Question: What should be the course of action regarding the applicant for the deputy sheriff position, considering his past drug use during his enlistment in the Marine Corps?

Main Points: The applicant reported extensive drug use, including marijuana (approximately 500 times between 2009 and 2017), cocaine (about 10 times between 2016 and 2017), LSD (approximately 5 times in 2016), and Adderall (about five times in 2012 during high school). Despite this, he denied any disciplinary issues in the Marine Corps and received an honorable discharge. He also denied any drug use since 2017.

Key considerations include:

• No Evidence of PTSD or Coping Mechanism: There is no indication that his drug use was a coping mechanism for post-deployment, PTSD, or other issues.

• Time Since Last Use: His last reported drug use was seven years ago, with no evidence of ongoing use or failed drug tests since then.

• Sheriff’s Office Stance: The sheriff’s office may already be aware of his history and might not object unless new information is presented.

Given these points, while the history of poor choices and disregard for the law is concerning, a potential course of action could be:

• Leaning Toward WBS: Consider WBS (With Strong wording) about his history.

• Random Drug Testing: Implement random drug testing during his probationary year to monitor any possible recurrence of drug use.

Question: I have concerns regarding an applicant's reported alcohol consumption. He drinks six to eight beverages up to three times a week, which I believe qualifies as binge drinking. Should I rate him as Not Suitable (NS), and how should I articulate these concerns in my report?

Answer: Given the applicant's drinking habits, which include binge drinking, it is reasonable to rate him as Not Suitable (NS). Here are a few points to consider and include in your report:

1. Binge Drinking: Drinking six to eight beverages up to three times a week is considered binge drinking and is problematic for his health.

2. Emergency Response: This level of alcohol consumption renders him unable to be called in for emergencies and puts him at risk of driving-related offenses.

3. Work Performance: It will be virtually impossible for him not to show up to work occasionally slightly hungover and/or with alcohol in his system, which can lead to issues like tardiness and absenteeism.

4. Alcohol Problems in FFDs: Alcohol problems are a significant issue in fitness-for- duty evaluations. Eliminating candidates with such habits from the hiring process is crucial.

Additionally, consider excluding minor details such as buying alcohol for a minor 14 years ago or driving after two shots four years ago, as they detract from the primary concern. Focus on the volume and frequency of his alcohol consumption to make a stronger point.

If you decide to go with Weak But Suitable (WBS), consider adding the following verbiage:

• "In light of his pattern of alcohol consumption, it is recommended he be thoroughly educated on the department's zero-tolerance policy to ensure he never reports to work with alcohol in his system."

• "It would be prudent to educate him on the reality that he represents the *** PD at all times, both on and off duty. As such, any troublesome off-duty alcohol-related behaviors put the professional reputation of the **** PD at risk."

• "Given his current rate of alcohol consumption, unless this matter were to be dramatically reduced, he would likely not be a good candidate in the future for an assignment that involved him being on call (e.g., CID, SWAT, etc.) as he could not be relied upon to report to work for emergencies during his off-duty hours."

Question:

Given an officer's admission of drinking 18-24 beers in one day every eight days and his acknowledgment of increased irritability and use of force incidents (though all incidents were deemed proper), should these factors be considered problematic, especially in terms of potential off-duty behavior, emergency response capability, and decreased inhibition due to alcohol consumption?

Answer:

Yes, the officer's alcohol consumption is clearly problematic. Drinking 18-24 beers in one day is excessive and poses significant risks, including:

1. Increased chances of off-duty behavior that reflects poorly on the department.

2. Inability to respond to emergencies if called in while intoxicated or hungover.

3. Increased likelihood of problematic behaviors due to decreased inhibition from alcohol consumption.

While the officer claims his colleagues do not take issue with his drinking, it's uncertain if they are aware of its extent. Highlighting this in the report is crucial, emphasizing the risks associated with such heavy drinking and its potential impact on his job performance and professional conduct.

Question:

What is the appropriate recommendation for a 22-year-old male applicant with a history of a DWI, extensive binge drinking as an adolescent, current employment as a bartender, and a vague description of his current alcohol use, given his reported drinking patterns and behavioral indicators?

Answer:

Based on the applicant's history and current behaviors, "NS" (Not Suitable) seems appropriate for the following reasons:

1. History of DWI and Binge Drinking: The applicant's history of a DWI in 2019 and extensive binge drinking during adolescence are significant concerns. Despite having some time since the DWI, his past behavior indicates a pattern that could persist.

2. Current Drinking Patterns: The applicant's current drinking patterns are troubling. While he initially claimed to drink moderately, his subsequent admission of consuming eight or more drinks 1-2 times per month reveals a pattern of excessive drinking. This inconsistency in reporting raises concerns about his honesty and self-awareness regarding his alcohol use.

3. Employment as a Bartender: His choice to work as a bartender, which involves exposure to alcohol and potentially encourages a drinking culture, may not align with the lifealcohol-relatedstyle commitment required for law enforcement. It could also suggest a possible conflict of interest or lack of commitment to a lifestyle free from excessive alcohol use.

