WPC< 90 8ɹרL+GDMlV8^Ja׏T4-{C '7mFv΃E3?qQT8Fsu>c4`Lnv6q`U_0p- Qjwُ9S#nS2߹<ϥ{d1!7ZG '3?fa9{&cPLFľ1:{1,DT^!ܮBUpafy|N3ڇ.Zr FYy+`{CIJhR+yF/4'ljIx Bfl[fnP‘A pT;Da ofwYx[{lL=iB.,?؂ܸ~ٔ">67xBGH 0?"Tw^qvf^)mlW#UN % 0: Z ^ s w 4   m 0 Zh E 0D N   ^  BHewlett-Packard HP LaserJet P3010 Series0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE|,K;EJtiond3|xU(Y(2$ !USUS.,  XX      0  8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE(#$  0    $USUS.,XX      1    _ԀDecisionat1.  $USUS.,XX      2    _ԀDecisionat4.  $USUS.,XX      3    _ԀDecisionat7.   $USUS.,XX      4    _ԀAreviewofApplicantsbankstatements(ApplicantsExhibitE)showsthatshehadpayrolldepositsofabout  $2,150fortwomonthsin2016.SinceApplicantdidnotprovidecompletecopiesofherbankstatementsforbothof t thosemonths,itcannotbedeterminedifthatfigurewashertotalmonthlytakehomepayduringthosemonths. d !USUS.,  _KEYWORD:GuidelineF  DIGEST:WenotethattheJudgescalculationofApplicantsdiscretionaryincomedoesnot  accountforFederalorstateincometaxesorotherstandardpayrolldeductions.Itwaserrorto t concludethatApplicanthad$3,000ofmonthlydiscretionaryincomewithoutaccountingfor ` thosetaxesanddeductions.Adversedecisionremanded. L  _CASENO_:1500842.a1 $ t DATE:09/12/2017  L     `     h      p DATE:September12,2017 $  .؉7r(#(#.AV) xdEgA   InRe:      ApplicantforSecurityClearance k AV) xdEgA C )   ) p ) \ ) H ) 4 )  p )  \ ) H  4  pX p _ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1500842 H#  4$ .؉7r. \XXp  $    APPEALBOARDDECISION % APPEARANCES l(  &%XX FORGOVERNMENT  D!* JamesB.Norman,Esq.,ChiefDepartmentCounsel "l+  FORAPPLICANT  #-  Prose #XX%&{# $.     TheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)declinedtograntApplicantasecurityclearance.On f&!0 February12,2016,DoDissuedastatementofreasons(_SOR_)advisingApplicantofthebasisforthat R'"1 decision!securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineF(FinancialConsiderations)ofDepartmentof >(#2 DefenseDirective5220.6(Jan.2,1992,asamended)(Directive).Applicantrequestedahearing. *)z$3 OnJune14,2017,afterthehearing,DefenseOfficeofHearingsandAppeals(DOHA) *f%4 AdministrativeJudgePaulJ.MasondeniedApplicantsrequestforasecurityclearance.Applicant +R&5 appealedpursuanttoDirectiveE3.1.28andE3.1.30. +>'6   Applicantraisedthefollowingissuesonappeal:whethertheJudgeerredinhisfindingsof -)8 factandwhethertheJudgesdecisionwasarbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.Consistentwith  thefollowing,weremandthedecision.  _  TheJudgesFindingsofFactandAnalysis  `   TheJudgesummarizedthecaseasfollows: 8  8  Applicantbeganaccumulatingdelinquentdebtin2009.Shecompoundedher  ` financialdifficultieswhenthreefederaltaxlienswerefiledagainstherin2011for  L  notpayingfederaltaxes.Threeciviljudgmentswerefiledagainstherin2010,2011,  8  and2012.Shepaidafewdebts,includingherstatetaxes,andispayingherfederal $  taxes.However,shestillowesseveraldebtsandhasnotprovidedsufficientevidence   toprovethatshehasaplantoresolvetheotherremainingdebts.Herevidencein   mitigationdoesnotovercomethedisqualifyingevidencepresentedunderthe   financialconsiderationsguideline.... #  1            Inthefindingsoffact,theJudgestated: \ 8  Inherposthearingdocumentation,[Applicant]providedheryearlyearnings 4 ($79,000)andlistedmonthlyexpenses($3,290).Afterdividingheryearlyearnings  p by12(numberofmonthsinayear),hergrossmonthlyearningsareapproximately  \ $6,583.Aftersubtractingherlistedexpensesfromhergrossmonthlyincome,she H hasabout$3,000leftoverindiscretionaryincome,assumingthathermonthly 4 medicalbillsandstudentloanpayment(twoexpensecategoriesthatshedidnot   assignestimatesto)amounttoabout$293amonth.T #  2            Inhiswholepersonanalysis,theJudgestated, Applicantsuninterruptedearningssince  1991andhercurrentdiscretionarymonthlyremainderofabout$3,000shouldhaveallowedherto  addressherdelinquentdebtsmuchearlier. #  3       l     Discussion  D!   ApplicantcontendstheJudgeerredinfindingthatshehasabout$3,000inmonthly #l! discretionaryincome.WenotethattheJudgescalculationofApplicantsdiscretionaryincomedoes $X" notaccountforFederalorstateincometaxesorotherstandardpayrolldeductions.l #  4      ׀Itwaserrorto $D # concludethatApplicanthad$3,000ofmonthlydiscretionaryincomewithoutaccountingforthose  taxesanddeductionsand,giventheJudgesrelianceonthatfigureinhisanalysis,we_cannot  concludethiserrorwasharmless.Accordingly,weconcludethatthebestresolutionofthiscaseis  toremandthecasetotheJudgeforcorrectionoftheerrorandfurtherprocessingconsistentwiththe t Directive. ` @( Order  8    TheDecisionis REMANDED .  ` ̀   `     h   Signed:Michael_Raanan_Ԁ      `     h   Michael_Raanan_      `     h   AdministrativeJudge      `     h   Chairperson,AppealBoard      `     h   Signed:JamesE.Moody 8    `     h   JamesE.Moody $t    `     h   AdministrativeJudge `    `     h   Member,AppealBoard L    `     h      `       `     h   Signed:JamesF.Duffy__     `     h   JamesF.Duffy     `     h   AdministrativeJudge     `     h   Member,Appeal_Board___