Clinton pardon for a guy to become a CAP pilot?

[RiverAux]

Okay, here is a link to a web page http://journals.aol.com/sazzylilsmartazz/TheConscientiousObjector/entries/2008/03/18/list-of-clinton-criminal-pardons-1998---2001/2436 that claims that a Mr. Kevin Lester Teker got a pardon from Clinton in 2001 for a 1989 conviction for buying and detonating explosives.  It has this:

"This is something that completes my greatest goal," Teker, 33, said in a telephone interview from Seattle after a reporter informed him of the pardon. With it, he said, he can now pass the background checks to become an active pilot for the Washington State Civil Air Patrol.

Is this true or internet rumor?  Anyone ever heard of it in relation to CAP before? 

[Gunner C]

Okay, here is a link to a web page http://journals.aol.com/sazzylilsmartazz/TheConscientiousObjector/entries/2008/03/18/list-of-clinton-criminal-pardons-1998---2001/2436 that claims that a Mr. Kevin Lester Teker got a pardon from Clinton in 2001 for a 1989 conviction for buying and detonating explosives.  It has this:

"This is something that completes my greatest goal," Teker, 33, said in a telephone interview from Seattle after a reporter informed him of the pardon. With it, he said, he can now pass the background checks to become an active pilot for the Washington State Civil Air Patrol.

Is this true or internet rumor?  Anyone ever heard of it in relation to CAP before? 

I've never heard of this before, but if true, a pardon from the sovereign whether governor for state offenses or the president for federal is absolute.  Nothing to be done, unless the unit membership review board finds something else that they don't like.  Doubtful - most units will stick a mirror under someone's nose to qualify them for membership.  I've gotta confess that I did when I was a squadron commander.  I'm not proud of it, it's just the way it was done.  I wasn't the brightest bulb in the circuit.

GC

[DrJbdm]

we have some pretty lack standards.... we take anybody and everybody...breathing is optional. Can I start a squadron over in cell block C at the State Pen?


  Anybody for having tougher standards?

[RiverAux]

How are our current standards for joining lax in regards to felony convictions? 

[Gunner C]

How are our current standards for joining lax in regards to felony convictions? 

They're not.  AAMOF, I had two SMs who had to get all sorts of permission to join after receiving UCMJ in the military.  They were straight with me so I went to bat for them.  But it wasn't easy.

I don't think CAP is lax on these standards.  BTW, those UCMJ convictions were felony convictions - they received Special Courts Martial for stupid stuff (Their fault, not the military's:  they demanded court martial rather than accepting an Article 15).  They were still working on getting their civil rights restored.

GC

[DrJbdm]

I'm just talking in general, yes we do have some standards as for felony convictions and a few other stuff but otherwise we will accept anybody else. I'm for having tougher standards and a "hiring" process to include an oral board with set in stone guidelines & qualifications.

   just because you have a pulse and you haven't committed a felony or molested someone's kid, shouldn't make you fully qualified to be a member. We need to be a bit more choosy in whom we select.

  I know this issue has been debated on here before and can make some people's temper fly off the handle. I'm only saying what I feel.  now, I'll get back on topic.

[Cecil DP]

I'm just talking in general, yes we do have some standards as for felony convictions and a few other stuff but otherwise we will accept anybody else. I'm for having tougher standards and a "hiring" process to include an oral board with set in stone guidelines & qualifications.

   just because you have a pulse and you haven't committed a felony or molested someone's kid, shouldn't make you fully qualified to be a member. We need to be a bit more choosy in whom we select.

  I know this issue has been debated on here before and can make some people's temper fly off the handle. I'm only saying what I feel.  now, I'll get back on topic.

You have a standard. It's called the "Unit Membership Committee" and it's job is to screen prospective and renewing members and to recommend to the Squadron Commander whether or not to accept them as members or to retain them if already members.

[DNall]

You have a standard. It's called the "Unit Membership Committee" and it's job is to screen prospective and renewing members and to recommend to the Squadron Commander whether or not to accept them as members or to retain them if already members.

Assuming you have such a cmte, which is not at all common, and also assuming you aren't hurting so bad for people to do all the jobs we need done that you don't have a lot of choice, which is an almost universal problem. Plus, you renew online now, the unit isn't in any way involved. The only way to do anything after they're in is a 2b, and that won't fly unless there's cause. That means they have to be bad, not just not good enough. Our standards (on average) really are somewhere between non-existent & crap. Whatever standards we do have are worthless unless they are universally enforced.

