Filling out the PHS and Age factor

[VillagePeeps]

First, thank you all for everything you do on and off duty!

After being laid off a 20 yr career in the manufacturing industry, hubby decided to pursue his childhood dream to become LEO. He applied to the 2 biggest agencies in our county, didn't get picked up and decided to self-sponsor through the academy, hoping it would better his chances of getting hired. He is also pursuing a degree in sociology, emphasis criminology. He graduated academy and is going verbatim by what the training officers told them - do not apply for more than 3 agencies at a time and do not make any career changes during the process (which means he is only focusing on finishing degree FT now). DQ by 2 agencies, available select for 1 and in background now with 3.

In his PHS, he answered Yes to 2 questions that I think by definition would be No, both in the construct of the question, which says within 10 years and by legal definition. Now that I've pointed it out to him, he says going forward he has no choice but to continue putting it on every application because the TO said every agency exchanges info. Advice: omit it from future PHS or keep going forward with this ?

75.15: Indecent exposure, lewd or obscene acts - watched porn on a work computer 12 years ago
75.28: Any acts that would be a misdemeanor - masturbated in a work bathroom (it was after hours, company was closed and no other employees present) on the same night 12 years ago.

Some other things I see people asking about that I also want to point out:
Age: 43, is age also frowned at?
Drug use: 1 time marijuana at age 30.
No criminal involvement or arrest.
Stable work history and excellent references from previous supervisors, co-workers and various places he has volunteered with (youth groups, coaching, church, etc.) Excellent credit. Good driving record (never had a traffic citation, one at-fault fender bender).

Its been 1 year academy and now 1 year post academy. We didn't think it would take this long to get hired. Last resort he will use the experience and academics he's gained in a supportive LE role, but we are trying to remain hopeful.

[Iowa #1603]

. DQ by 2 agencies,

First of all was he Disqualified by 2 agencies or was he non selected?

75.15: Indecent exposure, lewd or obscene acts - watched porn on a work computer 12 years ago

I don't see a problem here

75.28: Any acts that would be a misdemeanor - masturbated in a work bathroom (it was after hours, company was closed and no other employees present) on the same night 12 years ago.

I see this as a major problem. Sure it is not a crime-------------but, if you husband admits to this, I have a funny feeling that he is going to keep getting non selected.

Its going to raise red flags



In answer to your main question..................IF your husband has already put these incidents into writing and placed them in applications/personal histroy forms -----he needs to continue to disclose them and be prepared to explain them

chances are that some agency someplace will hire even with the strange behavior

[Country_Jim]

"75.15: Indecent exposure, lewd or obscene acts - watched porn on a work computer 12 years ago
75.28: Any acts that would be a misdemeanor - masturbated in a work bathroom (it was after hours, company was closed and no other employees present) on the same night 12 years ago."

If I were investigating your husband's background, the incident mentioned above would be a deal breaker. At the age of thirty-one, your husband could not control his sexual urges. He demonstrated this by watching pornography at work and masturbating at work. This is not normal behavior in the work place. I would not be willing to expose my department to the potential liability of hiring him

If your husband is considering omitting the masturbation incident, he should really stop looking for law enforcement jobs. Integrity and honesty are everything in this field.

[Lady Blue]

I will agree with my colleagues. Watching computer porn and spanking the monkey are normal, doing them at work (alone or not) is not normal. In addition, you will get a pass on smoking week if you tried it in your teens. At thirty you are well aware that it is an illegal act and should be mature enough to make a better decision. The fact that he is willing to lie by omission also lets me know he does not have the integrity for this profession.

[PhilipCal]

I urge you to take another long, hard, critical look at both replies 3 and 4. They mirror precisely what I was going to convey to you. It is possible, barely possible, that an agency would consider your husband's application. I wouldn't bet the farm on that however.

[Amigo1342]

The two offenses you posted above would not fly around here.

The conversation would most likely ensue as the following:

Investigator: Can you explain your actions for the above listed offenses?

Your husband: *explains actions/reasons*

Investigator: LE takes a large amount of discipline and self-control. Say for example you are working 2300-0700 one cold winter night. 0300 strikes and you find yourself parked in a dark, deserted area, alone in your patrol car. How can you convince me that you wouldn't succumb to the same urges you have in your past?

I would go out on a limb and say that there is nothing your husband could say to redeem that. I do not know of many patrol vehicles that have internet access for web surfing. Obviously with most people having a smart phone though..... you can read between the lines.

[VillagePeeps]

Your points are all well taken. Iowa: He was disqualified by 1 and non-selected by another. Is there a difference?

Country Jim and Lady Blue: I just want to clarify that he is was not considering omitting anything, 'm the one that is questioning it. As I said, the question says "in the last 10 years" and this incident occurred 12+ years ago, so he was not required to disclose to begin with. Also, as you pointed out and as confirmed by the PC for our state and in precedent cases before the court, would not meet the definition as an illegal act anyways. If anything, I'd say he is guilty of not following directions and based on what you are saying he's screwed himself (no pun intended). Whether we agree on legalities or not, I do appreciate your responses!

[Iowa #1603]

Your points are all well taken. Iowa: He was disqualified by 1 and non-selected by another. Is there a difference?

Is there a difference between heaven and h e l l ?

Disqualification means you do not meet the standards of the agency. You are considered not worthy of being a member of the department

Non-Selected means someone was better qualified or considered a better fit for the agency than you. You are qualified for the job, just not selected for hire.

REMEMBER that nationally about 100 people apply for each opening in law enforcement. Even if all 100 were qualified for the job---------99 of them are NOT going to get the job.

Country Jim and Lady Blue: I just want to clarify that he is was not considering omitting anything, 'm the one that is questioning it. As I said, the question says "in the last 10 years" and this incident occurred 12+ years ago, so he was not required to disclose to begin with. Also, as you pointed out and as confirmed by the PC for our state and in precedent cases before the court, would not meet the definition as an illegal act anyways. If anything, I'd say he is guilty of not following directions and based on what you are saying he's screwed himself (no pun intended). Whether we agree on legalities or not, I do appreciate your responses!

Doesn't matter if it was "illegal" or not--------------------------it is behavior that probably needs to be known by the hiring agency. And YES since it was disclosed once----it will need to be disclosed each and every time.

[Country_Jim]

Your points are all well taken. Iowa: He was disqualified by 1 and non-selected by another. Is there a difference?

Country Jim and Lady Blue: I just want to clarify that he is was not considering omitting anything, 'm the one that is questioning it. As I said, the question says "in the last 10 years" and this incident occurred 12+ years ago, so he was not required to disclose to begin with. Also, as you pointed out and as confirmed by the PC for our state and in precedent cases before the court, would not meet the definition as an illegal act anyways. If anything, I'd say he is guilty of not following directions and based on what you are saying he's screwed himself (no pun intended). Whether we agree on legalities or not, I do appreciate your responses!

I have to tell you, "he screwed himself" is the funniest thing I've heard/read all day. Thank you for not becoming defensive. Have a great day.

[Amigo1342]

The pun was very much indeed intended.