I guess we can agree to disagree… I think it is clear from OP’s posts that he wrote down what led to the discharge, he disclosed the reprimand… he told the background investigator the story before he was confronted. He thought he honestly answered the questions. He thought everything that happened in the military was nonjudicial. The latter is moot.
While credibility is the heart of security clearance, I am not suggesting that we should take omission lightly or such. Short of willful concealment or intentional falsification, security clearance applicants/holders get benefit of doubt.
It came down to whether he understood the questions on section 22. If anything, he is guilty of that. Take the record as whole, he gets the benefit of doubt in my opinion. I don’t think the Government will be able to proof that mens rea when he made the disclosure. If this is the only issue, I hope this will amount to a SOR for Guideline E: Personal Conduct or possibly Guideline J: Criminal Conduct. That is my opinion.
Nonetheless, I will leave it as that. @Derbs, good luck to you.
Wood did you take note this was a Schedule II Controlled substance? Regardless of omission or not, misunderstanding or not…he still has to deal with a character issue. At age 23 it is hard to argue he didn’t know better to not possess said items, or that it wasn’t legal, or that he misunderstood. His updated post continued to play it down and claim it wasn’t controlled. It was a serious drug. That too comes into play in whether or not he understood misreporting might change the outcome of a clearance decision. And that my friend is at the heart of the matter.
Where do you see that the OP noted the reasons for the discharge or that he disclosed the reprimand? He specifically states that he denied being charged, to the investigator, until he was confronted with the record.
@amberbunny, I do acknowledge that… I am not sure if it will make any difference… There are folks who receive favorable adjudication who possessed, used, and/or possibly sold Schedule I drug (ie: marijuana). I am not dismissing your point here as it is a valid point. I don’t honestly think adjudicators will make that distinction… illegal drugs are illegal regardless of the classification. I could be wrong here.
Now, at risk of hijacking this thread… my personal experience is why I sympathize @Derbs. I was terminated from a federal position the second time for essentially lying on a federal form (OF-306), which I checked “no” on question number 12. Why? I didn’t think being fired was the equivalent to being terminated according to Office of Personnel Management (OPM). My mistake was that I did not verify this understanding, in writing, with HR prior to the submission.
Nonetheless, I disclosed the termination to HR and security officer. The latter, I told in greater details. Fast forward, my supervisor called me into his office. I went in thinking that it was to discuss reasonable accommodations (signed language interpreters) as I was frustrating with lack of signed language interpreters at meetings and such.
Instead, I was given a termination letter on the spot (ironically, without a signed language interpreter) for falsified the form. Although my supervisor knew this for months, he didn’t ask me about it. This shook me to the core and it caused (and still do) me to doubt my own integrity and my own identity.
Now that I am back in federal service. Even though I passed the polygraph examinations and my BI was favorably adjudicated again, I still have not recovered from it and probably will not be fully recovered. My point is that… people do make innocent mistakes and the innocent mistakes do not suggest nefarious intent. Instead, we ought to consider the whole picture.
He simply didn’t say, “yes, I was arrested and/or charged.” While the OP thought he was not arrested/charged, he disclosed the events leading up to and the discharge.
I’ll yield on the disclosure part. If the BI person felt he was upfront “enough” it doesn’t cost a penny. I did get the feel you were somewhat arguing your own case Wood. Thanks for sharing deeply personal issue here, I applaud you kept applying and eventually overcame the circumstances. It is shocking you were not provided a reasonable accommodation…even if it does sound odd by common understanding that “Termination,” and "firing are considered synonymous. At times my company will say a person was “released, for not meting the requirement of the position.” When they do this they are telling the person they will not challenge unemployment claim.
Derbs,
just one guys perspective:
-possession while cleared
-your age
-How the BI person sums up your overall presentation of information (quibbling, defensive etc)
-Continuing to play down the type of drug…not in your favor. You may very well clear. I think your hill is somewhat steeper than someone not having these issues. An Article 15 is not a kiss of death. Leaving the service is not a kiss of death. I recommend not leaning on the “i did not understand, it wasn’t clear…” All of that comes across as defensive and shading, IMHO. I honestly wish you the best of luck Please post again to let us know how this all works out. Please wait at least 12 months before seeking cleared work…otherwise I predict a rejection, denial and making you wait 365 days to reapply and then you must speak about this forever.
Obviously I lost the bubble here. Was under impression this was recent event. If this was indeed 4 years prior, and the event occurred at age 19, he is now 23…it MAY be considered mitigated, with exception he would be considered in possession while cleared. Or was he 23 at the time (at the far end of discretion) and he is now 27? Even then 4 years would possibly mitigate. But as for not believing there were charges…downplaying the level of drug…tells me possibly more to this story. And yes it comes down to credibility.