4. Behavioral Indicators: The applicant's presentation with low energy, flat affect, and lack of motivation could be indicative of underlying issues related to his alcohol use or other mental health concerns. These traits, combined with his vague responses about alcohol use, raise red flags about his current stability and ability to adhere to the demands of law enforcement.

5. Potential Risks: There is a concern that his current habits could lead to future alcohol- related offenses, which would not only endanger others but also damage the department's professional reputation. His apparent leniency with his own drinking may translate into similarly lenient attitudes toward others' alcohol use, impacting his effectiveness as an officer.

Recommendation: Given his history, current drinking patterns, and behavioral indicators, it is prudent to recommend "NS" (Not Suitable). The applicant's profile suggests a high risk of future issues related to alcohol use, which could compromise both his safety and the safety of others.

Question:
Does the employee's current and regular marijuana usage, particularly in a state where it is legal, warrant a "Potential Barriers to Suitability" rating, given the job requirement to pass a drug screen?

Answer:
The determination of "Potential Barriers to Suitability" depends on several factors:

1. Legality and Location: Marijuana is legal in Illinois (IL), where the employee resides and works, but remains illegal in Wisconsin (WI). The legal status in the employee’s state of residence and work location should be considered in the evaluation.

2. Purpose of Usage: If the employee's marijuana use is tied to a mental health concern (e.g., managing panic attacks or chronic pain) or indicates addiction, this could be a significant concern. However, if it is occasional, recreational use without evidence of dependency or mental health implications, it may instead be viewed as an integrity or judgment issue.

3. Compliance with Employer Expectations: If the employee is aware that the employer prohibits marijuana use, even off-duty, but continues to use it, this reflects a disregard for workplace policies, which is a serious concern. Conversely, if there are no clear stipulations against off-duty usage, the decision becomes a matter of whether the employer views such use as acceptable, provided it does not affect job performance or lead to a failed drug test.

4. Recommendation:

   • Lean towards rating the employee as having "Potential Barriers to Suitability", with an emphasis on "Potential," rather than making a definitive negative determination.

   • Clarify that this rating is not a termination decision but a flag for the employer to address the issue directly with the employee. The employer may interpret this as a non-issue, especially if drug tests are consistently passed, or as a significant violation of policy.

5. Next Steps: The agency should be contacted for clarity on their policy regarding marijuana use and whether it varies by state. This guidance will ensure that evaluations align with employer expectations and legal standards.

Summary:
In the absence of explicit guidance from the employer, the employee’s marijuana usage warrants a "Potential Barriers to Suitability" rating. The issue should be highlighted for the employer to review and address based on their policies and expectations. Collaboration with other lead psychologists may provide additional insights into this matter.

Key Question:

Does a candidate’s weekly panic attacks, daily cannabis use, and history of sexual abuse-related trauma disqualify her from a 911 telecommunicator role, particularly when she omitted these issues from her self-report?

Answer:

Yes, this candidate should be rated Not Suitable for a 911 telecommunicator position based on the following:

1. Ongoing Panic Attacks:

   • Records from the candidate’s psychiatrist (dated May 14, 2025) confirm continued panic attacks on a weekly basis.

   • Panic symptoms are incompatible with the demands of a telecommunicator role, which requires rapid, high-stress decision-making and emotional regulation during crisis calls.

2. Trauma and Potential Triggers:

   • The candidate has a documented history of sexual abuse, with anxiety reportedly triggered by male voices.

   • Given that 911 operators routinely field calls involving sexual assaults or male callers in distress or aggression, this creates a risk for emotional dysregulation or secondary trauma.

3. Daily Cannabis Use:

   • The psychiatrist also reported daily marijuana use, which may indicate dependency or self-medication.

   • Regardless of legality, daily cannabis use raises concerns regarding emotional stability, judgment, and policy compliance, especially for safety-sensitive roles.

4. Integrity Concerns:

   • The candidate failed to disclose her panic attacks, trauma history, or cannabis use in the self-report and clinical interview.

   • This lack of transparency calls into question the candidate’s honesty and judgment, both of which are essential for the role.

5. Role-Specific Expectations:

   • Although some might assume the telecommunicator role carries less direct risk than sworn positions, the mental and emotional demands are high, and the position is often considered safety-sensitive.

   • Prior cases involving similar issues (e.g., benzodiazepine abuse to manage job-related stress) further support cautious screening for emotional readiness.

Summary:

This candidate is Not Suitable for a telecommunicator role due to active psychiatric symptoms, daily substance use, and failure to disclose clinically relevant information. These factors reflect significant emotional instability and poor integrity, both of which directly impact job performance and reliability. Records obtained from the psychiatrist were essential in making this determination, and evaluators are encouraged to pursue collateral documentation in similar high-risk scenarios.

