Quarterly docket report
State of the Clearance Docket, Q3 2010
Decided cases
310
95 granted · 215 denied
Grant rate
31%
95 of 310 decided · Q2 2010: 35%
Statement of Reasons to decision
209 days
median across 283 cases stating both dates
The quarter in brief
DOHA judges decided 310 industrial security clearance cases in Q3 2010, granting 31% of them. That is 4 points lower than Q2 2010 (35% of 321). A year earlier, Q3 2009 recorded 37% of 380. Financial Considerations was the most common concern, appearing in 182 decided cases. The typical case decided this quarter took 209 days from Statement of Reasons to decision, 18 days shorter than the prior quarter.
Month by month
Outcomes by concern
| Concern | Cases | Granted | Denied | Grant rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F · Financial Considerations | 182 | 58 | 124 | |
| E · Personal Conduct | 105 | 14 | 91 | |
| J · Criminal Conduct | 48 | 11 | 37 | |
| H · Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse | 38 | 8 | 30 | |
| G · Alcohol Consumption | 34 | 9 | 25 | |
| B · Foreign Influence | 28 | 13 | 15 | |
| C · Foreign Preference | 17 | 5 | 12 | |
| D · Sexual Behavior | 9 | 2 | 7 | |
| K · Handling Protected Information | 8 | 2 | 6 | |
| M · Use of Information Technology | 5 | 0 | 5 | |
| I · Psychological Conditions | 2 | 1 | 1 |
- Cases
- 182
- Granted
- 58
- Denied
- 124
- Grant rate
- Cases
- 105
- Granted
- 14
- Denied
- 91
- Grant rate
- Cases
- 48
- Granted
- 11
- Denied
- 37
- Grant rate
H · Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse
- Cases
- 38
- Granted
- 8
- Denied
- 30
- Grant rate
- Cases
- 34
- Granted
- 9
- Denied
- 25
- Grant rate
- Cases
- 28
- Granted
- 13
- Denied
- 15
- Grant rate
- Cases
- 17
- Granted
- 5
- Denied
- 12
- Grant rate
- Cases
- 9
- Granted
- 2
- Denied
- 7
- Grant rate
K · Handling Protected Information
- Cases
- 8
- Granted
- 2
- Denied
- 6
- Grant rate
M · Use of Information Technology
- Cases
- 5
- Granted
- 0
- Denied
- 5
- Grant rate
- Cases
- 2
- Granted
- 1
- Denied
- 1
- Grant rate
Time from Statement of Reasons to decision
- Median: 209 days, measured on 283 cases stating both dates.
- Prior quarter: 227 days, measured on 316 cases.
Full breakdowns are on measured timelines.
Hearing and written record
| Path | Cases | Grant rate |
|---|---|---|
| Decided after a live hearing | 242 | |
| Decided on the written record | 66 |
Decided after a live hearing
- Cases
- 242
- Grant rate
Decided on the written record
- Cases
- 66
- Grant rate
Representation
| Representation | Cases | Grant rate |
|---|---|---|
| Represented by a lawyer | 69 | |
| Self-represented | 241 |
Represented by a lawyer
- Cases
- 69
- Grant rate
Self-represented
- Cases
- 241
- 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, Q3 2010 (clearancesearchengine.com/reports/quarterly/2010-q3)
How these numbers are measured
The population is decided hearing-level industrial security clearance decisions dated 2010-07-01 through 2010-09-30. 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.