Question: How should I handle applicants who have a high number of "Prefer not to answer" responses on their BRAINS questionnaire, and how should this be reflected in the report?

Answer: When applicants have a high number of "Prefer not to answer" responses, it is best to assume they either do not want to discuss personal details or are willing to discuss them one-on-one but do not want this information getting back to the employer. This dynamic is critical as employers need to know if applicants are hiding information that could become significant issues later. To address the material, look for themes such as drugs, finances, or abuse rather than going through all the items individually.In the report, note that the applicant was less than forthright during the application process. This should not be a surprise to the employer, as the background investigator should have seen the same thing. Highlighting this behavior is important as it indicates potential future issues with transparency and honesty.

Question:
Questions related to suitability for a deputy sheriff position because of inconsistencies in his responses regarding misconduct during the Basic Law Enforcement Training (BLET), a history of speeding tickets, excessive alcohol consumption, and a lack of complete work history on his F-3 form. Significant integrity issues due to his denial of being asked to leave BLET despite previous statements indicating otherwise.

Answer:
The culmination of issues leads to a Not Suitable (NS) rating unless he had admitted to the offenses during the interview, it might have warranted a (WBS) rating. The discrepancies in the candidate’s account regarding BLET and other weaknesses in his application raise significant concerns about his integrity, influencing the decision against suitability.

Key Question:

When completing the question “Did the applicant make disclosures of criminal history?”, should evaluators include admitted criminal behavior that did not result in charges or convictions (e.g., theft, domestic violence protective orders, etc.)?

Answer:

Yes, the question “Did the applicant make disclosures of criminal history?” refers to any criminal behavior disclosed during the evaluation, regardless of whether it led to official charges or convictions. This includes:

1. Uncharged or Unconvicted Criminal Acts:

   • If a candidate admits to criminal behavior (e.g., changing price tags to steal, simple assault, drug possession) during the clinical interview, BRAINS assessment, or other components of the evaluation, these disclosures should be documented in this section.

   • The purpose is to flag behavior that may have been omitted from the Personal History Statement (PHS) or F-3 form but still raises concerns for the hiring agency.

2. DVPOs and Other Court Actions:

   • Even if a Domestic Violence Protective Order (DVPO) or similar action occurred decades ago and in another state, it should still be disclosed if the candidate did not include it in their official background materials.

   • Evaluators have a duty to ensure that previously unknown or undisclosed concerns are brought to the attention of the hiring agency, even if they predate the PHS or seem minor to the candidate.

3. Intent Behind the Section:

   • The spirit of this question is to ensure no relevant behavior goes uninvestigated — especially if the employer, background investigator, or state-level reviewers were unaware of the event.

   • This applies even when the candidate states the omission was due to forgetfulness, perceived insignificance, or time passed.

4. How to Document It:

   • Such admissions should be reflected both in the Criminal Issues section (if behavior meets the threshold) and in the Integrity section (if the omission appears intentional or misleading).

   • Mark “Yes” for the question about criminal history disclosures if any such admission was made during the evaluation.

Summary:

The question regarding criminal history disclosures is not limited to formal convictions. Any admitted criminal behavior or significant omission — whether or not legally adjudicated — should trigger a “Yes” response to that question and be documented accordingly. This ensures transparency for hiring agencies and maintains alignment with the expectations of sheriff’s offices and the broader law enforcement community.

Key Question

When an applicant provides conflicting information across evaluations regarding prior military service, including denying previously documented service, how should the evaluator document and interpret this discrepancy?

Answer

When a substantial inconsistency emerges between prior and current records, particularly involving detailed historical information such as military service, the evaluator should first confirm the applicant’s identity and ensure that records pertain to the same individual.

If identity is verified, the discrepancy should be carefully documented in the report, including reference to prior disclosures and current denials. The evaluator should describe the nature and scope of the inconsistency without drawing unsupported conclusions about intent or motivation.

While such inconsistencies may raise concerns regarding credibility, judgment, or integrity, they do not automatically warrant a Not Suitable determination in the absence of corroborating evidence of deception or clinical impairment. Evaluators should avoid assuming dishonesty when alternative explanations may exist.

The discrepancy should be addressed in the relevant narrative section and summarized in the Weaknesses section, with a recommendation that the hiring agency’s background investigator pursue additional verification (e.g., military records, discharge documentation).

Clinical conclusions should remain grounded in observed functioning, mental status, and verified information. Responsibility for resolving factual inconsistencies rests with the agency’s investigative process.

Summary

When significant discrepancies in reported military history are identified, evaluators should document them objectively, avoid speculative conclusions, and recommend further background investigation rather than making unsupported suitability determinations.