Key Question:

Does a candidate with a history of panic attacks, multiple ER visits for anxiety, and ongoing medication use — but no established therapy — meet psychological suitability for a deputy position, even after recently completing BLET?

Answer:

No, the candidate should be considered Not Suitable at this time based on unresolved and functionally impairing panic symptoms. While his recent completion of BLET and cessation of alcohol use are promising, the clinical risk indicators outweigh the mitigating factors. Specifically:

1. Panic Attack History and Functional Impact:

   • Panic attacks reportedly began four years ago during military service and continue to affect his functioning.

   • The candidate visited the ER at least twice in early 2025 for panic-related symptoms (confirmed via records dated 1/2/2025 and 2/4/2025).

   • In a safety-sensitive role like deputy sheriff, the inability to regulate emotional and physiological responses (e.g., “freezing” during a panic episode) poses direct risk to the individual and others.

2. Lack of Adequate Treatment:

   • He began anxiety medication in January 2025 but is receiving this care through urgent care clinics rather than ongoing psychiatric or primary care oversight.

   • Although he completed therapy while in the military (2021–2022), he has not resumed treatment post-discharge.

   • Medication alone, without therapeutic intervention, may not be sufficient for managing panic disorder symptoms in high-stress public safety environments.

3. Substance Use Concerns:

   • History of DWI-related removal from BLET in 04/2024 due to "buzzed" driving.

   • Admitted to multiple past incidents of impaired driving while in the military and during late adolescence (including marijuana use).

   • Although he reports sobriety since 12/2024, the relatively short time since cessation should be weighed cautiously.

4. Other Behavioral Indicators:

   • History of tardiness, an Article 15 for violating COVID protocols in the military, and financial concerns (student loans in collections) all raise questions about reliability and conscientiousness.

5. Strengths Noted:

   • Successfully completed BLET and passed the state exam in 12/2024.

   • Honorably discharged from the military and reports no current suicidal ideation or intent.

6. Recommendation:

   • Despite some positive signs, the ongoing severity of panic symptoms, unresolved mental health needs, and potential for emotional dysregulation in the field justify a determination of Not Suitable.

   • The candidate may be reconsidered in the future if he engages in consistent mental health treatment and demonstrates sustained emotional stability.

Summary:

While the candidate shows some evidence of recent improvement (BLET completion, sobriety, honorable discharge), the presence of frequent panic episodes, multiple ER visits, and lack of adequate clinical care makes him Not Suitable for a deputy role at this time. The risk of emotional compromise during critical incidents outweighs the potential benefits of his background. Clinical documentation should emphasize the safety implications of panic-related impairments in this context.

Key Question:
How should suitability be evaluated when an applicant presents with a recent substance-related legal charge, ongoing alcohol or drug use, and limited insight or accountability?

Answer:
When reviewing applicants with recent substance-related offenses, several key risk factors should be carefully considered:

• Recency of offense or use: A recent DUI or drug use suggests ongoing risk and limited behavioral change.

• Minimization or lack of insight: Downplaying or rationalizing problematic behavior demonstrates poor judgment and reduces confidence in future compliance.

• Remorse and accountability: Failure to acknowledge the seriousness of past conduct increases concerns about repeat behavior.

• Disregard for law or policy: Continued use of substances despite employment in law enforcement/public safety indicates a willingness to violate legal or professional standards.

• Pattern of behavior: Multiple incidents or conflicting self-reports raise concerns about honesty and reliability.

While no single factor guarantees recurrence, the combination of recency, minimization, and lack of accountability typically warrants a cautious approach. In such cases, the recommendation often leans toward Not Suitable, given the elevated risk for future misconduct and the need for public safety agencies to uphold high standards of trust and responsibility.

Summary:
Applicants with recent substance-related offenses, ongoing use, and poor insight present significant suitability concerns. Absent clear evidence of rehabilitation and accountability, a Not Suitable designation is often the most defensible recommendation.

Key Question: How should clinicians assess suitability when an applicant reports daily alcohol use but denies any workplace impairment or disciplinary history?

Answer:
Daily alcohol use, particularly at reported levels of a six-pack or more, raises concerns about both health risks and potential impact on workplace functioning. While a lengthy career without documented alcohol-related discipline may suggest prior occupational stability, self-report alone is not always sufficient to rule out risk, as individuals often underreport use or may have been in positions with flexible schedules that masked the effects of heavy drinking. Clinicians should consider factors such as tolerance, defensiveness regarding use, lack of alternative coping mechanisms, and demeanor during the evaluation. An oppositional or dismissive attitude toward feedback about alcohol use may compound concerns. Ultimately, the question is not whether past issues occurred, but whether the reported pattern of use poses a reasonable risk of future workplace impairment or difficulty functioning in structured environments.

Summary:
Daily alcohol use, paired with defensiveness or poor demeanor, should be weighed as a significant risk factor even in the absence of reported workplace problems. Stability in prior roles may reflect context rather than absence of impairment. When concerns are clear, stronger caution in suitability determinations is warranted.