Need Advice on Navy ...

Just wanted to add this:

If you're ever subject to one of these background checks please take this one word of advice. DON'T LIE.

o. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

That was kind of my earlier point: don't lie (it will catchup with you)

I don't deal with national security (that I know of), but regularly need to help folks through professional licensing.

For the the most part the licensing body doesn't care about that crazy night at the Sigma house 20 years ago or even the DUI 3 years ago...they do care if you "omit" the incident on your application

sorry for the thread drift

His best bet at this point us scrupulous honesty. If he's made a material misrepresentation, 99.99% his goose is cooked. If not, they obviously CAN discharge him. But they may not have to. But his biggest problem may be that his story doesn't match that of the doc. Given that discrepancy, they may choose to believe the doc and not take the chance.

I'm sure half my neighborhood thinks that I've got a huge smack habit just from all the federal agents coming round to talk about me and narcotics. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

I don't think they came to that conclusion based on federal agents questioning them........

If you're ever subject to one of these background checks please take this one word of advice. DON'T LIE.

Actually, Mazo, that's two words...but who's counting.

Actually, Mazo, that's two words...but who's counting. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

or even 3..........................

Ok, Thanks again for the sound advice. All I can do is send him a letter and tell him to petition, get waivers, ask to be looked at or counseled by one of the in house Psychiatrists / Psychologists. Then just be honest and upfront about everything. Not sure about any release if he signed, all I know is he had one phone call in the beginning of boot camp and he called his Dad and asked him to send over all medical records on everything and that included the Dr.s statement or letter on when he treated him.

Thanks for the information, sounds like it might not be so bleak after all for him then. We will keep our fingers and toes crossed!

Actually, Mazo, that's two words...but who's counting. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

This is why I no longer talk to my accountants.

I never served in the Navy , but did retire from the Army and served for several years in Military Intelligence and later as an operations sergeant major where both positions required a Top Secret SBI and NATO Clearance which fall into the top security requirements. They were very strict on denying anyone that had any type of financial, mental, marital or just about anything that they felt might put you in a position to be compromised. After the FBI background check and medical records check, they most always denied anyone with any issues relating to these type of issues. I've been retired for many years and they may have lightened up a little, but since the compromise of data in the Wikileaks issue, I would feel they are more stringent now than before.

I had a friend that when they were checking his references for an SBI clearance , one reference joked about something and the FBI took it seriously and would not pass his application even after the guy said he was joking. My friend could not get clearance and lost a chance for promotion and a better MOS.

Writing your congressman will not change the outcome of this type of situation. It is outside there ability to change.

I know this is not what you want to hear, and I am truly sorry because I do know some very good people have been disqualified for these issues. I would think they would keep him in the Navy in another rating that did not require a security clearance, but eventually if he stayed long enough for higher promotion, he would have to have at least a secret clearance.

Ok, Thanks again for the sound advice. All I can do is send him a letter and tell him to petition, get waivers, ask to be looked at or counseled by one of the in house Psychiatrists / Psychologists. Then just be honest and upfront about everything. Not sure about any release if he signed, all I know is he had one phone call in the beginning of boot camp and he called his Dad and asked him to send over all medical records on everything and that included the Dr.s statement or letter on when he treated him.

Thanks for the information, sounds like it might not be so bleak after all for him then. We will keep our fingers and toes crossed! Originally Posted by Bebe Le Strange

Even with my comments above, he should ask for an opportunity to appeal this issue and I wish him the very best. We need good folks in the military and hopefully he can get some relief and another opportunity to continue.

Top

Hi Bebe,
Unfortunately i can`t assist with any help i just wanted to let you know that i hope all will work out for the best for your son. It would be a shame if such happenings had an influence on his career.

I never served in the Navy , but did retire from the Army and served for several years in Military Intelligence and later as an operations sergeant major where both positions required a Top Secret SBI and NATO Clearance which fall into the top security requirements. They were very strict on denying anyone that had any type of financial, mental, marital or just about anything that they felt might put you in a position to be compromised. After the FBI background check and medical records check, they most always denied anyone with any issues relating to these type of issues. I've been retired for many years and they may have lightened up a little, but since the compromise of data in the Wikileaks issue, I would feel they are more stringent now than before.

I had a friend that when they were checking his references for an SBI clearance , one reference joked about something and the FBI took it seriously and would not pass his application even after the guy said he was joking. My friend could not get clearance and lost a chance for promotion and a better MOS.

