Quarterly docket report
State of the Clearance Docket, Q1 2010
Decided cases
339
111 granted · 228 denied
Grant rate
33%
111 of 339 decided · Q4 2009: 31%
Statement of Reasons to decision
210 days
median across 322 cases stating both dates
The quarter in brief
DOHA judges decided 339 industrial security clearance cases in Q1 2010, granting 33% of them. That is 2 points higher than Q4 2009 (31% of 267). A year earlier, Q1 2009 recorded 37% of 304. Financial Considerations was the most common concern, appearing in 221 decided cases. The typical case decided this quarter took 210 days from Statement of Reasons to decision, 13 days longer than the prior quarter.
Month by month
Outcomes by concern
| Concern | Cases | Granted | Denied | Grant rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F · Financial Considerations | 221 | 74 | 147 | |
| E · Personal Conduct | 103 | 16 | 87 | |
| J · Criminal Conduct | 44 | 6 | 38 | |
| H · Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse | 44 | 12 | 32 | |
| B · Foreign Influence | 34 | 14 | 20 | |
| G · Alcohol Consumption | 24 | 4 | 20 | |
| C · Foreign Preference | 14 | 7 | 7 | |
| D · Sexual Behavior | 9 | 0 | 9 | |
| M · Use of Information Technology | 4 | 0 | 4 | |
| I · Psychological Conditions | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
| K · Handling Protected Information | 1 | 1 | 0 |
- Cases
- 221
- Granted
- 74
- Denied
- 147
- Grant rate
- Cases
- 103
- Granted
- 16
- Denied
- 87
- Grant rate
- Cases
- 44
- Granted
- 6
- Denied
- 38
- Grant rate
H · Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse
- Cases
- 44
- Granted
- 12
- Denied
- 32
- Grant rate
- Cases
- 34
- Granted
- 14
- Denied
- 20
- Grant rate
- Cases
- 24
- Granted
- 4
- Denied
- 20
- Grant rate
- Cases
- 14
- Granted
- 7
- Denied
- 7
- Grant rate
- Cases
- 9
- Granted
- 0
- Denied
- 9
- Grant rate
M · Use of Information Technology
- Cases
- 4
- Granted
- 0
- Denied
- 4
- Grant rate
- Cases
- 1
- Granted
- 0
- Denied
- 1
- Grant rate
K · Handling Protected Information
- Cases
- 1
- Granted
- 1
- Denied
- 0
- Grant rate
Time from Statement of Reasons to decision
- Median: 210 days, measured on 322 cases stating both dates.
- Prior quarter: 197 days, measured on 256 cases.
Full breakdowns are on measured timelines.
Hearing and written record
| Path | Cases | Grant rate |
|---|---|---|
| Decided after a live hearing | 245 | |
| Decided on the written record | 90 |
Decided after a live hearing
- Cases
- 245
- Grant rate
Decided on the written record
- Cases
- 90
- Grant rate
Representation
| Representation | Cases | Grant rate |
|---|---|---|
| Represented by a lawyer | 60 | |
| Self-represented | 274 |
Represented by a lawyer
- Cases
- 60
- Grant rate
Self-represented
- Cases
- 274
- Grant rate
An association, not proof of cause: the groups being compared differ in many ways.
Cite this report
CASE, State of the Clearance Docket, Q1 2010 (clearancesearchengine.com/reports/quarterly/2010-q1)
How these numbers are measured
The population is decided hearing-level industrial security clearance decisions dated 2010-01-01 through 2010-03-31. Appeal Board decisions are counted separately and never mixed into the hearing figures. † marks a group built on fewer than 20 decided cases, too few to generalize, and a case raising several concerns counts under each of them. Figures are computed live from the record as it stands today, so decisions DOHA publishes late are added to their own quarter automatically. Definitions and checks are on the methodology page.
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.
Where to go from here
Get help with my case
Send us your question, or the Statement of Reasons you received. No charge, and a CASE analyst reads it. Usually five to ten business days.
Ask a question →I do this for clients
Rank every decision by how closely it matches a matter, see how the assigned judge has ruled, and keep it together with cited exports.
For attorneys and firms →Decided public cases: descriptive, never a prediction.