[smj58501]

Okay, here is a link to a web page http://journals.aol.com/sazzylilsmartazz/TheConscientiousObjector/entries/2008/03/18/list-of-clinton-criminal-pardons-1998---2001/2436 that claims that a Mr. Kevin Lester Teker got a pardon from Clinton in 2001 for a 1989 conviction for buying and detonating explosives.  It has this:

"This is something that completes my greatest goal," Teker, 33, said in a telephone interview from Seattle after a reporter informed him of the pardon. With it, he said, he can now pass the background checks to become an active pilot for the Washington State Civil Air Patrol.

Is this true or internet rumor?  Anyone ever heard of it in relation to CAP before? 

I guess it all depends on what was in it for Bill

[mynetdude]

Yeah while I agree and somewhat disagree on the standards I don't view anything wrong with setting membership boards, it becomes a fine line of discrimination vs other reasons and I wouldn't want the prospective member that was turned down to try to challenge it in court based on a discrimination if there were any.

When I first joined, I had no idea what I wanted to do or what I could do I just found my place naturally and after long reading and thoughts and I am still shaping what I want/can do for my unit and I have done a tremendous amount in less than 2 years I am starting to feel like my head isn't catching up with the rest of my body wearing 3 hats.

When the adviser to the commander mentioned that someone who had a mental handicap wanted to join and he wasn't sure how he could be a benefit to CAP nor how this person could benefit from CAP while giving benefit to CAP at the same time.  He wasn't in objection to him joining, he just didn't see how he could fit into any roles and if he didn't fit in any roles there was no point in accepting him as a member.

And so after that discussion I had asked if there is a membership committee and he said yes and I asked if there was a membership committee about when I joined and he said yes and then I asked him why I didn't have to be reviewed by the membership committee which bewilders me as to there is really a committee...

Anyway... I think membership committees are great especially if you aren't doing your job or being a benefit to CAP you might as well get the 2B dropped in your lap, not our fault only your own fault as an individual.

[Pylon]

You have a standard. It's called the "Unit Membership Committee" and it's job is to screen prospective and renewing members and to recommend to the Squadron Commander whether or not to accept them as members or to retain them if already members.

Assuming you have such a cmte, which is not at all common...

I believe units are required to have such a committee.  Whether or not they use it properly is a local problem.

[Camas]

I believe units are required to have such a committee. 

Units should have such a committee.  Re: CAPR 39-2 Chapter 1, Section A, Para 1-5

[mynetdude]

I believe units are required to have such a committee. 

Units should have such a committee.  Re: CAPR 39-2 Chapter 1, Section A, Para 1-5

should and required are TWO different meanings. I haven't read the regulation myself, however assuming the regulation does say "should" then that doesn't mean units are required to have it.

That being said, who is responsible for implementing/managing a membership committee? Personnel Officer?

[jimmydeanno]

I believe units are required to have such a committee. 

Units should have such a committee.  Re: CAPR 39-2 Chapter 1, Section A, Para 1-5

should and required are TWO different meanings. I haven't read the regulation myself, however assuming the regulation does say "should" then that doesn't mean units are required to have it.

That being said, who is responsible for implementing/managing a membership committee? Personnel Officer?

1-5. Unit Membership Board (Applicable to cadets, cadet sponsors, and senior members only). All unit commanders should appoint a unit membership board comprised of a minimum of three members to assist the commander in determining the eligibility of new applicants and membership renewals...


1) The unit commander or the commander's representative will review the application for accuracy, completeness, and eligibility of the applicant. Commanders may request assistance from the unit membership board in determining eligibility if they feel it necessary before approving the application.

[mynetdude]

1-5. Unit Membership Board (Applicable to cadets, cadet sponsors, and senior members only). All unit commanders should appoint a unit membership board comprised of a minimum of three members to assist the commander in determining the eligibility of new applicants and membership renewals.

It says the unit commander should appoint this. And it must contain 3 members. And it only applies to cadets, cadet sponsors and senior members only.  I would be hard pressed to not see my own commander on the comittee itself as it doesn't state that he can't be on the committee.

