RuleofLawviation
T1 Advanced
"Have you ever been charged with a crime to include drugs or alcohol use?"
I can see where the confusion comes from. I hate to pull a Bill Clinton ("It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is.")
, but we have to look at what the meaning of the word "to" is.As a general rule, "to" is a preposition. However, the way that it is used in 9a is completely in err. It renders the question essentially incomprehensible without a little imagination. Because "to" absolutely cannot be used as a preposition as it stands in this question and because its attempted use does not make sense, it is reasonable for the reader to use their imagination and replace the word altogether. While the word "to" is not a conjunction, here replacing the word "to" with "that" or simply reading the word "to" to be synonymous with "that" is reasonable. If we were to replace the word "to" with "that" it would read: "Have you ever been charged with a crime that include drugs or alcohol use?" I think it's obvious that this sounds better and I think it makes more sense that the intent was to put in a conjunction rather than a preposition, especially given the context.
Moving to context (which should be given considerable weight in determining whether "to" should be treated as a preposition or a conjunction), when looking at 9b, 9c, and 9d we can see that those are all serious "activities." Illegal drugs, domestic violence, and bankruptcy are all major blemishes on someone's record. Given that 9a mentions drugs and alcohol it would be appropriate to assume that the crimes to which 9a is referring are crimes that included drugs or alcohol use, not just any crime. If the question was meant to include traffic citations then the question would have had to have explicitly mentioned traffic complaints. However because the question does not specifically say "including traffic violations" or some other variation, then it is not reasonable to conclude that traffic violations fall within "charged with any crime" given that a minor speeding violation does not rise to the same level as bankruptcy, domestic abuse, or illegal drugs.
Finally and probably most importantly (given that this is not up for interpretation of meaning or context), we need to remember that when one receives a traffic citation you are not actually being charged with a crime. When an officer gives you a speeding ticket, that ticket is a complaint by the officer that you broke the traffic laws/ordinances (there is a difference between laws and ordinances which could impact the meaning of 9a also but I find it to be rather minor so I won't go into that). When being issued a ticket, you are not being charged with a crime. An officer might later go back and file a formal charge on you but that would typically lead to an indictment or an arraignment which is a completely different beast. This usually might happen if you were recklessly driving, caused injury to someone, or something else very serious. This will NOT happen for speeding violations (unless you are going 30+ over or whatever the local law is that says the excessive speed constitutes reckless driving. Even still, a formal charge would still likely not happen if the speeding was the end of the incident). Therefore, because speeding tickets are complaints and not formal charges, it would be completely unreasonable to assume that traffic violations fall within question 9a.
Now what is the purpose of all of this? Am I being nit-picky? Most assuredly I am, probably a lot...probably to the point that it is very annoying. However, I would not have taken the time to write all of this if I didn't feel like it would help clarify the question, ease some minds, and hopefully help future applicants to properly answer 9a. My conclusion is that those who answered in the negative to question 9a didn't do anything wrong even though they might have had traffic violations. I come to this conclusion based off of three major points that I discussed above:
1. The word "to" does not make any sense, either legally or grammatically. It should be treated as a conjunction, meaning that the crime was not just any crime, but a crime that also included the use of drugs or alcohol;
2. Given the context with 9b, 9c, and 9d, traffic violations simply do not belong; and
3. A traffic citation is not a charge of a crime.
In this case here, I think that it was the amount of speeding tickets (9) that was given considerable weight by the board. The board might have seen that and come to the conclusion that the applicant has a blatant disregard for rules and structure and also won't learn from his/her lesson. Everybody can take all of this with a big grain of salt especially @RUFiO181 and @Mav15 , but my advice for Mav15 would be to not give up on the dream. Reapply, maybe address to the board how you have matured since you received those speeding violations and how you have a deeper respect for authority and the law now, and tell them how you would be an asset to the Navy.
Press on!
*This is not legal advice. AW readers and members are NOT my clients. These are simply my interpretations and opinions.
