Reply to: Ex army, with theft charge and seeking security clearance.

[Incognito]

Good, because under the rehab act, you still have to declare it.

The charge, doesnt get wiped from your record until after five years. If you were sentenced in 2007, it hasnt been five years.

So you must declare it on ALL job forms, even normal non secuirty ones, regardless of jobs applied for.

As he said:

Any sentence of detention in respect of a conviction in service disciplinary proceedings - Five years

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/53/section/5

Five years from date of conviction until it's spent.

[wim121]

All it says at top was (BPSS) , and after reading it, it says, i dont have to declare spent convictions under the rehab act.

Iv sent it all off again to the agency declareing the theft charge in 2007, and how i got 60 days detention and soldier on. explaining, it was all a mistake and would they re-send.

Further ref: read forms more carefully from start to finish!

Good, because under the rehab act, you still have to declare it.

The charge, doesnt get wiped from your record until after five years. If you were sentenced in 2007, it hasnt been five years.

So you must declare it on ALL job forms, even normal non secuirty ones, regardless of jobs applied for.

[Incognito]

All it says at top was (BPSS) , and after reading it, it says, i dont have to declare spent convictions under the rehab act.

Iv sent it all off again to the agency declareing the theft charge in 2007, and how i got 60 days detention and soldier on. explaining, it was all a mistake and would they re-send.

Further ref: read forms more carefully from start to finish!

From the DV form (SC will be similar)

You must also give details of 'spent' convictions. If someone is convicted of a criminal offence and receives a prison sentence of less than 2½ years, the conviction is usually considered to be 'spent' once they have served their sentence and completed a rehabilitation period (although this depends on the offence which they have committed). The rehabilitation period is a set period of time during which they must not be convicted of another offence. A spent conviction does not usually need to be revealed. However, the law makes an exception in the case of people who are undergoing national security vetting. When you complete your security questionnaire, you must therefore declare all convictions that you may have, including any that are spent. If you do not provide relevant information, we will take this into account when assessing your suitability for security clearance. Remember to sign and date the form at the foot of Page 38.

If you're only going for BPSS (BC) you do NOT have to declare spent convictions as it is NOT a formal clearance such as SC or DV, it is a paper pushing exercise.

Ignore the usual tight arses on the thread as well, you made a mistake and have done the time for it, put it behind you and get on with your life. NAT's and Sockpuppet's advice is valid. If going for higher levels of clearance they're looking for integrity, so just be honest. Unlike the crap you read on here, you do not need to be squeaky clean to be SC or even DV.

[NotAllThere]

Word to the wise. If you do go for an SC job, and the question comes up at interview, don't answer as you did here - "Well, I was justified", the correct response will be... "I did something stupid in getting the money back myself, instead of going through the proper channels".

[Goulder]

All it says at top was (BPSS) , and after reading it, it says, i dont have to declare spent convictions under the rehab act.

Iv sent it all off again to the agency declareing the theft charge in 2007, and how i got 60 days detention and soldier on. explaining, it was all a mistake and would they re-send.

Further ref: read forms more carefully from start to finish!

[centurian]

After reading the form more carefully. i dnt actually think it was for Security clearance
It reads at the top , BPSS.
Surely if it was a security clearance, it wont say something along those lines? ( Security clearance )

I was just thinking that myself - if it was an "official" Security Clearance, it would have been blindingly obvious what you should have declared.

Companies may have their own forms which may be called "security clearance", but it's just their own context. For these roles, you do not need to declare spent convictions, unless the role is specifically excluded from the Act.

[Goulder]

After reading the form more carefully. i dnt actually think it was for Security clearance
It reads at the top , BPSS.
Surely if it was a security clearance, it wont say something along those lines? ( Security clearance )

[Wanderer]

I agree that it should have been declared, it would be naive to think that a security clearance check won't find out about the incident and it will make them wonder if you are hiding other things.

[Sysman]

The thing is - there's no real need for MI5 to maintain a database of everyone - the private sector beat them to it years ago - there are already so many databases out there with public information anyway.

There was a rumour floating around many years ago that MI5 rented time on a mainframe owned by a mail order company, because they were one of the first to have customer addresses and credit information in computerised form.

[eek]

What have I learned reading this entire thread? That life, and SueEllen, are both harsh mistresses!

(Ps. To the OP: Follow the advice you've been given; simply own up now and avoid any nasty consequences later. You WILL be caught out if you don't.)

I always thought the rule for SC is to admit everything even if it was spent. That way there is clearly nothing hidden although I know filling in the form may be difficult.

[nomadd]

...he's trying to make up excuses why he was dishonest.

...pissed off with his excuses...

What have I learned reading this entire thread? That life, and SueEllen, are both harsh mistresses!

(Ps. To the OP: Follow the advice you've been given; simply own up now and avoid any nasty consequences later. You WILL be caught out if you don't.)

[SueEllen]

The OP might need to be as honest as possible and not sugar coat the offense.

The thing is he isn't sugar coating the offence he's trying to make up excuses why he was dishonest.

The fact is anyone who wants to give him a chance will get pissed off with his excuses on why what he did was wrong wasn't his fault and as a result won't give him the chance.

[wim121]

Very true.

Recently Ive had a passport issued, the face to face interview was surprising!

They referenced credit checks and everything. Knew who all my home bills were with, everyone in household, who I brought the house from, who I banked with and what services I held, everything! They knew more about me, than I do! They made me remember things I forgot years ago.

Apparently to protect me from identity theft! Then they sent me my biometric passport in a marked passport envelope that didnt have a metal lining to protect from handheld scanners.

[centurian]

The thing is - there's no real need for MI5 to maintain a database of everyone - the private sector beat them to it years ago - there are already so many databases out there with public information anyway.

When I went to open a business bank account, I watched them as they typed my name and LtdCo into their systems and within 10 seconds, they had my company accounts for the last 5 years, cross referenced to me as a director at my home address etc.

All the information is there - the trick is cross referencing it - and identifying the black flags.

[wim121]

You have to demonstrate that you can be trusted - and failing to declare something which is clearly relevant gets you off to a very bad start.

Exactly!

Funnily enough, that post made me feel better!



Another thought springs to mind. The OP might need to be as honest as possible and not sugar coat the offense. I recall years ago, when it was leaked that MI5 had enough database space to store a massive dossier on every single person in the UK, they stated they only held files on people working within government, etc.

So it could be entirely possible, that not only the charge was recorded as an offense on CRB papers, but the entire transgression and account of the act is stored elsewhere and available for SC checks, perhaps?