[mynetdude]

I believe units are required to have such a committee. 

Units should have such a committee.  Re: CAPR 39-2 Chapter 1, Section A, Para 1-5

should and required are TWO different meanings. I haven't read the regulation myself, however assuming the regulation does say "should" then that doesn't mean units are required to have it.

That being said, who is responsible for implementing/managing a membership committee? Personnel Officer?

1-5. Unit Membership Board (Applicable to cadets, cadet sponsors, and senior members only). All unit commanders should appoint a unit membership board comprised of a minimum of three members to assist the commander in determining the eligibility of new applicants and membership renewals...


1) The unit commander or the commander's representative will review the application for accuracy, completeness, and eligibility of the applicant. Commanders may request assistance from the unit membership board in determining eligibility if they feel it necessary before approving the application.

Oops you and I posted the same thing, ok so my question is "unit commander's representative".   It is my understanding that Personnel Officer's job is to help the prospective member get the application filled out, answer questions and then verify the application's accuracy and make sure that everything that is needed is there and then electronically enter this data into our local database (yes our squadron maintains an electronic version of the application for the member(s) as well as we enter them into a database so we are able to put them on our attendance roster.

So would the commander's representative be the Personnel Officer? In theory the Personnel Officer is supposed sign after the new member signs his app, then the commander signs it signifying he approves.

[jimmydeanno]

So would the commander's representative be the Personnel Officer? In theory the Personnel Officer is supposed sign after the new member signs his app, then the commander signs it signifying he approves.

Not unless the commander said the personnel officer can sign for him.  Typically the "representative" is whoever the commander says.  Most cases it is the Deputy. 

Take transportation for instance, most wings have the wing transportation officer sign off the CAP DL as the Wing Commander's designee...

[mynetdude]

So would the commander's representative be the Personnel Officer? In theory the Personnel Officer is supposed sign after the new member signs his app, then the commander signs it signifying he approves.

Not unless the commander said the personnel officer can sign for him.  Typically the "representative" is whoever the commander says.  Most cases it is the Deputy. 

Take transportation for instance, most wings have the wing transportation officer sign off the CAP DL as the Wing Commander's designee...

Agh my bad, yeah all we do as a Personnel Officer is prepare the forms to be signed, and can be either the commander himself or the Deputy Commander.  Its really up to the commander, I wouldn't be surprised if the commander designated a Personnel Officer to sign off on membership approvals but then again if you have a unit membership board then that is moot because someone on the board "could" sign it if the commander says so.

[Larry Mangum]

The person mentioned in the article is in fact a member of CAP now, PCR-WA-069.  Not sure what the issue is; while I would question signing up someone who was convicted in regards to explosives, if he was pardoned and both the unit, wing and NHQ, chose to accept his application is there an issue.  Don't people deserve a second chance?

[SJFedor]

It depends on the offense. The article doesn't go too deep into his "explosives" conviction. Maybe he liked to make reactive targets for shooting and blew up a truck? Maybe he just had more then the legal limit of explosives. Who knows. But it sounds like it was for possession of explosives, not that he used them in a criminal manner.

There's worse things.

[DNall]

The person mentioned in the article is in fact a member of CAP now, PCR-WA-069.  Not sure what the issue is; while I would question signing up someone who was convicted in regards to explosives, if he was pardoned and both the unit, wing and NHQ, chose to accept his application is there an issue.  Don't people deserve a second chance?

I don't know, let me ask a DoD security clearance investigator.

While I'm certainly of the mind that people do deserve second chances, we do operate with OPSEC using FOUO info/freqs and very expensive govt supplied resources, as well as cadets. And you are only as strong (trusted) as your weakest link.

Let me ask you another question. If this guy put in a Fm83 for CN, would DEA/Customs clear him for the program based on his background? If not, how do I tell a parent that their kid is safe around them, or the AF that their shiny new plane is going to be okay?

I don't know about this situation, but there really is a standard in there that has to be enforced, and much more consistently across the force.

[Larry Mangum]

D'Nall, I agree with most of what you have to say. However, just because someone cannot pass a CN 83 check does not mean they are a good person to work with cadets or are not worthy assets to the organization. Someone who was busted for pot as an 18 year old, but is now 40 and is a successful businessman and is a great father and maybe a better memebr than somone who can pass an 83.

