Hey man, good on you! Your google skills have broadened my horizons greatly! lol
This narrow minded Investigator, isn’t divorced, hasn’t gone through a custody battle, doesn’t have a criminal past and is not sweating his clearance.
But you keep on, keeping on!
No,. the investigator should not ask you for any records unless specifically told to do so or if you disagree with information discussed about your credit report/finances.
.
To clarify, every profession has their own language. Resolving an issue in our profession doesn’t mean we go fix the issue or find the solution.
re·solve /rəˈzälv/ verb
1. settle or find a solution to (a problem, dispute, or contentious matter).
"the firm aims to resolve problems within 30 days"
2. decide firmly on a course of action.
(anyone can google the generic definition of anything)
BTW - the granting the divorce is the final settlement/judgement of a divorce.
Thanks… that makes sense on the lingo. I assumed wrong in thinking the lingo was universal.
smh… petulant. I’m not sweating my background check especially since I just received my favorable adjudication notice today. I came to get insight, not some third rate banter from a person who cannot relate or identity to issues they have no experience with. I’ll keep on, keeping on…
Love it. Congrats. You kept on keeping on, got em
What if there were old felony charges from 10 years ago which you were arrested and charged for, but never indicted and the charges ended up being dismissed? You list them on your SF86 but the investigator barely asked about them and was confused about the explanation?
I have no idea. I had one from 22 years ago I was asked about that was expunged… I came here looking for insight… maybe one of the other commenters can provide some some details, but I think FIKnowledge stated above:
“As for arrests out of scope, if you were not required to list it, then it won’t create an honesty issue, and it is likely so old that it will have little to no bearing on your adjudication. Sometimes we are required to discuss issues out of scope that you were not required to list. If you are discussing a charge that is over 20 years old and did not involve felony level stuff, then I wouldn’t lose sleep over it.”
Nope, can’t identify with knowing everything, being a piss poor husband and a criminal record.
Guess that is all my loss.
Lol
It’s horrifying people with such negative attitudes and bias are the ones making investigations on individuals. The only silver lining is how upset you clearly are this guy got his clearance, probably seething over it which makes me smile. Might want to get an honest opinion from your wife on being a piss poor husband with your negativity and general being a jerk.
Lol
Woa, that’s unnecessary. First, no one here is negative or biased. I’d say no one is also losing sleep or “seething” over these posts. There are people who provide feedback day in and day out, and a lot of it is the same and is repeated. @fed-investigator was called “another narrow minded investigator who can’t see part their own thought. And thinks they know everything.” Investigators, reviewers, and adjudicators don’t have to come here and give advice. Just remember that before the urge to argue and tell us we are wrong kicks in. Our tolerance for nonsense is pretty low.
Thanks Skybox, you hit the nail on the head.
I’ve been called a lot of names but ‘seething’ is a first! Oh well, I’ll just add it to the list.
Calling someone a piss poor husband isn’t advice or help.
i’d recommend you read fed-investigators snarky rude response that prompted the additional comments. Might be of context and I’m pretty sure I acknowledged that i came her for advice and appreciate the insight. However, the rudeness wasnt needed by your peer.