less than stellar background....should I even bother pursuing LEO

[noboyscout]

I was not in the army long enough for them to make a determination for honorable I was discharged for medical reasons after AIT I hyperventilated on a 5k run and they were testing me for possible asthma but it was unfounded by the time they decided to release me from sick call I had missed too much training so they gave me an option to restart basic training from week one or discharge. I chose the latter due to being fed up with the entire process.

[GoDirectly2Jail]

Also it seems like everyone here is focusing on the negative and totally overlooking the positive aspects. such as the volunteerism and the above average evaluations from my former department I'm not sure if it is enough to off set the negative?

That is because when it comes to LE hiring, there ARE NO positives. Only neutrals. Or negatives. Background items either hurt your chances or they don't. And no amount of time or good deeds can overcome an automatic disqualifier. Sucks, but there it is. Actions do have consequences.

[noboyscout]

deputywave I can certainly agree with that. I was no doubt a wild youth but my negatives are from my distant past and the positives are from me trying to live a responsible life the last 15 years or so. I am fully aware that my actions have consequences. some I may never be able to escape I just find it hard to believe that there aren't any LEOs working today that did not have a wild side when they were younger. In fact I know of some who are working right now who have done a lot worse stupid juvenile stuff. I'm not denying the fact that I've made some reckless decisions in my life. I'm weighing all my options right now I probably would not have wasted all my time and a lot of money on putting myself through the academy if I'd have known I wouldn't have a chance. I would think that would count for something. I appreciate the honest responses I'm getting on here. stay safe out there.

[seeking]

Here's a little self assessment they offer on the page for the Orange County Sheriff's Office.

How competitive are you


They ask a questions in there if marijuana and hard drug usage was minimal and many years ago. The question is what they will consider minimal, though. Many places I have heard more than five instances of usage of any drug over a lifetime is more than experimental, you admit to 10 just for marijuana. Some departments hard drugs are an auto DQ even if it was one instance. Read the guidelines of each department you want to apply to. Consider taking the self assessment above as it asks questions many departments are looking for YES answers to.

The thing is they are going to be looking for people who have the most yes's and the least no's as well as other positive attributes. Just the office I mention alone says they process thousands of applications a year and hire only the best. If you have concerns and you're up against thousands of people who've never done hard drugs in their entire lives they wouldn't have a reason to look at you as a candidate.

[MikeG]

OK , what is EVERYTHING ?

By everything I mean exstacy 1 time ,LSD ,1 time cocaine(not crack) and weed about 10 times

I don't get why something from 15-20 years ago which I was not arrested for is causing such an issue. It didn't prevent me from getting a sworn position with an S.O. in the past. whats changed?

I'm not a LEO. Non-experimental drug use is a certification DQ in AZ. If you can get a department to petition the board that your case is "experimintal" despite the defiinition, you can be hired. The question is whether or not a department would go that route with you. Since it just happened in the last month, I know waivers "can" happen but it's rare. Personally I'm not sure why, in this climate, a department would waste their time waiting for a waiver when an equally qualified candidate is available immediately. Here's the AZ certification reqts wrt "experimental":

1. The use of marijuana exceeds a total of 20 times or exceeds five times since the age of 21 years; or
2. The use of any dangerous drug or narcotic, other than marijuana, in any combination exceeds a total of five times, or exceeds one time since the age of 21 years.

My question for you would be: Did your prior drug use require a waiver for certification in whatever state you served? If so, can that waiver be used for a new job? That would be good to know before you apply. Your state should have minimum requirements available somewhere. I have no idea how hiring boards look at drug use that far back. There are some items that are considered pass/fail (like the minimum PT reqts) but aren't otherwise considered in evaluting candidates. If you can't get the drug use into the "pass" category, you won't ever move into the considered category.

[mcsap]

You want YOU to be hired.

WE want the BEST candidate to be hired.

Those two don't always match.

Ultimately , what you have done in your life DOES matter , especially anything done after the age of 18. They may have been rash decisions but they were adult decisions. Throw in the uncharacterized military discharge, as you were " fed up " with the process. Maybe we will hire you and you will be fed up with the academy.

