KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: We note that the Judge’s calculation of Applicant’s discretionary income does not
account for Federal or state income taxes or other standard payroll deductions. It was error to
conclude that Applicant had $3,000 of monthly discretionary income without accounting for
those taxes and deductions. Adverse decision remanded.
CASENO: 15-00842.a1
DATE: 09/12/2017
DATE: September 12, 2017     
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-00842
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
February 12, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of
Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing. 
On June 14, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant
appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge erred in his findings of
fact and whether the Judge’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with
the following, we remand the decision.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis 
The Judge summarized the case as follows:
Applicant began accumulating delinquent debt in 2009.  She compounded her
financial difficulties when three federal tax liens were filed against her in 2011 for
not paying federal taxes.  Three civil judgments were filed against her in 2010, 2011,
and 2012.  She paid a few debts, including her state taxes, and is paying her federal
taxes.  However, she still owes several debts and has not provided sufficient
evidence  to prove that she has a plan to resolve the other remaining debts.  Her
evidence in mitigation does not overcome the disqualifying evidence presented under
the financial considerations guideline. . . .1
In the findings of fact, the Judge stated:
In her post-hearing documentation, [Applicant] provided her yearly earnings
($79,000) and listed monthly expenses ($3,290).  After dividing her yearly earnings
by 12 (number of months in a year), her gross monthly earnings are approximately
$6,583.  After subtracting her listed expenses from her gross monthly income, she
has about $3,000 left over in discretionary income, assuming that her monthly
medical bills and student loan payment (two expense categories that she did not
assign estimates to) amount to about $293 a month.2
In his whole-person analysis, the Judge stated, “Applicant’s uninterrupted earnings since
1991 and her current discretionary monthly remainder of about $3,000 should have allowed her to
address her delinquent debts much earlier.”3
Discussion
Applicant contends the Judge erred in finding that she has about $3,000 in monthly
discretionary income.  We note that the Judge’s calculation of Applicant’s discretionary income does
not account for Federal or state income taxes or other standard payroll deductions.4  It was error to
conclude that Applicant had $3,000 of monthly discretionary income without accounting for those
1 Decision at 1.  
2 Decision at 4.
3 Decision at 7.
4 A review of Applicant’s bank statements (Applicant’s Exhibit E) shows that she had payroll deposits of about
$2,150 for two months in 2016.  Since Applicant did not provide complete copies of her bank statements for both of
those months, it cannot be determined if that figure was her total monthly take-home pay during those months.  
taxes and deductions and, given the Judge’s reliance on that figure in his analysis, we cannot
conclude this error was harmless.   Accordingly, we conclude that the best resolution of this case
is to remand the case to the Judge for correction of the error and further processing consistent with
the Directive. 
Order
The Decision is REMANDED.  
 
Signed: Michael Ra’anan        
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody        
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy         
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board