Quarterly docket report
State of the Clearance Docket, Q4 2019
Decided cases
183
46 granted · 137 denied
Grant rate
25%
46 of 183 decided · Q3 2019: 41%
Statement of Reasons to decision
224 days
median across 182 cases stating both dates
The quarter in brief
DOHA judges decided 183 industrial security clearance cases in Q4 2019, granting 25% of them. That is 16 points lower than Q3 2019 (41% of 248). A year earlier, Q4 2018 recorded 31% of 309. Financial Considerations was the most common concern, appearing in 112 decided cases. The typical case decided this quarter took 224 days from Statement of Reasons to decision, 15 days shorter than the prior quarter.
Month by month
Outcomes by concern
| Concern | Cases | Granted | Denied | Grant rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F · Financial Considerations | 112 | 25 | 87 | |
| E · Personal Conduct | 59 | 13 | 46 | |
| H · Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse | 27 | 3 | 24 | |
| B · Foreign Influence | 22 | 8 | 14 | |
| J · Criminal Conduct | 13 | 4 | 9 | |
| G · Alcohol Consumption | 12 | 1 | 11 | |
| I · Psychological Conditions | 6 | 3 | 3 | |
| M · Use of Information Technology | 5 | 0 | 5 | |
| D · Sexual Behavior | 2 | 2 | 0 | |
| K · Handling Protected Information | 2 | 0 | 2 | |
| C · Foreign Preference | 1 | 0 | 1 |
- Cases
- 112
- Granted
- 25
- Denied
- 87
- Grant rate
- Cases
- 59
- Granted
- 13
- Denied
- 46
- Grant rate
H · Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse
- Cases
- 27
- Granted
- 3
- Denied
- 24
- Grant rate
- Cases
- 22
- Granted
- 8
- Denied
- 14
- Grant rate
- Cases
- 13
- Granted
- 4
- Denied
- 9
- Grant rate
- Cases
- 12
- Granted
- 1
- Denied
- 11
- Grant rate
- Cases
- 6
- Granted
- 3
- Denied
- 3
- Grant rate
M · Use of Information Technology
- Cases
- 5
- Granted
- 0
- Denied
- 5
- Grant rate
- Cases
- 2
- Granted
- 2
- Denied
- 0
- Grant rate
K · Handling Protected Information
- Cases
- 2
- Granted
- 0
- Denied
- 2
- Grant rate
- Cases
- 1
- Granted
- 0
- Denied
- 1
- Grant rate
Time from Statement of Reasons to decision
- Median: 224 days, measured on 182 cases stating both dates.
- Prior quarter: 239 days, measured on 225 cases.
Full breakdowns are on measured timelines.
Hearing and written record
| Path | Cases | Grant rate |
|---|---|---|
| Decided after a live hearing | 118 | |
| Decided on the written record | 61 |
Decided after a live hearing
- Cases
- 118
- Grant rate
Decided on the written record
- Cases
- 61
- Grant rate
Representation
| Representation | Cases | Grant rate |
|---|---|---|
| Represented by a lawyer | 35 | |
| Self-represented | 147 |
Represented by a lawyer
- Cases
- 35
- Grant rate
Self-represented
- Cases
- 147
- 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, Q4 2019 (clearancesearchengine.com/reports/quarterly/2019-q4)
How these numbers are measured
The population is decided hearing-level industrial security clearance decisions dated 2019-10-01 through 2019-12-31. 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.