Here is my question. If an individual is honorably separated from the military, due to failing a portion of the fitness test too many times ( in this case, the bca or “tape test”) is this something considered disciplinary or reportable on a sf-86? Note that these types of discharges are still considered “honorable” and reflect this fact on a dd214.
Was it an administrative discharge or straightforward Honorable discharge? The dreaded tape has been the death of many a career. I think you MAY need disclose you had writeups at work if they still gave written counselings for failing the tape test test. But it isn’t a trust issue for failing the tape. Bluntly tell them you were too fat (not trying to be mean). You could have otherwise 5 EPR’s, and an MSM…but your belly and neck math don’t add up correctly. Also, your existing clearance should be able to cross over without a new SF86 if the NACS are in scope.
Military specific disciplinary actions (fitness/weight failure) by themselves are not great security concerns - they are reportable if you were written up (Art 15/LOR/UIF)…
They do become a concern when they are part of a pattern or you get anything other than an honorable discharge.
You don’t need to characterize your service any way other way: It was honorable. You don’t need to go into the reasons and the SF86 only asks if it wasn’t an honorable discharge. I don’t think the investigators will ask.
These issues pop up in the employment section where asked if there has been any disciplinary actions.
Except it wouldn’t because this is verbal counseling and if the soldier fails to meet it then they are discharged honorably. There’s plenty of counseling that goes on in the military and it’s different than a civilian employer.
No, I meant, Subjects often list these military administrative disciplinary actions on their SCA. I do not mean they are required to report them.
As a retired SNCO, I understand the military counseling process…but Subject’s report the LOCs or unit administrative disciplinary actions for missed appointments or PT failure. On the flip side, you’d be amazed how many don’t report serious infractions, say – oh, the LOR/UIF for leaving a COMSEC device unattended or the SIF for bringing their cell phone into the SCIF which pop up on during the Subject interview.
Advivce for anyone in the military or former military. In general, if anything with the title “Article…”, anything that required an investigation, anything involving military law enforcement (military police, security forces, AFOSI, CID, NCIS, IG), or created an unfavorable information file -you need to report the incident if it happened within the reporting requirements (7, 10, or ever)…
I’ve got to disagree. The fingerprint report may actually show the Article 15 and it is not uncommon for it to not say why (I’ve seen it listed and not listed). Personally, I wouldn’t want to leave this to the imagination of an adjudicator and would put it in the SF86 up front. Like someone said above, weight standards are not a security concern but I certainly would not leave it to a human to go out of their way and dig for more info.
It’s not an article 15. No one gets an article 15 for weight.
100% not true. I’ve seen it many times and I’ve seen it many times on SAC reports from the fingerprints.