Clinton pardon for a guy to become a CAP pilot?

[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.