Navy: Shooter's arrest, money woes turned up in '07 checks
WASHINGTON — Background investigators were aware in 2007 that Aaron Alexis, the Navy Yard shooter, failed to disclose that he had been arrested and had a string of bad debts before joining the military, but he was granted a secret clearance anyway, according to military documents released on Monday.
After he enlisted in the Navy in May 2007, an FBI fingerprint check indicated that he had been charged with malicious mischief in 2004, according to the Navy. Police reports indicated he was arrested after shooting the tires of a parked car in a dispute with a construction worker in Seattle.
He did not disclose that or any credit problems on the form he was required to fill out as part of his security clearance process.
Investigators conducted an interview “regarding the subject's unadmitted criminal offense and financial issues,” according to a report by the Office of Personnel Management, a government agency.
The OPM background report was forwarded to the Navy, but it did not mention the shooting. Instead, it described a situation in which Alexis deflated the tires of the man with whom he was having a dispute.
OPM said the Seattle Police Department would not provide records . Court records included the malicious mischief offense, but because no charges were filed, there were no detailed records indicating allegations of a weapon.
Alexis, 34, was killed after his rampage at the Navy Yard that claimed the lives of 12 people on Sept. 16. At the time, he was working as a subcontractor at the base.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Law enforcement, intelligence agencies want to ‘like’ you on social media
- Russia stacking troops at border, U.S. claims
- Carjacked SUV hits crowd in Philadelphia, killing 3 siblings
- Radar captures mayfly swarm on Mississippi
- Sheriff doubles to 300 estimate of homes wracked by fire in Washington
- New Jersey siblings split $20M lottery prize
- Senator Paul plots ways to draw minorities to GOP
- Court upholds Fla.’s ‘Docs vs. Glocks’
- Judge: Feds wrong to list bearded seals
- Data on impact of Colo. gun law, background checks questioned
- Mountaineer workers fear smoking ban will harm ‘livelihood’