420, 69. Lied about drug use. Definitely a typo.
Maybe that is what was wrong with his application! He mistyped his birthday.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Background check: Prior SF-86 forms
- Thread starter arrokratava
- Start date
420, 69. Lied about drug use. Definitely a typo.
Maybe that is what was wrong with his application! He mistyped his birthday.
Yes, your interpretation makes much more sense. Lots of 51 year old applicants being interviewed and getting paperwork generated420, 69. Lied about drug use. Definitely a typo.
Maybe that is what was wrong with his application! He mistyped his birthday.
Lying about your PII on random public websites? Not a bad OPSEC practice. Lying on official govt forms? Not a good practice.
@arrokratava are you 51 years old, or was that a typo in your profile?
I'd venture to say that was on purpose. The 420 69 nonsense is a popular joke on the internet among the younger (or perhaps more immature) crowd.
Oh, thanks for that, because I had no idea what 420 or 69 is. ?
Your best course of action was to just disclose it. I have a buddy who disclosed drug use from several years earlier, and because it was a one time thing, and he was honest and demonstrated integrity, his TS was approved. I'd ask the Marine recruiter if you can amend some errors on your SF-86.
The biggest problem to a clearance investigator is not the one time marijuana use (presumably), but that you're demonstrating a pattern of evasiveness and dishonesty- particularly if you didn't put that you had been previously denied a clearance on your form AND the drug use. That's the concern. If you tried drugs once in college, I don't see how today that'd automatically DQ you. However, being dodgy and dishonest on your form, that represents a security risk for the U.S. government, so they're unlikely to approve a clearance on a subject of a clearance investigation who has demonstrated those high risk tendencies. Make sense? (Source: someone who has gone through the long TS approval process where my investigator was a suprisingly frank retired MA chief.)
It's a new thing with the kids these days. Some guy made it up like 3yrs ago.
Yes fess up now. I have personally field DQ’d applicants for lying to me when I caught them
Lying. I will also
Say this if you are applying to be a commissioned officer you need to understand that your integrity is the only thing that separates you. Give that away (notice I don’t say lose it or have it taken) and you are done. If I cannot trust you to be honest on something as simple as a questionnaire I wil NEVER trust you to deploy with me.
Do the right thing regardless of the consequences.
And his user name was Dogecoin