Do they see military history for background checks?

[Beecher Tool]

Speaking as a retired officer myself, it is unduly harsh. The whole concept of the Article 15 when the UCMJ replaced the Articles of War after WW2 was to allow for minor offenses to be dealt with in house with no lasting stigma attached to a service member's career. Of course as incipient careerism invaded the ranks this concept faded and many adopted the harsh tight assed attitude promulgated by yourself. Some 18 year old kid gets two weeks extra duty because they missed formation several times should hardly be something that should stigmatize them for the rest of their lives. If there is a pattern of behavior, then it is a different story.

Clearly the corncob that was firmly embedded in your arse upon reaching field grade rank has remained firmly embedded. I'm just glad you were never my senior rater and that I never served with you, although there are certainly plenty more where you came from. My local MOAA Chapter has several like you and I take great delight in busting their chops when I see them. Pompous, self important and oh yes, harsh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I elaborated in a later post...and would reiterate...there is a difference between asking for a DD-214 with written requested consent and pulling an entire 201 jacket.

 

[Skysoldier]

Doo Dah...Doo Dah....O Doo Dah Day!

I am glad I will never have to interview for a job with a former Military Officer anymore.

Most of them wouldn't know what a Pulse Power Engineer is anyway.......

 

[OB1Kenobi]

I elaborated in a later post...and would reiterate...there is a difference between asking for a DD-214 with written requested consent and pulling an entire 201 jacket.

a civilian job should only need a DD214 w/ ink. member 4. just like LE or any other "job"

joe's phuck up all the time, just like colledge students. some get caught, some don't.

lol. who the hell do you think you are? i have a security clearance too. don't mean jack or shit.

 

[Beecher Tool]

a civilian job should only need a DD214 w/ ink. member 4. just like LE or any other "job"

joe's phuck up all the time, just like colledge students. some get caught, some don't.

lol. who the hell do you think you are? i have a security clearance too. don't mean jack or shit.

A very simple response...the person responsible for managing the affairs of a professional service firm..and to that end I will do as I deem necessary, consistent with industry practice to vet and hire individuals to full a role in a professional service firm...anything less is haphazard.

 

[mark056]

Wow......put up a simple post and watch the venom flow....time to take a step back and try to frame....context matters:

In my second life, I am the Managing Partner of a CPA firm...offices NYC, Chicago and SF. Our clients include private clients, public entities, and several contracts with DOD. We are a professional services firm...other than administrative staff everyone we hire is either an attorney, or an individual eligible to sit for the CPA exam which requires a graduate degree. We are fully subject to Graham Leach Bailey, USA Patriot, and all of the financial regulatory statutes plus state law, and deal with sensitive and confidential financial information. Its the same with any other major public accounting firm, I am formerly an equity partner with Arthur Andersen. As part of our interview process, without exception we request permission to obtain, do obtain and review:

1. Sealed University transcripts from each and every institution that a prospective employee attended.
2. Run a full credit report
3. Undertake an outside agency such as Kroll Associates to undertake a personal background investigation
4. For anyone with military service or similar request a DD-214
5. Process a hair fiber sample drug screen
6. Request a compliance clearance from the Internal Revenue Service

It is no different than what is done today by each and every major professional service firm, and less stringent that the background check run by FBI and related agencies for any Federal job which requires a security clearance. As anyone with the background would know....for criminal records....anyone applying for a firearms license is subject to a record review which INCLUDES information which is not available to the public doing a query.

My premise is this.....if an act is below an established threshold such as an Article 15 action...great it never shows up. If the reporter of the information deems it significant enough to include it...as a prospective employer, having requested permission, I have the right to view it, if permission is denied for access I have the absolute right to reject the applicant, and there are NO absolute rules with respect with regard to how I, as a prospective employer, might act based upon the information obtained. My discretion permits me to hire a person with a juvenile felony conviction, just as it does to reject an applicant with bad credit...MY CHOICE..period so long as applicable civil rights law is respected.

Conclusion being....I am not hiring someone to wash dishes, or mow your lawn...its a professional position of trust...and good business practice which is broadly accepted......and if you apply for an FFL with BATFE all of it is certainly fair game. Sorry if anyone took it the wrong way.

Mr. Tool,

I am the state security clearance liaison for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with the Dept of Homeland Security. I nominate state employees for federal security clearances, and frankly I do not know if you are simply arrogant and full of yourself or well intentioned and anal or perhaps a bit of both. I am quite familiar with background checks in that context and in the other hat I wear as an intelligence analyst for the Massachusetts State Police.

