Discussion in 'On Topic' started by DaRkPhAnToM, Aug 13, 2005.
I would answer no. Never arrested. Never charged. Never tried. Never convicted. = "no"
Dependent upon how the question is asked it could result in several different answers.
If it is just whether or not he was ever arrested, charged with, pled guilty, nolle prosequi, nolo contendre, etc. then he can answer NO.
If it asks if he was ever investigated in connection with any crime he must answer YES with an explanation.
If this has to do with security clearances - the background investigators WILL find out - they're mostly looking for honesty. Nobody is a perfect little angel - they just want to know if you can be trusted.
If it comes down to a polygraph examination - and he answers NO to that question whilst he seems to have doubts to the answer by your posing the question here - he will probably indicate a positive for deception... not good.
If they didn't take his fingerprints, then don't bring it up.
Unless they ask if he was investigated in connection like NISMOTom said.
thanks guys, ill tell him to say no then. if it ends up showing up, and he gets denied clearance, he can always appeal it and explain in detail right?
You asked if the was charged, a preliminary hearing is utilize to determine if probable cause exists that the felony was committed, thus to have a trial. If he had a PH, then he was charged by a police officer, but the charges were dropped. He better read the packet very carefully.
With all of the background investigations I've been through, (local, state, FBI), it's best to just put it all out on the table and let the investigator deal with it.
As a past investigator, if I found something of even questionable nature that someone failed to mention, that's a red flag. If they put something down of questionable nature, it's points in my book for being honest.
Just some food for thought.
Yep. It might slightly annoy the S2, but it's easy enough to send an mfr up to post security explaining it in more detail.
but he said they found out they could not charge him with the crime because the statue at the time did not cover the conditions in what happened. so technically he never was charged then right because the charged would of been false and nulled(sp)? so it cancelled the charge out in the end, because they could not lawfully charge him in the first place? im thinking it can go both ways. yes he was charged and no he was never charged depending on who and what they are looking at. what do you think? i guess he could just explain the whole thing in detail.
thanks for your input btw.
Not for security clearance.
My oldest son got in some trouble before he joined. he had to get a waiver for it, even though it happened before he turned 18, and the records were expunged.
I haven't gotten that far yet.
in my book, he was charged, simply because there was a preliminary hearing. You can't have a PH if paperwork hasn't been filed with the DA.
There are 2 standards when filing charges. Police officers have to meet probable cause. Probable cause in simple terms are the facts that would allow a reasonable person to believe that the crime was committed. In numerical terms, we could call it 60-40.
The DA on the other hand, needs more than PC. They look to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. It takes much more to prove a case in court than it does for an officer to reach PC to make an arrest. It's complicated yet simple.
As for the charge not fitting the crime, there are a multitude of reasons why it was wrong, who knows.
Again, in my opinion, paperwork was filed, so he was charged. The courts couldn't support the charges, so they dropped them. It just depends on how the question is worded.
Then again, I overanalyze things all the time
well i just found this out today so looks like he is fine.
Army Personnel Security Investigations Guidance – January 2005
·[font="] [/font][font="]The investigative basis (initial and reinvestigation) for a CONFIDENTIAL or SECRET security clearance is a National Agency Check, Local Agency Check and Credit (NACLC) investigation. [/font]
·[font="] [/font][font="]A NACLC request will provide information covering the last 7 years of the individual’s life. Individuals between 20 and 23 of age will provide information back to their 18th birthday. Individuals under 20 years of age will provide a minimum of 2 years of personal history, but will not provide information which predates their 16th birthday.
[/font] ·[font="] [/font][font="]When required for suitability/trustworthiness determinations, a National Agency Check, Local Agency Check and Credit (NACLC) investigation will provide information covering the last 7 years, but will not exceed the individual’s 16th birthday.[/font]
I know that's what it says, but when they pulled my file when I was applying for CONFIDENTIAL (20 at the time) It showed police-issued warnings from when I was 17.
hmmm. what kind of warnings? traffic/speeding related? if u dont mind me asking
My Army son had some run ins with the law beginning when he was 16. He had to work through all of that with his recruiter before he could join. I think he got letters from the arresting officers and did some other stuff to clean up his act.
But yeah - they might say they only look so far, but in reality they can see anything that has ever been put on your record.
its not about joining military its for secret security clearance, hes trying to go SF with me. its different then that background check.
Actually, it's the same thing. A background suitability questionare is basicly a slimmed down SF 86.
I do background investigations on our agents and support personnel and let me tell you, we ask for records, we get them. Whatever shows up on that record (even though the information may be outside of the scope) gets reported. That means anytime you are arrested, charged, or indicted (regardless of disposition), anytime you are issued a written warning/citation/ticket, anytime you go to court on a criminal matter, any time you go to court on a civil matter. And we report on your financial background also (credit reporting).
His best bet is to lay it out on the table. That will go a lot farther then for him to come back later and say "oh, I didn't know".
thanks for your input
Ticket 1: Speeding
Ticket 2: Speeding
Warning 1: Burnt out tail light.
All 3 of those happened when I was 17 and all three were on my record.
No Thread specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the webmaster
Must have deleted it to protect the guilty.