You have baggage. Time teds to offset the negatives but it certainly doesn't erase them.

When we hire someone as a police officer, they are given TREMENDOUS power to search , detain , arrest , injure and or kill. We NEED to be cautious and careful as to who we hire , being concerned that something that someone has done in their past may an indicator of something they may do again.

Nobody has a perfect background. So it is a calculated risk but we of course need to be conservative in our hiring practices as the " wrong person" can cause us great problems via civil suits and departmental embarrassment.

You have negatives in your background.

We can't fully dismiss them simply because you have done so.

They must be considered and noted.

There are a LOT of other candidates that don't have the background that you do.

[Citicop]

OK , what is EVERYTHING ?

By everything I mean exstacy 1 time ,LSD ,1 time cocaine(not crack) and weed about 10 times

I don't get why something from 15-20 years ago which I was not arrested for is causing such an issue. It didn't prevent me from getting a sworn position with an S.O. in the past. whats changed?

You tell US what's changed...

You (allegedly) got hired once with this background, so what would prompt you to post a "Should I even bother" thread now? If you thought there was no problem, you wouldn't have posted this.

Your drug use would DQ you from every reputable agency in my area. That's not personal, it's just a fact. You may be a great guy, but being a great guy is not enough to get hired by a Law Enforcement Agency.

You came here and asked our opinion, and you got it. I truly do apologize if the answer is not what you wanted to hear.

The truth is that your actions have consequences. I'm sure you'll find a great career that you will love and contribute to society. But I will be absolutely stunned if that career is a sworn Law Enforcement Position.

-Citicop.

[1depd]

I was not in the army long enough for them to make a determination for honorable I was discharged for medical reasons after AIT I hyperventilated on a 5k run and they were testing me for possible asthma but it was unfounded by the time they decided to release me from sick call I had missed too much training so they gave me an option to restart basic training from week one or discharge. I chose the latter due to being fed up with the entire process.

This has me completely confused. If you had already completed AIT you wouldn't have to go back through boot, you would have already completed it as well as your job training. The military normally doesn't require anybody to redo training they have already completed. Can you clarify?

[Apexer]

36 years old possible negative (some LEs have age limits
police academy graduate neutral
passed State exam neutral
no college credits negative - an A.A. is a good thing to have at least.
poor credit (due to long term unemployment) negative - suggests poor business management
experimental drug use 15-20 years ago(everything except heroin and steroids) Negative and Auto DQ - Any use of any hallucinogens at any time is an auto DQ in MY entire state.
uncharacterized discharge from the army(medical) possible negative - based on a verified reason of discharge, this may hurt you
married 2nd wife before 1st divorce was finalized(error in court filing) now corrected neutral
still happily married to 2nd wife neutral
currently a volunteer firefighter neutral
currently a volunteer with EMS agency neutral
Former sworn Deputy(detention division)out of state possible negative - depending on how long you worked there and why you left this could hurt you rather than do any good.
above average evaluations from former LE department (exception 1 bad comment form one LT) neutral
occasional alcohol use neutral
criminal history: 2 bad checks(civil) paid restitution 1 no operators license(not suspended just did not have it with me when stopped) 15 years ago
arrested once never booked for a warrant which was entered in error dismissed by magistrate(18 years ago) possible negative - depending on BI results
no speeding tickets neutral
1 expired registration ticket(dismissed) 3 years ago neutral
1 obscured plate ticket(dismissed) 3 years ago neutral
1 no insurance ticket(active policy, expired card)(dismissed) 3 years ago neutral

I added some things to the quote. The bolded/italic parts are what I added. This is how I think an LE will see this list. It's not very promising.

My suggestion is to find another career. I have yet to find an LE that will take a prior user of hallucinogens. You last use could be 40 years ago and no LE that I no of will consider you.