I'd respectfully suggest that perhaps you are just a tad too professional for us here in the Northeast and since your profile indicted you are located in Illinois, the most repressive state for gun laws in this country, it might serve your interests and that of this forum to focus your efforts in that part of the country. I'm sure that there are gun forums and gun rights groups in the mid-west that can profit from your experience, superior intellect, and knowledge. I'm guessing that you were one of the finest Commanders in the U.S. Navy and that you spent countless hours pleasing your superiors while exacting painstaking excellent performances from your subordinates for which you probably received the lion's share of the credit.

My sensing is that you are simply not a good fit here and while everyone applauds your devotion to the 2A, you may wish to consider reading How to Win Friends and Influence People by the late Dale Carnegie, because your current style is not achieving that objective.

I don't hide behind screen names.

Sincerely,

Mark Louttit
Leominster, Ma


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Picton]

A very simple response...the person responsible for managing the affairs of a professional service firm..and to that end I will do as I deem necessary, consistent with industry practice to vet and hire individuals to full a role in a professional service firm...anything less is haphazard.

I've been wondering about something in an earlier post of yours... exactly what is a "sealed DD-214?" I've never heard of it, and I'm genuinely curious.

As for the folks who are piling on you, well, I agree with them, but then I wouldn't want a job at your firm anyway. So, nothing personal.

 

[Beecher Tool]

A sealed document is one that is requested by an individual and sent directly to a third party.

- - - Updated - - -

Same as a college transcript or a tax return with a Form 4506

 

[Beecher Tool]

Note to self....STFU.....no intention to offend..just sharing the reality of what we do.

 

[OB1Kenobi]

A sealed document is one that is requested by an individual and sent directly to a third party.

- - - Updated - - -

Same as a college transcript or a tax return with a Form 4506

there is no such "sealed" DD214. we get our originals, copy 1 & 4. the others get sent to various places (8 total as of my DeMOB).

and even then, most civilians don't even know what they are looking at. i usually just make a copy and hilight (honorable discharge)...

ROFL

college, sure. DD214? nope.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[Picton]

So... as I thought, it's just a regular DD-214 with a sealed envelope. In other words, no super-secret extra information about Article 15s... if that's what you're saying, then your entire premise is absurd, Beecher Tool. You originally said you wouldn't hire without one of these magic, sealed DD-214s, and implied that it would somehow tell you whether the veteran you were considering had once been a bad boy.

But it doesn't, and that's the hole in your logic. So you can seal as many DD-214s as you want; the responses to the OP still stand. No, OP. They can't find your nonjudicial punishment, any more than Beecher Tool can. I'm sure Beecher Tool has hired plenty of folks with prior Article 15s, and doesn't even know it. I'm sure they do fine work, like most veterans... even the ones who missed a formation once, when they were E-3s.

 

[Beecher Tool]

You miss the point...there is no magic...or a desire to dig for a secret. If an item is included there is a reason for it being there. If it isn't there that's fine too. My point was that just like a college transcript.. It is what it is and if it validates oral representations and a resume..all good. And a bad act ought not be fatal. Not being truthful between the document and what is represented should be. The issue is integrity not the act. All that was meant by sealed is a document provided directly by the issuer. It's standard practice

 

[CoastieRon]

As an FSO at a DoD contractor that facilitates over 800 security clearances, as well as a retired CPO, some of the absolute bullshit and misinformation regarding NJPs value in a background check is absolutely startling.

The short answer: no, it should not mean a damn thing.

For a security clearance involving an eQIP or SF86, only NJP that happened within the last 7 years must be disclosed and explained. Nothing more. The only time it has any bearing on the out come of a security clearance is if it is part of a pattern.

As for private companies using hire-right background investigation companies: NJP is in house, and records only exist at unit levels. It is nonjudicial in nature and will not show up in a cursory local agency check.

In fact, the only time they dig past 10 years and go to the units for records are for the "special" clearances. That is when an NJP might be found, and then more questions will follow.

Private companies, can of course, do whatever the **** they want within reason and within the HR laws of the state in which they reside....

sent from the T3

 

[Beecher Tool]

As an FSO at a DoD contractor that facilitates over 800 security clearances, as well as a retired CPO, some of the absolute bullshit and misinformation regarding NJPs value in a background check is absolutely startling.

The short answer: no, it should not mean a damn thing.

