The OP is putting together a proposal. One of the key personnel is an existing employee who, the OP thinks, has inflated his/her rank on the resume. OP thinks this for unknown, possibly gossipy, reasons. OP then proceeded to do a deep Google dive to produce some kind of corroborating information that the person is lying on the his resume. She found an archived record stating the person's promotion to some rank that is 2 levels below the rank on the resume. OP thinks this is illegal, pretending to be of higher rank, even though she does not know the person's actual rank (either current or when he left the service).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here, thanks for the tip about asking for the DD 214.

OP do not do this without involving your HR. You could really piss off this employee and end up with the employee filing a complaint against you.

You are right, we’ll ask HR to screen the package. It’s technically in their swim lane as part of the process.

Anonymous wrote:OP here, thanks for the tip about asking for the DD 214.

OP do not do this without involving your HR. You could really piss off this employee and end up with the employee filing a complaint against you.

OP here, thanks for the tip about asking for the DD 214.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a former service member, I'm also still trying to figure out what OP thinks is two ranks lower than O-2.

Exactly, there is no such thing as an O-zero
Generally an officer will start at O-1 and two years later get promoted to O-2, then two years after that get promoted to O-3.

Exactly. My son is at Officer Candidate School (Navy) right now. He’s getting paid at E-5 rate until he completes OCS, and he is not a commissioned officer until he graduates. He will then start as O-1. ROTC graduates start immediately as O-1. And, I may be wrong, but I think my son signed to serve minimum four years.

OP has no clue what she’s talking about. Send an email to HR and see if they have a DD-214 on file. If he received any kind of veteran’s preference during the hiring process, I’m guessing HR would have this document.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a former service member, I'm also still trying to figure out what OP thinks is two ranks lower than O-2.

Exactly, there is no such thing as an O-zero
Generally an officer will start at O-1 and two years later get promoted to O-2, then two years after that get promoted to O-3.

And the minimum commitment after commissioning is three years, so this person is likely a little bit higher than entry level.

Anonymous wrote:As a former service member, I'm also still trying to figure out what OP thinks is two ranks lower than O-2.

Exactly, there is no such thing as an O-zero
Generally an officer will start at O-1 and two years later get promoted to O-2, then two years after that get promoted to O-3.

Ask for a DD-214. The problem is solvable in a half-hour—why are you asking about it here?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, are you looking for a reason to get rid of them anyway? Or are they great? Or somewhere in between? Unless you are looking to get rid of them anyway for whatever reason I'd drop it. Exception to that is this -- does the position require trust? If so, then yeah, it is an issue.

OP here: it does which is why it makes it challenging. I have to be confident of who I have on the team. We don’t really go to HR for business development stuff. But the company overall is liable if there is an audit.

DP. I think the only thing that you can be confident in, is that you are very confused. What you are saying makes no sense.

Maybe ask someone in your company with some experience before accusing him of lying about his rank.

As a former service member, I'm also still trying to figure out what OP thinks is two ranks lower than O-2.

This thread is incredibly confusing. OP, what exactly is your basis for concluding that this individual lied? If the CV is a mix of rank and competency, the individual may be explaining responsibilities he or she had at various points during their service, when they may have been of lower rank.

Anonymous wrote:Well, are you looking for a reason to get rid of them anyway? Or are they great? Or somewhere in between? Unless you are looking to get rid of them anyway for whatever reason I'd drop it. Exception to that is this -- does the position require trust? If so, then yeah, it is an issue.

OP here: it does which is why it makes it challenging. I have to be confident of who I have on the team. We don’t really go to HR for business development stuff. But the company overall is liable if there is an audit.

Well, are you looking for a reason to get rid of them anyway? Or are they great? Or somewhere in between? Unless you are looking to get rid of them anyway for whatever reason I'd drop it. Exception to that is this -- does the position require trust? If so, then yeah, it is an issue.

It is not unusual to ask for a DD-214 when veteran history is germane to hiring, placement, and pay. It is irresponsible of HR if they don't request it in a case like this. It's not a hostile request--it's pretty banal when everybody's on the up and up.

Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP. The OP said he had entry level claiming he was two ranks higher at O-2.

This doesn’t make sense unless he was enlisted first.

If he wasn’t enlisted, then he would be considered an Officer Candidate (which is two ranks below O-2). In this case, he would have never been commissioned as an officer.

Something is off with the OP’s statements.

OP here: part of the issue is that the cv is written as a mix of military rank and competency. Not going into detail here for obvious reasons.