[Gunner C]

D'Nall, I agree with most of what you have to say. However, just because someone cannot pass a CN 83 check does not mean they are a good person to work with cadets or are not worthy assets to the organization. Someone who was busted for pot as an 18 year old, but is now 40 and is a successful businessman and is a great father and maybe a better memebr than somone who can pass an 83.

One of the bugaboos here is a presidential pardon.  That essentially wipes the slate clean.  I know of one wing that has a member who was pardoned for a sex offense.  Personally, I wouldn't let this person within 100 feet of a CAP unit, but with an executive (governor's) pardon, it is as if what happened disappeared.  It could be the basis of a discrimination suit if the person is not allowed to renew - they certainly don't have to legally disclose the conviction on anything.

Thoughts?  Are there any legal beagles here?

GC

[Ned]

One of the bugaboos here is a presidential pardon.  That essentially wipes the slate clean. [. . .] with an executive (governor's) pardon, it is as if what happened disappeared.  It could be the basis of a discrimination suit if the person is not allowed to renew - they certainly don't have to legally disclose the conviction on anything.

It is important to remember that a presidential pardon is merely a "forgiveness" for a crime and a relief from the criminal penalties associated with it.

It does not mean that the event that triggered the conviction never happened, just that the person is no longer convicted of it.  Under federal law, acceptance of a pardon is an admission that the person is actually guilty of the offense.

To take a hypothetical example, a person convicted of shoplifting may apply for and receive a pardon.  The pardon doesn't mean the person isn't a thief -- only that she/he  has not been convicted of this particular theft.

Unit membership boards are free to make recommendations based on the facts and circumstances in an applicant's background.  The receipt of a pardon is undoubtedly an important factor, but it does not bar consideration of the underlying circumstances.

Ned Lee
Former Legal Officer

[mynetdude]

One of the bugaboos here is a presidential pardon.  That essentially wipes the slate clean. [. . .] with an executive (governor's) pardon, it is as if what happened disappeared.  It could be the basis of a discrimination suit if the person is not allowed to renew - they certainly don't have to legally disclose the conviction on anything.

It is important to remember that a presidential pardon is merely a "forgiveness" for a crime and a relief from the criminal penalties associated with it.

It does not mean that the event that triggered the conviction never happened, just that the person is no longer convicted of it.  Under federal law, acceptance of a pardon is an admission that the person is actually guilty of the offense.

To take a hypothetical example, a person convicted of shoplifting may apply for and receive a pardon.  The pardon doesn't mean the person isn't a thief -- only that she/he  has not been convicted of this particular theft.

Unit membership boards are free to make recommendations based on the facts and circumstances in an applicant's background.  The receipt of a pardon is undoubtedly an important factor, but it does not bar consideration of the underlying circumstances.

Ned Lee
Former Legal Officer

I thought a pardon clears the conviction for which you are serving time for? And are pardons usually for crimes that you are sentenced to jail/prison times only? Otherwise I could see getting pardons for speeding/parking tickets.

[Gunner C]

One of the bugaboos here is a presidential pardon.  That essentially wipes the slate clean. [. . .] with an executive (governor's) pardon, it is as if what happened disappeared.  It could be the basis of a discrimination suit if the person is not allowed to renew - they certainly don't have to legally disclose the conviction on anything.

It is important to remember that a presidential pardon is merely a "forgiveness" for a crime and a relief from the criminal penalties associated with it.

It does not mean that the event that triggered the conviction never happened, just that the person is no longer convicted of it.  Under federal law, acceptance of a pardon is an admission that the person is actually guilty of the offense.

To take a hypothetical example, a person convicted of shoplifting may apply for and receive a pardon.  The pardon doesn't mean the person isn't a thief -- only that she/he  has not been convicted of this particular theft.

Unit membership boards are free to make recommendations based on the facts and circumstances in an applicant's background.  The receipt of a pardon is undoubtedly an important factor, but it does not bar consideration of the underlying circumstances.

Ned Lee
Former Legal Officer

Very interesting!  What's the difference between a pardon and a commutation?

[chiles]

A pardon is relief of the crime in a manner that suggests innocence of the particular incidence of the crime you were  charged for. Commutation is a reduction in sentence that does not necessarily mean an immediate release from prison (e.g. commuting a sentence of death to life in prison, commuting a sentence of life to 10 years, etc.)

