To be frank, I lost a senior manager due to “Lack of Candor,” regarding the same situation ten years out. You have 21 more years or so in distance, but you have two. Blunt part: I would remember two arrests 31 years ago. I would not believe anyone telling me “I don’t remember much of anything.” My interpretation from the way you explained the question from the investigator: You were given a chance to rectify the situation. You chose to not do so. They have the information: date, time, jurisdiction, BAT level, your behavior, what you were driving, your car, your license, demeanor, etc. If you are saying you have no memory of any of that…31 years not withstanding…I think you have a candor issue. Was any of this previously mentioned on any of the SF86’s you filled out? The language is clear: " Have you EVER been charged with any offense(s) related to alcohol or drugs." That is not a 7 or 10 year question. That is an “EVER” (emphasis theirs) question. From a criminal conduct perspective it is older at 3 years, very old at 7, history after 10,easily mitigated by consistent superior performance…unless you were not honest about reporting it at the proper intervals. That is a candor issue. It matters not it was a 31 year old DUI or 2, it matters you did not disclose it.
I recommend you research all aspects of these events, do your own criminal background check, ask the jurisdictions these occurred in, and provide all to the FSO. Being proactive beats reactive in responding to a SOR. If it appears you only addressed after multiple opportunities to report (however many times you accomplished an SF86 over the years, was it ever reported even when it was in 7-10 year scope…you have a personal conduct issue.
A good clearance attorney can likely make great arguments in your defense. But lack of candor is a tough one. Don’t focus on 31 years old or criminal DUI, focus on lack of candor.
2 Likes
I don’t often disagree with Amber, but I will here . . . At least going on the information provided.
Despite the fact that these incidents may have been alcohol fueled, there is nothing in your post that says you were actually charged on any alcohol related counts. You can be cited for reckless driving or any other moving offense that could have led to your base driving privileges being revoked, without a DUI or even public drunkenness. A traffic citation, even when it results in suspension, isn’t an arrest.
The very fact that these didn’t show up in previous investigations leads one to believe that they were not arrests and the fact that they were not raised in previous investigations also provides some justification for not having disclosed them now.
Having said that . . . My previous advice, and Amber’s, to research this as much as you can, still stands.
1 Like
Amber is correct. You have to report the alcohol incident.
You will lose if you try the “I was cited, not charged.” or "the judge reduced the charge to reckless driving. The lack of candor will be come the largest issue. Especially if you had the chance to report the DUIs during previous investigations/security questionnaire submissions.
Good luck with your final clearance.
I will agree with @amberbunny here… Off top of my mind, these two incidents should have been reported under one or more of these three sections: Section 15 (Military History), Section 22 (Police Record), or Section 24 (Use of Alcohol). I am mindful that the SF86 may have changed over time, but the content remains.
While there were not a lot of information given in your posts, the fact that you had your driving privilege revoked/suspended and the background investigator found your record, implied that you were disciplined. Reckless driving, in some states, are considered more than traffic infraction. These offenses often require Court appearance. You don’t need to be arrested in order to report it. Clearly, to me, that these incidents did have negative impact on you and/or required intervention by law enforcement, which made it reportable under Section 24.
Add to that, you had chances to report these incidents over the years, but you didn’t until you were asked about them. Even though these incidents happened long time ago and the Government should have uncovered them, the facts remain that you did not report them. I also agree with Amber that this is a lack of candor issue and the Government doesn’t take this lightly.
The Government is more likely than not to move that your clearance to be suspended/revoked (SOR or SOI). To fight lack of candor issue alone, in my opinion, is a lose-lose battle. So, I definitely recommend you to proactively get a reputable security clearance attorney. It will cost you, but it beats losing your clearance and/or job. Keep your head up, not all is lost. Good luck.
1 Like
@comhats6 - Don’t let this thread scare you. In my opinion, it’s reasonable to forget the details of an incident that occurred 20+ years ago… Give as much info to the investigator as possible and press forward… For the record, I know first hand of folks who omitted terminations and arrests who were still cleared… likely your omissions won’t be developed as material due to the fact that the two incidents are far outside the 9 years threshold and the behavior is unlikely to occur again.
I am not sure about this. I will agree with you if these incidents occurred so long before he initially applied for clearance. Or if he had voluntarily disclosed it in past and he was told that he didnt have to report them by a security clearance professional… etc…
However, adjudicator will probably look at this as that he had numerous opportunities to report them when those incidents were fresh (ie: within 7 years) at the time of initial application. This is where the lack of candor issue comes in.
Regardless, he really should get a reputable security clearance attorney to make that defense on his behalf.
1 Like
I agree with the attorney part.
Observation: Note how you and I are using words such as probably and likely. This is due to the level of discretion adjudicators have. This case could be presented to Adjudicator Bob and he could mitigate due to passage of time of incidents and a belief that the subject did not intentionally falsify the sf-86. This case could also be presented to Adjudicator Rick who may fixate on the lack of candor and attempt to push a material falsification charge against the subject. Simply put - it can go either way.
Another thing to remember - not all falsifications are intentional or material… People on this forum often times seem to automatically assume subjects premeditate falsifications… That is difficult to prove in this case if all is as the OP says - given the age of these incidents I don’t foresee a material falsification charge.
2 Likes
I certainly agree with you there, especially on the material or intentional falsification part. This is why I strongly urge the person to retain attorney immediately given the subjective nature of the decision-making process and lack of transparency.
Off the point, I am not sure how those adjudicators justify their decisions. Do they cite/rely on a precedent? How do they make those determinations? Who are those adjudicators? What are their background? etc…
Anyway, yea… I agree with your comments.
1 Like
Thanks everyone for your comments and suggestions. I am happy to say my clearance was granted. Enjoying my job even more now
1 Like