When you think your investigator has been less than truthful? I know this will bring a storm but he’s referencing things that never took place.
Are you basing this on a copy of your investigative report?
I’m basing this off the SOR which mentions conversations that never took place.
At the very least, this is a matter for the response to your SOR. But, a little more context might be in order: Who are the parties to the reported conversations?
Just me and him. He is literally making up things. I don’t want to go down this road but I’ll be damned if I’m going down for sh!t that didn’t happen.
Then this IS an issue for the response to your SOR. Do you know who the investigator is employed by? Do you still have contact information? Are the issues raised in the SOR legit independent of the conversations?
NBIB
He references confronting me with information that he never mentioned to me in the slightest–I would have remembered that. He never confronted me with anything. The interesting thing is that there is no date associated with this supposed confrontation. There are some other accusations of something that could embarrass me and that I didn’t say anything about it (I don’t embarrass easily so I see that as an opinion more than anything else). The fact that he’d lie so blatantly is concerning to say the least.
I doubt that he is lying . . . It’s either a matter of interpretation or he mixed up notes. Whatever he says he confronted you about . . . Is a real issue? Is it something that actually happened or is it completely unrelated to you? If it’s legit, you need to address it anyway.
I think that it would be helpful if you just explained what is going on. If you don’t want to talk about the real issue, make it about something else but tell us that you are doing so.
There’s a big difference between being confronted about something that you didn’t report and something that didn’t happen. We need a nice calm explanation. You have been here for a long time and you should know what we need to help.
1 Like
Ed, the conversation never took place. He NEVER said what he’s alleging to have confronted me with. I’ve done enough research to know that you do not want to be confronted with information. Tell the truth and tell it the first time. He’s lying–there’s no way around it. I’ll put it in the SOR and include some other documents.
OK . . . Is the subject of the supposed confrontation a valid issue? In other words, does he say that he confronted you about a DUI and you didn’t have a DUI or that he never confronted your DUI (I’m using DUI as an example.) If it’s the first, you will have no problem with your defense. If it’s the second and you already disclosed the DUI, you just have to show that you had already disclosed it.
Are you more concerned with the word confronted? Because that’s a word that we have to use. You said the conversation never took place, are you absolutely certain? Could it be that you volunteered something? For example. You said you were arrested and you have all of the information the only thing that was off was that he confronted you on the month. Then he would say he confronted you. Is the information that he said he confronted you on true? Did he call you at any point and discussed that with you AFTER the interview? Confrontation sounds like a horrible word when people read it. It is just something we have to put.
Also, if you do have the investigators number, don’t contact him. There’s no need.
Something that can embarrass you? Could you be blackmailed or coerced because of it? Is this what your SOR is about? Things that can embarrass someone is a huge red flag. I hope that you didn’t say that and are not putting that in your SOR
What is mentioned is true HOWEVER, saying that I only admitted this to be true only when confronted is a flat-out lie. He NEVER confronted me with anything. We had multiple interviews. Bottom Line: he never confronted me with anything. I’ve read enough posts on here and reviewed enough cases to know what that is. My lawyer and I were ready for him to ask a certain question (ask not confront with additional information) and he did. I answered truthfully.
Never confronted with anything. “Well, during the course of the investigation…”
1 Like
The fact I went to the Philippines is not at issue here. I’m don’t care about it and I don’t care who knows. It was 10 years ago–why lie about it when it is likely mitigated by time… I’m a single male with no children and I’m not dating anyone. Don’t ask my opinion on something if you don’t want a single man’s perspective on it.
Ok just so that you are clear without getting upset. Your definition is off. If we ASK you, and it wasn’t listed or is off, in our lingo, we are CONFRONTING you. It’s just lingo and shouldn’t be taken as harsh as you’re taking it. For me I would say, Subject was confronted with a dui he received 9/2019. Subject didn’t list because blah blah blah. It’s not the confrontational necessarily that got you the SOR it’s what we are confronting you on.
So am I to understand that he did not ask/confront you with the information? Y’all never discussed it all? Focus on mitigating whatever it is. I get you don’t want to discuss, but maybe tell me what section and I can help that way or tell you what they are looking for.
2 Likes
Just as an FYI, some investigators confront/ask you in different ways. He doesn’t have to say during the course of the investigation if he puts it another way. But you said he asked you the question that you were anticipating. Therefore, he confronted you. I know it’s shocking. But if it happened ten years ago, and was previously discussed, Add that to your SOR.
“You repeatedly failed to disclose your illegal activities [barfining girls in the Philippines] during the investigative process and you only admitted to your activities after the investigator confronted you within information from your medical record…”
Bullshi!t. Said “confrontation” never happened. I was upfront from the get-go. My military leadership already knew about it because I told them. Why lie about it? It was TEN years ago. I was prepared to hand over an NRO prescreen interview where I revealed it there as well (lawyer told me not to). He had no proof whatsoever and when he asked me about it I was honest with him.
Listen . . . You’re being given the answer here and you’re not listening. Your lawyer told you not to bring it up until asked? That’s a mitigating factor right there. You were following the advice of counsel. “Confronted” is just a matter of terminology. You don’t like but you have just been told, several times, that this is the standardized lingo used to write reports. The investigator asked you about something that you hadn’t reported. That’s their definition of confronting. Get over it.
The question that you have to ask yourself: Do I want my clearance or do I want to try to fight over the meaning of a word and change the way that a government agency writes their reports? If it’s the former, you’re in the right place getting the right advice. If the later, I don’t think that there’s anyone here that can help you.
3 Likes
Ok gotcha. By our definition, he confronted you. But that’s neither here nor there. Did you list the activity on the case papers? The numerous conversations that you had, was it solely about this issue? I’m trying to figure out how that constitutes a denial or SOR. You were in the military, so it should have went under the military section or at the least the employment section when it spoke about disciplinary actions.
Just as an FYI, I’ve been doing this for 10+ years. So I’m not just giving you bs. I also understand completely why you are upset. Just wanted to put it out there.
Ed, maybe you’re missing the point. I’m reading the SOR and the conversation where he is saying I was “confronted” with info from my medical record did-not-happen. That conversation never happened. So what would you call that other than a lie?