Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Hiring And Personnel topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Civil service commission rejects several deputy applicants, advances others to sheriff’s review

Berkeley County Deputy Sheriff Civil Service Commission · May 20, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

On May 20, 2026, the Berkeley County Deputy Sheriff Civil Service Commission rejected multiple applicants for disqualifying conduct and forwarded several others to the sheriff’s office for background checks and possible hire following the June 13 open‑entry examination.

The Berkeley County Deputy Sheriff Civil Service Commission on May 20 rejected several applicants from the pending eligibility list while allowing others to proceed to the sheriff’s background review ahead of a June 13 open‑entry deputy exam.

President Dale Buck and Commissioner D. Scott Wilson reviewed 28 applications flagged for additional inquiry. The commission voted unanimously to reject Applicant Number Four after finding a prior dismissal from public service for misconduct. Commissioner Wilson summarized that the applicant had been terminated following an off‑duty incident involving alcohol; paperwork presented showed the related charge had been expunged, but the commission concluded dismissal for misconduct is disqualifying under its rules.

Commissioner Wilson also reported Applicant Number Eight had misrepresented military separation documentation. According to Wilson, the DD‑214 indicated a General discharge for misconduct related to drug abuse and a reenlistment code prohibiting reenlistment; the applicant’s representation of the discharge as honorable led to rejection. Commissioner Wilson said he had already notified that applicant of the rejection under Article II, Section 4 of the commission’s rules.

Several applicants were permitted to continue. President Buck moved, and the commission approved, forwarding Applicant Number Nine—whose disclosed juvenile‑era substance misuse dated to ages 14–15 and who reported no narcotics use since 2015—to the Berkeley County Sheriff’s Office for a full background investigation. Applicant Number Seventeen, who described prior financial delinquencies and active repayment arrangements, was also advanced after commissioners found the applicant was addressing outstanding obligations. Applicant Number Nineteen, who acknowledged limited marijuana‑related activity as a teenager and expressed remorse, was similarly allowed to proceed.

Applicant Number Fourteen appeared at the meeting, acknowledged prior criminal conduct (a guilty plea for petty theft) and past involvement with marijuana activity as an adult, and asked for an opportunity to serve. Commissioners cited the adult‑era conviction and related admissions as disqualifying under their rules and voted unanimously to reject that applicant.

Commissioner Wilson closed the applicant review portion of the meeting by summarizing that of 28 inquiries initiated, 10 applicants had already been approved to proceed, five had been rejected for clear rule violations, multiple applicants remained pending, and the review process was proceeding.

The commission’s actions at the May 20 meeting do not itself hire or appoint deputies; the approved applicants will be forwarded to the Berkeley County Sheriff’s Office for background investigations and any subsequent hiring steps.

The commission adjourned at 6:37 p.m.; the next regular meeting is scheduled for 5:00 p.m. Wednesday, June 17, 2026, pending room availability.