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 viewH · Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse · remove Clear all

Key findings

Cases in view

4,106

decided public DOHA cases

Hearing decisions

3,692

decided after a hearing or on the written record

Appeal decisions

414

Appeal Board decisions, counted separately

Granted overall

25%

906 granted of 3,627 decided

Grant rates over time

Granted with counsel

40%

346 granted of 855 decided

Outcomes by representation

Granted self-represented

20%

555 granted of 2,759 decided

Outcomes by representation

Range across judges

4 to 43%

grant rate across the 32 busiest judges, 2017 to 2026

Outcomes by judge

Most common concern

Guideline F

Financial Considerations · 32% granted of 15,374 decided

Outcomes by concern

Decisions span 1996 to 2026

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.

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
32% granted · 4,847 granted · 10,527 denied
- Financial (unspecified)
  29% granted · 3,690 granted · 8,847 denied
- Credit-card debt
  35% granted · 1,654 granted · 3,024 denied
- Medical debt
  34% granted · 1,311 granted · 2,490 denied
- Unpaid taxes
  27% granted · 841 granted · 2,330 denied
- Auto-loan debt
  29% granted · 797 granted · 1,980 denied
- Utility / phone debt
  34% granted · 784 granted · 1,534 denied
- Student-loan debt
  32% granted · 703 granted · 1,488 denied
- Mortgage / home-loan debt
  41% granted · 862 granted · 1,255 denied
- Failure to file taxes
  22% granted · 453 granted · 1,591 denied
- Civil judgment against applicant
  25% granted · 501 granted · 1,507 denied
- Bankruptcy filing
  33% granted · 460 granted · 919 denied
- Personal-loan debt
  32% granted · 233 granted · 493 denied
- Child support debt
  23% granted · 161 granted · 528 denied
E · Personal Conduct
23% granted · 1,982 granted · 6,588 denied
- Falsified the security form
  10% granted · 305 granted · 2,758 denied
- Personal conduct (unspecified)
  26% granted · 779 granted · 2,169 denied
- Omission / failure to disclose
  26% granted · 692 granted · 1,946 denied
- Lack of candor in an interview
  11% granted · 170 granted · 1,406 denied
- Questionable judgment
  25% granted · 348 granted · 1,070 denied
- Workplace rules violation
  20% granted · 151 granted · 600 denied
- Pattern of dishonesty / rule violations
  14% granted · 85 granted · 531 denied
B · Foreign Influence
54% granted · 2,137 granted · 1,817 denied
- Foreign relationship (unspecified)
  53% granted · 1,315 granted · 1,143 denied
- Parent in a foreign country
  52% granted · 1,177 granted · 1,088 denied
- Sibling in a foreign country
  57% granted · 993 granted · 748 denied
- In law in foreign country
  52% granted · 526 granted · 493 denied
- Spouse dual / foreign citizen
  43% granted · 342 granted · 447 denied
- Extended family in foreign country
  53% granted · 359 granted · 319 denied
J · Criminal Conduct
23% granted · 882 granted · 3,027 denied
- Criminal conduct (unspecified)
  22% granted · 466 granted · 1,635 denied
- DUI / DWI (criminal)
  24% granted · 256 granted · 818 denied
- Drug related criminal charge
  19% granted · 152 granted · 660 denied
- Assault / battery
  22% granted · 132 granted · 455 denied
H · Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse
25% granted · 906 granted · 2,721 denied
- Marijuana
  25% granted · 786 granted · 2,370 denied
- Drug involvement (unspecified)
  23% granted · 357 granted · 1,208 denied
- Cocaine
  21% granted · 147 granted · 558 denied
G · Alcohol Consumption
28% granted · 608 granted · 1,528 denied
- DUI / DWI (alcohol)
  28% granted · 451 granted · 1,132 denied
- Binge / intoxication pattern
  23% granted · 248 granted · 818 denied
- Alcohol incident (unspecified)
  32% granted · 311 granted · 675 denied
- Alcohol use disorder diagnosed
  26% granted · 195 granted · 551 denied
- Continued use after treatment
  19% granted · 116 granted · 498 denied
C · Foreign Preference
51% granted · 766 granted · 744 denied
- Foreign passport possession / use
  49% granted · 501 granted · 523 denied
- Foreign citizenship acquisition / application
  47% granted · 322 granted · 362 denied
D · Sexual Behavior
19% granted · 118 granted · 514 denied
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
M · Use of Information Technology
31% granted · 93 granted · 206 denied
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
K · Handling Protected Information
44% granted · 129 granted · 165 denied
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
I · Psychological Conditions
25% granted · 68 granted · 199 denied
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
L · Outside Activities
46% granted · 26 granted · 30 denied
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
A · Allegiance to the United States
25% granted · 1 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.