For a security clearance involving an eQIP or SF86, only NJP that happened within the last 7 years must be disclosed and explained. Nothing more. The only time it has any bearing on the out come of a security clearance is if it is part of a pattern.

As for private companies using hire-right background investigation companies: NJP is in house, and records only exist at unit levels. It is nonjudicial in nature and will not show up in a cursory local agency check.

In fact, the only time they dig past 10 years and go to the units for records are for the "special" clearances. That is when an NJP might be found, and then more questions will follow.

Private companies, can of course, do whatever the **** they want within reason and within the HR laws of the state in which they reside....

sent from the T3

Not that one person's views matter....there isn't one word you wrote that I don't agree with....don't know how this got twisted...service record at DD-214 level, credit report, background check etc. in 99% of cases is taken on face as long as it squares with everything else provided. If there is a difference then the digging starts. In today's world...there is a CYA obligation to know who you hire so you don't get sued.

Nothing sinister...its just reality...Facebook pages...etc have taken away any reasonable expectation of privacy...no intention of being the Gestapo...but don't take a chance on missing something that comes back to bite you in the tail.

Curiously...here in Illinois...LEOs can see anything expunged on a person..that a private background check won't show...are your rules the same?

 

[CoastieRon]

Not that one person's views matter....there isn't one word you wrote that I don't agree with....don't know how this got twisted...service record at DD-214 level, credit report, background check etc. in 99% of cases is taken on face as long as it squares with everything else provided. If there is a difference then the digging starts. In today's world...there is a CYA obligation to know who you hire so you don't get sued.

Nothing sinister...its just reality...Facebook pages...etc have taken away any reasonable expectation of privacy...no intention of being the Gestapo...but don't take a chance on missing something that comes back to bite you in the tail.

Curiously...here in Illinois...LEOs can see anything expunged on a person..that a private background check won't show...are your rules the same?

DoD rules are consistent across the boards. Because of the nature of our contracts, employment is contingent upon the candidate either having a preexisting security clearance in good standing (no adverse on file in JPAS) or must be granted an interim determination. Because of those guidelines, we do not require hire right style private investigations or LEO reports. It all comes out in the wash when DoD CAF gets their hands on it. Drug test, financial disclosure and piss in a cup.

We do not use a DD214 as a discriminator, and 75% of our workforce are former or retired military.

sent from the T3

 

[Beecher Tool]

DoD rules are consistent across the boards. Because of the nature of our contracts, employment is contingent upon the candidate either having a preexisting security clearance in good standing (no adverse on file in JPAS) or must be granted an interim determination. Because of those guidelines, we do not require hire right style private investigations or LEO reports. It all comes out in the wash when DoD CAF gets their hands on it. Drug test, financial disclosure and piss in a cup.

We do not use a DD214 as a discriminator, and 75% of our workforce are former or retired military.


sent from the T3

Respectfully that is the choice made as an employer...a private employer that abides by proper HR guidelines is free to make choices...and the range of options is broad...wrt drug testing for pre-employment and post...as one example....as long as a clearly stated policy which is in bounds is followed. I could use SAT scores for 20 year out of school candidates if I want to...not that I would.

 

[uncle griz]

from another branch...... WE BUILT, WE FOUGHT

 

[CoastieRon]

Respectfully that is the choice made as an employer...a private employer that abides by proper HR guidelines is free to make choices...and the range of options is broad...wrt drug testing for pre-employment and post...as one example....as long as a clearly stated policy which is in bounds is followed. I could use SAT scores for 20 year out of school candidates if I want to...not that I would.

Absolutely, however, in MA, the HR rules are very different. I'm almost positive you would new sued for that.

In fact, I have to have employees and candidates sign a waiver stating that I can look at all this personal information in performance of my duties as outlined by the NISPOM to submit an eQIP package. So, if that tells you anything about the state of MA HR laws.,...

sent from the T3

 

[mark056]

Absolutely, however, in MA, the HR rules are very different. I'm almost positive you would new sued for that.

In fact, I have to have employees and candidates sign a waiver stating that I can look at all this personal information in performance of my duties as outlined by the NISPOM to submit an eQIP package. So, if that tells you anything about the state of MA HR laws.,...

sent from the T3

Ron,

This is what happens when people try to apply their knowledge to our situation in Massachusetts. What might be true elsewhere may not necessarily apply here. I've heard of SAT scores being used as discriminators but never in Mass. Beecher Tool is also trying to say that he epitomizes the industry standard for personnel security, but then waffles and says that it is up to each employer to make the decision. Before it was rigidly defined and industry standard but now an "employer is free to make choices"....

