Greetings Folks -
First and foremost…THANKS! for this wonderful source of information.
I apologize for repetition, but want to take one more stab at this before relaxing, and waiting on adjudication.
I have posted bits and pieces, but will attempt to caputure everything in this run, and hope to have some great feedback. Ed and Marko? LOL And maybe this can help others.
i was notified by my Agency that it was time for my five year reinvestigation. They sent me the SF-85P, and a “supplemental form” in use now for moderate risk. I filled out the SF-85P and the supplemental. In filling out the supplemental, there was a question “have you EVER been convicted of a domestic type thing”. I answered truthfully and described the incident in the notes area. The situation was 28 years ago. I have had several clearances, and was cleared for my current public trust position back in 2013 by my current Agency. This issue didn’t come up, because the SF-85P only goes back 7 years. I called the security office after receiving the form and was told that ANYTHING outside of the 5 years, is not in the scope of the reinvestigation, and not to be considered in my suitability.
So, fast forward to now. I get a visit from an investigator and describe what happened. NO actual assault, no blood alcohol, no drug charge, no jail time, nada. During the conversation I explain that the whole situation was kinda odd because I wasn’t actually arrested. I explain I was not handcuffed, told I was arrested, read my rights, or booked into jail. I was taken before a magistrate and said something stupid, and he had the officer place me in holding until my release a few hours later.
I later went to court and was ordered to attend some anger management classes. Long too short…23 years old, new born son, and I was thrown out of the program. Found a new counselor and completed the counseling. Went back to the court and the judge was irritated that I took so long and found me guilty and I paid a small fine.
In the course of the meeting with the investigator, when asking about “arrest” she stated…you were not in handcuffs? I said no…her definition of arrests was exactly the things that DIDNT happen to me. I stuck with the truth, and told her what happened.
Then, I get a call from her saying I just want to ask one question. She then asked me remember when we met you said you weren’t arrested?". I said yes. She then said "well, how would you explain that I am looking at something that states you were? I said “I have no idea”. She then again asked "You were not in handcuffs or anything? I said no. I said…I told you my experience and perception of the situation as it happened. It was a long time ago, and if I kept my mouth shut to the magistrate, i would have been better off. She said, OK, thanks, and that was it.
Based on advice from you guys I called an attorney-clearance lawyer and the actual police department that was involved in this situation. The lawyer said when your pulled over for a ticket you are considered “arrested” and when I asked the police department about whether being taken before a magistrate constitutes being “arrested” the officer stated that it depends.
So, I have been totally honest with the investigator. The definition that the investigator is using to define arrest is NOT what happened to me, and I have been completely honest.
If I am asked again about this, I fully intend to state exactly what I have found out. Thanks Ed for your previous guidance.
Thoughts? I have spoken to a couple of colleagues who actually did not disclose worse things that came up, and know of others who have far worse and hold Public Trust. Can I relax?
I disclosed the incident…so obviously am not hiding it. I am a career employee and a vet.
Is suitability a challenge here? Public Trust, Moderate Risk - 5N