Writing your congressman will not change the outcome of this type of situation. It is outside there ability to change.

I know this is not what you want to hear, and I am truly sorry because I do know some very good people have been disqualified for these issues. I would think they would keep him in the Navy in another rating that did not require a security clearance, but eventually if he stayed long enough for higher promotion, he would have to have at least a secret clearance.

Even with my comments above, he should ask for an opportunity to appeal this issue and I wish him the very best. We need good folks in the military and hopefully he can get some relief and another opportunity to continue.

Top Originally Posted by topsgt38801

+1
My experience is very similar to topsgt38801, and I’ll add that the services are beginning a serious Reduction In Force (RIF).

I was in the service during the post-Vietnam RIF, the Walkers spy case and the Jonathan Pollard spy case. After the Pollard incident, the services conducted a serious re-evaluation of those holding high-level security clearances. I remember several who had their security clearances down graded. This wikileaks thing is probably having a similar impact. Furthermore, during a RIF, it doesn’t take much to be shown the door.

I know this isn’t positive news, but I wish your son well.

They were very strict on denying anyone that had any type of financial, mental, marital or just about anything that they felt might put you in a position to be compromised. After the FBI background check and medical records check, they most always denied anyone with any issues relating to these type of issues. Originally Posted by topsgt38801

I wonder if they're harder on you guys than they are on the contractors. I guess that makes sense to some extent as we're not actually pulling any triggers. I suppose we're a less significant risk as we only get what they choose to give us as opposed to what we can find just walking around the Pentagon.

It really is funny that there's such a big difference between what we see out here on contract side and what you guys say you go through. Like I said, I've had people with past drug use, ugly divorces, multiple traffic offenses, etc, make it through as long the issue was disclosed. Maybe there's just a different standard for civi's.

Cheers,
Mazo.

I wonder if they're harder on you guys than they are on the contractors. I guess that makes sense to some extent as we're not actually pulling any triggers. I suppose we're a less significant risk as we only get what they choose to give us as opposed to what we can find just walking around the Pentagon.

It really is funny that there's such a big difference between what we see out here on contract side and what you guys say you go through. Like I said, I've had people with past drug use, ugly divorces, multiple traffic offenses, etc, make it through as long the issue was disclosed. Maybe there's just a different standard for civi's.

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

On the marital side: It isn’t just legal problems with a spouse that might jeopardize one's career advancement. If one’s spouse is of foreign origin, or if s/he had serious family in an "unfriendly" country, one’s opportunity for advancement might be seriously curtailed (for the reasons Top lists)—much like England’s Edward VIII.

I wonder if they're harder on you guys than they are on the contractors. I guess that makes sense to some extent as we're not actually pulling any triggers. I suppose we're a less significant risk as we only get what they choose to give us as opposed to what we can find just walking around the Pentagon.

It really is funny that there's such a big difference between what we see out here on contract side and what you guys say you go through. Like I said, I've had people with past drug use, ugly divorces, multiple traffic offenses, etc, make it through as long the issue was disclosed. Maybe there's just a different standard for civi's.

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

I wonder if Nina is gonna be upset with him for eating crow?

I wonder if they're harder on you guys than they are on the contractors. I guess that makes sense to some extent as we're not actually pulling any triggers. I suppose we're a less significant risk as we only get what they choose to give us as opposed to what we can find just walking around the Pentagon.

It really is funny that there's such a big difference between what we see out here on contract side and what you guys say you go through. Like I said, I've had people with past drug use, ugly divorces, multiple traffic offenses, etc, make it through as long the issue was disclosed. Maybe there's just a different standard for civi's.

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

When I went to TS SBI and Nato clearance. I already had a secret for many years. The check they did on me for the higher clearances was totally unbelieveable. They ask me for 5 people that knew me and then after the research on me began, they went to those references and asked about other people we both knew and then went to them for additional people I did not name and did not ask any of the first two groups about me. They also spent extensive time on my parents and siblings backgrounds to the point I think they knew me better than I knew myself.

I do not know about the contractor side, but I do know from the check I received because of the many different and sensative documents I handled, it was not a cake walk and they gave no illusions that anything at all no matter how minor would disqualify me. Once approved, they also watched you like a hawk and even with the appropriate clearance, you better be involved in items you only had a need to know or they would hang you for that.

I know over the years there have been periods of laxness and some commands are tougher than others, but as I stated after the Wikileaks expose, I would assume there is tremendous scrutiny today.

Top