NORTH CAROLINA
WAKECOUNTY
LEROY WILSON, JR.,
Petitioner,
v.
NORTH CAROLINA PRIVATE PROTECTIVE SERVICES BOARD,
Respondent. / )))))))))) / IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
10 DOJ 3179
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION

This contested case was heard before Administrative Law Judge Donald Overby on August 24, 2010 in Raleigh, North CarolinatoN. C. Gen. Stat. 150B, Article 3.

APPEARANCES

Petitioner appeared pro se

Respondent was represented by Jeffrey D. McKinney.

WITNESSES

Respondent – Anthony Bonapart, Deputy Director, testified for Respondent Board

Petitioner – Petitioner testified on his own behalf.

ISSUES

Whether grounds exist for Respondent to deny Petitioner’s application for a Security Guard and Patrol License under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 74C-1 et seq. for failure lack of verifiable experience, an unfavorable credit history, falsifying application and negative employment history.

BURDEN OF PROOF

Respondent has the burden of proving that the Petitioner failed to adequately provide proof of verifiable experience, that the Petitioner had an unfavorable credit history, that Petition falsified his application, and that Petitioner had a negative employment history. Petitioner may rebut Respondent’s showing.

STATUTES AND RULES APPLICABLE

TO THE CONTESTED CASE

Official notice is taken of the following statutes and rules applicable to this case:

N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 74C-2; 74C-3(a)(6); 74C-9(a)(2); 74C-12(a)(2)(3);

74C-13; 12 NCAC 7D§ .0800, .0112.

FINDINGS OF FACT

  1. Respondent Board is established pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 74C-1, et seq., and is charged with the duty of licensing and registering individuals engaged in the private protective services including security and patrol.
  1. Petitioner applied to Respondent Board for a Security Guard and Patrol License. Petitioner’s initial application, received by the Board on December 22, 2009, was introduced as Respondent’s Exhibit 1. Exhibit 1 was admitted as part of the record.
  1. On January 6, 2010, Respondent Board sent Petitioner a letter indicating that Petitioner’s application was deficient in a number of ways. This letter was introduced as Respondent’s Exhibit 2. Exhibit 2 was admitted as part of the record.
  1. Petitioner provided to the Board several amendments to his application, which were introduced as Respondent’s Exhibits 3 and 4. Exhibits 3 and 4 were admitted as part of the record.
  1. Mr. Bonapart, Deputy Director for Respondent Board, testified that for each application, a background check is conducted for each applicant. A background investigation was conducted of Mr. Wilson including the following: character references, experience requirements, credit reports and criminal history.
  1. The background check revealed several places of employment that Petitioner did not list on his application. The investigation also revealed that Petitioner had been terminated from one of these places of employment, despite indicating on his application that he had never been involuntarily dismissed, fired or allowed to resign in lieu of firing.
  1. The Board was not willing to accept a substantial sum of Petitioner’s hours about which there was some question whether the hours were spent while serving in a supervisory capacity. Mr. Bonapart explained that the former employer, Mr. William Iverson Mackenzie, had provided inconsistent statements regarding Petitioner’s supervisory duties as reflected in Mr. Mackenzie’s letter dated March 7, 2002, his letter dated November 29, 2006, and his “affidavit” dated September 22, 2009.
  1. Mr. Mackenzie refused to execute an affidavit provided by Respondent Board, According to Petitioner, Mr. Mackenzie refused ostensibly because of the provision which provides a criminal sanction for perjury. When asked by the Board, Mr. Mackenzie stated that he stood by his letter of March 7, 2002, which would have credited Mr. Wilson with only thirty six (36) hours.
  1. Mr. Wilson’s application states that he was employed by Pinkerton for two and a half years. The letter submitted with his application shows that he was employed with Pinkerton for approximately five months. Assuming a forty hour work week, and 4.3 weeks per month, Mr. Wilson would only have been entitled to approximately 860 hours for his employment with Pinkerton. With this work history with Pinkerton, he would not have had sufficient hours of prior experience even if he were given complete credit for his work with Mackenzie.
  1. Mr. Wilson was previously denied licensure by Respondent Board because he was unable to provide verifiable documentation of pertinent work experience.
  1. Mr. Wilson testified on his own behalf. Mr. Wilson explained that he should receive credit for the hours spent despite the inconsistent statements of his former employer.
  1. A letter evidencing the Board’s decision was sent to Petitioner on April 23, 2010, 2008. A copy of the letter was introduced and admitted as Exhibit 6.
  1. Petitioner’s application for a Security Guard and Patrol License was denied by the Board for“lack of verifiable experience, an unfavorable credit history, falsifying application and negative employment history.”
  1. No evidence was presented in this contested case hearing concerning Petitioner’s credit history.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Board may deny a license in accordance with G.S. Chapter 74C and title 12, NCAC, Chapter 7. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 74C-6(12) theRespondent Board may deny a Security Guard and Patrol License for making any false statement in connection with any application for a license, for violating an provision of § 74-C. Pursuant to 12 NCAC 07D .0301 and .0204 an applicant for a Security Guard and Patrol must establish to the Board’s satisfaction that the applicant has 3,000 hours of verifiable experience as a manager, supervisor, or administrator of a contract security company or an organization performing security guard and patrol services.

Petitioner failed to establish to the Board’s satisfaction that he had 3,000 hours of verifiable experience as a manager, supervisor, or administrator of a contract security company or an organization performing security guard and patrol services.

Respondent Board presented evidence that Petitioner failed to adequately establish that he had 3,000 of verifiable experience as a manager, supervisor, or administrator of a contract security company or an organization performing security guard and patrol services. Petitioner hasfailed to present sufficient evidence to rebut Respondent Board’s evidence.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned makes the following:

PROPOSAL FOR DECISION

The North Carolina Private Protective Services Board will make the final decision in this contested case. It is proposed that the Respondent Board UPHOLD its decision to deny Petitioner’s application for a Security Guard and Patrol License.

ORDER

It is hereby ordered that the agency serve a copy of the final decision on the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 MailServiceCenter, Raleigh, N.C.27699-6714, in accordance with G.S. 150B-36(b).

NOTICE

The agency making the final decision in this contested case is required to give each party an opportunity to file exceptions to this proposal for decision, to submit proposed findings of fact and to present oral and written arguments to the agency pursuant to G.S. 150B-40(e).

The agency that will make the final decision in this contested case is the Alarm Services Licensing Board.

This the 20thday of September, 2010

______

The Honorable Judge Donald Overby

{}1