 

[Beecher Tool]

Absolutely, however, in MA, the HR rules are very different. I'm almost positive you would new sued for that.

In fact, I have to have employees and candidates sign a waiver stating that I can look at all this personal information in performance of my duties as outlined by the NISPOM to submit an eQIP package. So, if that tells you anything about the state of MA HR laws.,...

sent from the T3

Without the state specific background a comment would be meaningless.....I am aware of rules in the states where we practice.

 

[CoastieRon]

Without the state specific background a comment would be meaningless.....I am aware of rules in the states where we practice.

By this logic, you should have never posted in this thread. Your initial post was personal in nature, from a different state law structure and had no relevance.

Back on track of the thread, no, the LEO was probably asking the OP questions in regards to the reason of the short length of service. Nothing more.

sent from the T3

 

[Navy Moose]

I saw a Marine get NJP'ed for being the roommate of another Marine that got a DUI over the weekend. Seriously, that's it. The CO just really had a hard on for mass punishment.

I remember reading you can ask to be court martialed if you got an NJP. Is that still the case? If so, if I was the service member that got NJP for being the roommate of a guy who got a DUI, I would ask for a court martial.

 

[CoastieRon]

I remember reading you can ask to be court martialed if you got an NJP. Is that still the case? If so, if I was the service member that got NJP for being the roommate of a guy who got a DUI, I would ask for a court martial.

Yes, however, stupid shit always got dropped, unless the CO was a heartless a**h*** with something to prove.....

sent from the T3

 

[Andy in NH]

... Gadsden was arguably the first Marine flag, and I'm assuming.

Gadsden gave the flag to Commodore Hopkins.

Hopkins (along with John Paul Jones) sailed to the Bahamas with his Marines and conducted our first amphibious landing (and by strict definition it was a raid).

The Marines captured a "boatload" (Ha - pun!) of powder for use in the remainder of the Revolution.

Apologies---

 

[ochmude]

I remember reading you can ask to be court martialed if you got an NJP. Is that still the case? If so, if I was the service member that got NJP for being the roommate of a guy who got a DUI, I would ask for a court martial.

It's still the case, and he could have requested court martial. However, he was a young PFC, he was completely intimidated by the whole ordeal, and he had sh***y NCO's that didn't look out for him.

 

[goodlife30]

I have an idea be honest about it and explain why it happens. I do think it is funny everyone writing what they do tooting their horn. I do this, I work here, served here. None of that matters. Submit dd214 and if asked a question answer it truthfully. It's called integrity. If people don't like the answer you probably don't want to work there anyway.

 

[OB1Kenobi]

I have an idea be honest about it and explain why it happens. I do think it is funny everyone writing what they do tooting their horn. I do this, I work here, served here. None of that matters. Submit dd214 and if asked a question answer it truthfully. It's called integrity. If people don't like the answer you probably don't want to work there anyway.

price is NOT right.

civilian records and military are not the same.

even if your a dirt bag service member with a general under honorable conditions, you are good to go. read the 4473 and the MA LTC applications. even if they ask about UCMJ, which they dont... they can't see shit.

*generally speaking, anything from a summary court martial and below.

if you have been convicted of a general or higher court matrial, you'd probably have a dishonorable discharge along with a federal conviction which = PP on the federal level.

next?

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[dont tread on me1775]

price is NOT right.

civilian records and military are not the same.

even if your a dirt bag service member with a general under honorable conditions, you are good to go. read the 4473 and the MA LTC applications. even if they ask about UCMJ, which they dont... they can't see shit.

*generally speaking, anything from a summary court martial and below.

if you have been convicted of a general or higher court matrial, you'd probably have a dishonorable discharge along with a federal conviction which = PP on the federal level.

next?

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

Thanks, I always thought when they did the background checks they saw military records too. The cop asked me for my DD214 and asked if I got any njps, or anything. He sent in my DD214 along with my firearm app to the state police or wherever they go. I just didn't know they could do that.

 

[Martlet]

I dont believe the gov allows any of your mil records to be seen by anyone without your written permission.

It does, but NJP won't show up.

 

[Martlet]

Exactly. I'm pretty sure everyone in the military, enlisted anyway, gets at least one Article 15 in their time of service, I just think my rights were a little violated when he asked me if I got any of them.

Not me.

 

[yanici]

Not me.

When will you be beatified?

You must have had a very boring military experience.