[wingnut]

Anyone convicted of a Felony should not be in CAP. Period!

They cannot be in the Military, You most likely will be legally Liable if that person does something wrong while wearing A CAP uniform, if that happens we will pay through the nose.  But hey if we are hard up for members let's reduce our standards. Ask if he can get a BOND? most likely not.  Can he be a reserve Fireman? Reserve Policeman? get an EMT license? School teacher?

maybe your squadron should spend more time recruiting non-felons.

Gee a new Manson follower is out now.

[DNall]

Anyone convicted of a Felony should not be in CAP. Period!

They cannot be in the Military, You most likely will be legally Liable if that person does something wrong while wearing A CAP uniform, if that happens we will pay through the nose.  But hey if we are hard up for members let's reduce our standards. Ask if he can get a BOND? most likely not.  Can he be a reserve Fireman? Reserve Policeman? get an EMT license? School teacher?

maybe your squadron should spend more time recruiting non-felons.

Gee a new Manson follower is out now.

Pardons erase the conviction. They don't erase the facts. If you knowingly accept a person with that background & then something happens, what do you think the result will be in civil court? We're talking behind closed doors dollar amount in a jury room. You know that's bad. You know that's an additional risk CAP is taking on in accepting such a person. You don't think that needs to be considered?

I got no issue with the kid that caught a minor weed charge 5+ years ago coming in the military. Those folks get waivers & clearances all the time. I can deal with that, as long as they go through a waiver process w/ approval at higher & are checked out thoroughly.

Actually, that's gives me a good idea here... The military has a fairly straight forward waiver system. It doesn't accept felonies. Below that it defines what kinds of charges require a waiver & what don't. You do a state/local records check as well as the same federal agency we do. Then you waiver certain level charges up to Wg/Reg/NHQ depending on the severity. Charge them a waiver fee & grant them probationary membership, restricted from cadets, ES, & all OPSEC info, or renewal till waiver is granted. Must be reviewed by legal officer & membership board at whichever level...

Okay, so I understand that's passing the buck to higher, but that's what they're there for & this really should be their decision. Anyone got issue with something like that?

[mikeylikey]

Anyone convicted of a Felony should not be in CAP. Period!

They cannot be in the Military, You most likely will be legally Liable if that person does something wrong while wearing A CAP uniform, if that happens we will pay through the nose.  But hey if we are hard up for members let's reduce our standards. Ask if he can get a BOND? most likely not.  Can he be a reserve Fireman? Reserve Policeman? get an EMT license? School teacher?

maybe your squadron should spend more time recruiting non-felons.

Gee a new Manson follower is out now.

I have to say that some are convicted of felony's that really should not have been.  Some misdemeanors are far worse than some felonies in some states also.  The legal system is not as fair as we all wish (or think) it is. 

The military is accepting individuals with certain felonies, and if they screw up in the service, they are held responsible.  If CAP did the same and they screwed up while performing CAP stuff, they too would be held responsible, not the people who recruited him or her, nor the Corporation.  That is why it is so awesome that I can sue anyone individually in this country.  If I had to sue an employer each time for an employees mistake the system would be terrible.  Now, there are situations where you would sue the employer, like the McDonald's that knew the retard in the back was putting ground up glass on the burgers.  BUT CAP is not an employee (except for the legitimate employees (like Wing Admins, NHQ staff etc.), so we as members take on certain risk when doing our duties, that being specifically the possibility that we can be civilly sued by the guy whose property we tresspass without his permission in search of the little boy he kidnapped and is holding hostage in his basement (or other types of missions).

[DNall]

Yeah, but individuals don't have any money to go after (not after vanguard gets thru w/ them) so there's no point in suing them. On the other hand, you got NHQ with an insurance policy & maybe the AF as well depending on the circumstance. The deep pockets are always going to face the legal action, not the responsible party. The claim is rarely about the actual damage. It's usually you allowed this person into this position of access/authority even though you knew XYZ to be the case. You didn't inform third parties of XYZ or disclaim liability (not that it'd matter if you did). And you as an organization have the regulatory responsibility to supervise the work of this unit & person to create an environment where this incident could not have occurred. Since you didn't do that, you owe us X million dollars, see ya in court. That's the way it works, just or not.