[noboyscout]

the reason I asked "should I even bother " is I have some friends from the academy who have almost perfect backgrounds and they are not getting hired either they have passed all the written and physical requirements for whatever department they applied to. I knew it would be a long shot the minute I graduated the academy and started applying. as far as the uncharacterized discharge goes the sick call was on and off throughout the course of training so they felt I had missed too much training to continue where I left off. I have accepted my actions as dumb as they were. I think the reason I was hired the first time was that the agency was desperate for help but they are still a reputable agency in fact they are nationally accredited. As far LE agencies focusing on the negative I can certainly understand that bad officers pose a major liability to the department. In my area every night on the news I hear almost daily of officers being arrested for different crimes most of which are considered felonies in this state. I have found some departments that are more lenient on the drug use, that issue never even came up in my interviews or was never focused on , in fact the issues that everyone here sees as less severe are the ones they are focusing on ,I guess which is why I was wondering. Not every department around here does polygraphs ( I wish they would ) I disclosed all my background info to the state when I applied to the academy. I was told I might have a shot as a Reserve Officer and maybe with some time in I can prove myself to them but they are not hiring until next month. not sure how it works other places but here it is who you know that gets you in. I just don't want to get on with an agency that has a bad reputation(I would rather not work in LE at all if that is the case) because a bad department can burn you quickly. I know folks that got hired with worse records just because they had a high ranking member for a relative I never have and never will agree with this I despise name-dropping just to get a job and I will not do it. If it means I don't get hired then so be it. I appreciate the high standards. If all my negatives were recent I wouldn't hire me either but after 20 years I think people can change. P.S. I'm not even sure the LSD and Ecstacy were real I just admitted to it with the department I was hired by just to be on the safe side. I never felt any affects from these so I can't say for sure whether or not it was the real deal but. I didn't want to lie to them in case they did a drug test. I passed all the poly's I've taken so at least I'm not a liar. Thanks for all the input guys stay safe out there regardless of what happens I still have a great deal of respect for LEOS.

[DeltaV]

It didn't prevent me from getting a sworn position with an S.O. in the past. whats changed?

Also that whole department, I found out later was under indictment from the Feds

And this, my friends, is a prime example of what happens when a department has relaxed standards in who they hire.

noboyscout, the use of hard drugs--even if it was just once or twice--is going to be an automatic disqualifier at 99% of the agencies out there. The 1% of agencies where it's not an automatic disqualifier are places that you wouldn't want to work anyway. It doesn't matter how long ago it happened or what you did since then, an automatic disqualifier is an automatic disqualifier. Period.

[1depd]

Use of hard drugs is very difficult, if not impossible, to overcome. Even if the state allows certification after a few years of no use, many, if not most, agencies will not take the chance on you. It is always difficult to hire a good employee, there are way too many poor employees out there. Not only is the agency risking that they are hiring a poor employee there are a lot of people out there right now looking that have done nothing wrong. All of life is graded on a curve and you are competing against others for the job. Far too many have not done anything seriously wrong in their past, so they look better than you to a potential employer.

As far as the sick call goes. Were you still in boot or had you graduated when you were told you had to start over?

[Apexer]

Noboyscout,

You should basically just ask yourself one question.

If your friends with 'perfect' backgrounds are having a hardtime finding/getting a job then, why would you think it would be the same difficulty if not easier for you?

I would also say to get your story straight.

Saying, "I used ecstasy and LSD..." just to be on the safe side because you don't really know in the first place, then let me make it easier for you:

ANY hallucinogen is an automatic DQ at 99% of the LEs out there. So basically, if you hallucinated happy thoughts or colors at one of your parties 20 years ago then it's safe to say you used a hallucinogen. 100% of the LEs in CA treats it as an auto DQ so that should set the tone.

[noboyscout]

just to clarify. the department that hired me was not the one that got indicted by the feds. That was the department I was offered a position with when I left the one I was working for. Also it was the sheriff(elected) not the employees that were the problem he was the one that ultimately went to prison most of the deputies there were great, upstanding people with years of honest service. it is unfortunate that they were seen in the same light as the corrupt sheriff. Even with the most stringient of hiring standards it will never assure that a department is getting good officers. and even with the most relaxed standards doesn't mean all the officers are screw ups.