Question: if I “disclose” something does that mean I wasn’t confronted with the information and I did it on my own? Just checking
You’ve been reading here a long time . . . I’m pretty sure that you know the answer: But, yes, if you disclose something before you are asked about then there is no need to confront you with the information.
This doesn’t mean that you are in the clear. It’s possible for you leave something off a form and then learn that they are likely to be confronted (debts, arrests, etc.) In this case, there was intent to deceive which will raise questions.
So, the important question is: Will it look like you were trying to hide something?
Ed, I was pretty sure I knew the answer. Just doing a sanity check. Thanks.
No, I don’t think it will look like I was hiding something…but that’s my perspective.
1 Like
Weellllll… it depends.
Confrontation is not always a bad event. For instance, you admit a DUI but list the DUI as 6/19. The record we find reflects you were arrested in 2/16 bu the court was in 7/16.
You would be confronted on the date difference to ensure there were only the one DUI … and not two.
Any details we have that you did not provide or volunteer will be confronted to ensure what we have is the best information.
1 Like
We are required to confront even if the developed info matches the listed or volunteered info— we can’t use common sense and assume the info pertains to the same issue. You never know, maybe the subject got two DUI’s from Sheriff Andy Taylor in Mayberry, NC on the same date 
The question was about disclosing information before being confronted. If I tell you that I left a careless driving charge off of my SF86 because I thought it was out of scope but realized that it is not, are you still going to say that you confronted me with the information? I hope that you are allowed to use that much common sense?
No room for common sense in this process. Report will read that you volunteered the careless driving charge, you confirmed that you didn’t have anything else to report, I then confronted you on a developed careless driving charge, and then you confirmed it was the same careless driving charge that you volunteered. 7 out of 10 times something doesn’t match (usually the date of the incident or the fine/sentence). But even if it matches 100%, it still requires confrontation, at least on the contractor side.
There is common sense, but as the saying goes, “If common sense was so common…”
If you left off a charge, I would “confront” you. Don’t get too wrapped about the term confront. Just like the terms “issue” and “issue resolution”, we have a professional language that allows us to speak in short cuts.
Confront replaces 'Subject did not volunteer the unreported careless driving charge developed charge that was within scope until I told the Subject that we knew about the unreported careless driving charge."
BTW Cal, if the information the Subject volunteers correctly matches the information developed/reported - same dates, charges, account numbers - you don’t report a confrontation. That must be your company’s policy - its not a requirement .
1 Like