#### Michael E. HOTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alan M. CHARNES, Director of the Department of Revenue, State of Colorado, Hearing Officer John Strombeck, the Department of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Division of the State of Colorado, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 85CA0887.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. III.

Jan. 8, 1987.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 12, 1987.

Certiorari Denied (Hoth) May 11, 1987.

Jeffrey S. English, Lakewood, for plaintiff-appellant.

Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Anthony S. Trumbly, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendants-appellees.

BABCOCK, Judge.

Petitioner, Michael E. Hoth, appeals the judgment of the district court affirming an order of the Department of Revenue deny*1265ing him a probationary driver’s license. We affirm.

Petitioner’s driver’s license was revoked pursuant to § 42-2-122(l)(g), C.R.S. (1984 Repl.Vol. 17) after he was convicted of two alcohol-related traffic offenses within five years. After a hearing on the matter, the hearing officer denied petitioner’s request for a probationary driver’s license pursuant to § 42-2-122(4), C.R.S. (1984 Repl.Vol. 17), on the ground that aggravating circumstances, as set forth in Department of Revenue Regulation No. 2-122.4(B), 1 Code Colo.Reg. 204-8, weighed against it. Petitioner appealed the hearing officer’s decision to the district court, which affirmed.

Petitioner contends that the Motor Vehicle Division abused its discretion in denying his request for a probationary license. We disagree.

The decision whether to grant a probationary license is within the sound discretion of the hearing officer, *Edwards v. State,*42 Colo.App. 52, 592 P.2d 1345 (1978), and will be set aside as an abuse of discretion only if there is no competent evidence in the record to support it. *Dolan v. Rust,*195 Colo. 173, 576 P.2d 560 (1978); *Mitchell v. Charnes,*656 P.2d 719 (Colo.App.1982).

Here, the hearing officer found the existence of two aggravating factors: petitioner’s prior license suspension, *see*Regulation No. 2-122.4(B)(l)(b), 1 Code Colo.Reg. 204-8, and his repeated convictions for driving while ability impaired. *See*Regulation No. 2-122.4(B)(l)(d), 1 Code Colo.Reg. 204-8. There was competent evidence to support the hearing officer’s findings of aggravating circumstances and, therefore, to sustain the denial of a probationary license. Hence, this court is precluded from further review of the soundness of that denial. *See Elkins v. Charnes,*682 P.2d 70 (Colo.App.1984); *Sonoda v. State,*664 P.2d 259 (Colo.App.1983).

Petitioner argues that the hearing officer failed to take into account the hardship to him that would result from denial of a probationary license. However, hardship to the applicant is merely one factor to be considered by the hearing officer, *Edwards v. State, supra,*and the record discloses no abuse of discretion in that regard.

Petitioner’s argument that the hearing officer failed to consider as a mitigating factor his successful completion of a Level II alcohol education and therapy program is without merit. Completion of such a program is a prerequisite to application for a probationary license, not a mitigating factor to be considered in its granting or denial. Section 42-2-122(4), C.R.S. (1984 Repl.Vol. 17).

Order affirmed.

VAN CISE and METZGER, JJ., concur.