Acknowledgment & remorse119

Documented abstinence period63

Rehabilitation evidence63

Promptly corrected the falsification34

Passage of time32

Signed intent with revocation clause21

No subsequent offenses19

Substance treatment completed17

Debt paid in full10

Voluntary disclosure before confrontation9

Deep U.S. ties8

Severed ties to using friends8

Credible explanation of omission6

Prior clearance history2

Tax returns filed late1

Outcomes by representation

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

Represented by a lawyer

40% granted · 346 granted · 509 denied

Self-represented

20% granted · 555 granted · 2,204 denied

Difference

2.0 times

the grant rate with a lawyer

Outcomes by representation
Representation	Cases	Granted	Denied
Self-represented	2,759	555	2,204
Represented by a lawyer	855	346	509
A personal representative who is not a lawyer	12	5	7
Not stated in the decision	1	0	1

Self-represented
Cases
2,759
Granted
555
Denied
2,204
Grant rate
Represented by a lawyer
Cases
855
Granted
346
Denied
509
Grant rate
A personal representative who is not a lawyer
Cases
12
Granted
5
Denied
7
Grant rate
Not stated in the decision
Cases
1
Granted
0
Denied
1
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: 2017 to 2026, chosen so that changes over time are not mistaken for differences between judges. Adjust the time range above to change it.

Outcomes by judge
Administrative Judge	Cases	Granted	Denied	Grant rate
Richard A. Cefola	89	17	72	Filter
LeRoy F. Foreman	86	18	67	Filter
Darlene Lokey Anderson	78	5	73	Filter
Carol G. Ricciardello	73	15	58	Filter
Robert E. Coacher	71	15	56	Filter
Mark W. Harvey	69	10	59	Filter
Roger C. Wesley	63	8	55	Filter
Charles C. Hale	61	13	48	Filter
Erin C. Hogan	57	19	38	Filter
Pamela C. Benson	55	21	34	Filter
Edward W. Loughran	54	20	34	Filter
Eric H. Borgstrom	51	8	43	Filter
John Bayard Glendon	50	15	35	Filter
Elizabeth M. Matchinski	49	6	43	Filter
Wilford H. Ross	49	21	28	Filter

Richard A. Cefola
Cases
89
Granted
17
Denied
72
Grant rate
Filter
LeRoy F. Foreman
Cases
86
Granted
18
Denied
67
Grant rate
Filter
Darlene Lokey Anderson
Cases
78
Granted
5
Denied
73
Grant rate
Filter
Carol G. Ricciardello
Cases
73
Granted
15
Denied
58
Grant rate
Filter
Robert E. Coacher
Cases
71
Granted
15
Denied
56
Grant rate
Filter
Mark W. Harvey
Cases
69
Granted
10
Denied
59
Grant rate
Filter
Roger C. Wesley
Cases
63
Granted
8
Denied
55
Grant rate
Filter
Charles C. Hale
Cases
61
Granted
13
Denied
48
Grant rate
Filter
Erin C. Hogan
Cases
57
Granted
19
Denied
38
Grant rate
Filter
Pamela C. Benson
Cases
55
Granted
21
Denied
34
Grant rate
Filter
Edward W. Loughran
Cases
54
Granted
20
Denied
34
Grant rate
Filter
Eric H. Borgstrom
Cases
51
Granted
8
Denied
43
Grant rate
Filter
John Bayard Glendon
Cases
50
Granted
15
Denied
35
Grant rate
Filter
Elizabeth M. Matchinski
Cases
49
Granted
6
Denied
43
Grant rate
Filter
Wilford H. Ross
Cases
49
Granted
21
Denied
28
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 395 appeal decisions with a verified outcome. Year and concern filters apply here; judge and representation filters do not.

affirmed · 343 of 395 (87%)
reversed · 24 of 395 (6%)
remanded · 28 of 395 (7%)

Most appeals do not change the outcome: the Board overturned about 6% 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	361	336 (93%)	4 (1%)	21 (6%)
The Government (Department Counsel)	33	6 (18%)	20 (61%)	7 (21%)
Both parties	1	1 (100%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)

The applicant
Appeals
361
Affirmed
336 (93%)
Reversed
4 (1%)
Remanded
21 (6%)
The Government (Department Counsel)
Appeals
33
Affirmed
6 (18%)
Reversed
20 (61%)
Remanded
7 (21%)
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 evidence38

No rational connection from the facts to the conclusion37

Missing findings5

Second-guessed credibility without a basis4

Other3

Misapplied mitigation2

Lack of jurisdiction1

Errors alleged on appeal

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

Arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law294

The judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence151

No specific harmful error alleged70

Erroneous finding of fact51

Mitigation wrongly applied36

Whole-person analysis18

Due process or fairness10

Credibility determination9

Judge bias or partiality8

Procedural error4

Error found, but harmless

14%

of affirmances · 47 of 343

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. Egan263
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.98
ISCR Case No. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 1227
ISCR Case No. 06-1740925
Dorfmont v. Brown24
ISCR Case No. 06-11172 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 414
ISCR Case No. 06-10320 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 713
ISCR Case No. 00-0050 (July 2312

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 E. Moody · 211 appealsMichael Y. Ra'anan · 208 appealsWilliam S. Fields · 122 appealsJames F. Duffy · 120 appealsMoira D. Modzelewski · 105 appealsJeffrey D. Billett · 98 appealsJean E. Smallin · 75 appealsAllison Marie · 71 appealsGregg A. Cervi · 40 appealsJennifer I. Goldstein · 39 appealsMichael D. Hipple · 28 appealsJames B. Norman · 26 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.