In most cases, no, and the reasoning is straightforward even if it feels harsh from the outside.
When parole or community supervision is revoked, the board or the court is making a finding that the person could not meet the conditions of supervised release. The revocation hearing is the formal process where that determination gets made, and losing that hearing means the board concluded the violation was sufficient to warrant returning to custody. At that point the expectation in most jurisdictions is that the remainder of the original sentence gets served without another early release opportunity.
The 6-month rehearing provision that exists in some parole systems is not universal, and it typically applies to situations where parole was denied at an initial hearing rather than revoked after a violation. There is a meaningful difference between being denied parole at a first appearance and having parole revoked after it was already granted. The latter carries more weight because it represents a broken agreement rather than a first-time assessment.
The practical reality is that parole was the second chance the judge built into the original sentence. When that opportunity was not successfully completed, returning to finish the remainder of the original sentence is the court's way of saying the available leniency has been used. Whether additional hearings are possible depends entirely on the specific state's statutory framework, the terms of the original sentence, and what the parole board's rules allow for revocation cases.
His attorney needs to review the revocation order and the applicable state statutes to determine definitively whether any future hearing is possible. That is the only way to get a definitive answer for his specific situation.