
Denied
11
Grant rate
Filter
Charles C. Hale
Cases
15
Granted
4
Denied
11
Grant rate
Filter
LeRoy F. Foreman
Cases
13
Granted
4
Denied
8
Grant rate
Filter
Darlene Lokey Anderson
Cases
11
Granted
2
Denied
9
Grant rate
Filter
Pamela C. Benson
Cases
11
Granted
5
Denied
6
Grant rate
Filter
Benjamin R. Dorsey
Cases
10
Granted
2
Denied
8
Grant rate
Filter
John Bayard Glendon
Cases
10
Granted
1
Denied
9
Grant rate
Filter
Robert B. Blazewick
Cases
8
Granted
2
Denied
6
Grant rate
Filter
Gatha LaFaye
Cases
8
Granted
1
Denied
7
Grant rate
Filter
Candace Le'i Garcia
Cases
8
Granted
1
Denied
7
Grant rate
Filter
Wilford H. Ross
Cases
7
Granted
4
Denied
3
Grant rate
Filter
Bryan J. Olmos
Cases
7
Granted
1
Denied
6
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 29 appeal decisions with a verified outcome. Year and concern filters apply here; judge and representation filters do not.

affirmed · 22 of 29 (76%)
reversed · 2 of 29 (7%)
remanded · 5 of 29 (17%)

Most appeals do not change the outcome: the Board overturned about 7% 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	27	21 (78%)	1 (4%)	5 (19%)
The Government (Department Counsel)	2	1 (50%)	1 (50%)	0 (0%)

The applicant
Appeals
27
Affirmed
21 (78%)
Reversed
1 (4%)
Remanded
5 (19%)
The Government (Department Counsel)
Appeals
2
Affirmed
1 (50%)
Reversed
1 (50%)
Remanded
0 (0%)

Grounds for reversal or remand

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

Ignored material evidence6

No rational connection from the facts to the conclusion4

Second-guessed credibility without a basis1

Misapplied mitigation1

Errors alleged on appeal

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

Arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law15

The judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence14

No specific harmful error alleged6

Erroneous finding of fact5

Mitigation wrongly applied2

Judge bias or partiality2

Credibility determination2

Whole-person analysis1

Error found, but harmless

18%

of affirmances · 4 of 22

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. Egan12
ISCR Case No. 95-06006
ISCR Case No. 06-174096
ISCR Case No. 20-017726
Dept. of Navy v. Egan4
ISCR Case No. 04-08975 at 1 (App. Bd. Aug. 43
ISCR Case No. 03-22861 (App. Bd. Jun. 22
Department of Navy v. Egan2

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.

Allison Marie · 29 appealsMoira D. Modzelewski · 29 appealsJennifer I. Goldstein · 20 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.