Contrary to widespread myth, one is not (at least not in my case) permitted an opportunity to refute any of the derogatory information that may be uncovered during the BI for CIA sinecures .

Is anyone aware of the background requirements? Do DWIs/PIs automatically exclude applicants from getting hired?

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.

Check out the blog for info on the CIA National Clandestine Service (NCS) Recruitment Process, locations of CIA facilities in the DC area, and more juice behind this corrupt organization!

ciacorrupt.blogspot.com

You can contact me at: wlynnae@gmail.com, and follow me on twitter at: @wlynnae

Anyone out there still in this process?

thanks for the post.  Interesting that it could take that long but then again it makes sense.

BowBall wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 3:31pm:


I got contacted about 5 months after I submitted my app for an analytical position.

anyone experience something similar to cia reject?

Well at least there is some hope left.  I honestly thought I would be able to get to at least the first stage of the process (3.8GPA, BS, two critical languages and studying abroad in the middle east).  I've started applying other places though as I realized that this can't be my only option.  The problem is that 90% require 1-3yrs experience in a similar field, even for entry level jobs.  I mean how am i supposed to get any experience if all opportunities require said experience.  Maybe I should just join the military.....

Not true.  I was contacted several months after I applied.  That "45 day" thing is just something they tell applicants so that applicants don't but them.  Think about it.  If the CIA tells you to wait 45 days, then most people won't contact them for 45 days then after 45 days they will assume they didn't get in and move on with their life.  It's more of a way to reduce the number of inquiring applicants.  I didn't get in by the way, I made it up to the famous 3-day (the medical, psychological, and polygraph processing) at their Dulles Discover Bldg in Chantilly, VA but didn't get pass that.  I failed the poly.  My story is similar to the one an applicant posted here.

I was wondering if the Agency strongly adhered to their statement that they won't be offering a position if you aren't contacted in 45 days (but at the same time they keep your application on file for a year if a position comes up).  I've also heard that applying for a permanent position is different than an internship as there are not time restrictions.  Anyone contacted after the 45 day period for a permanent position in the NCS?

What did they ask at the poly? Also, were you completely qualified for the job? What did they ask you in the interview?

The CIA Recruitment Center and Applicant Processing (including polygraphs) Unit is at theDulles Discovery Bldg 13000 Air & Space Museum Pkwy - Chantilly, VA.  Right near the Washington Dulles Airport off Rt. 28.  The recruitment center phone number is 703-374-3110, and the applicant processing unit is 703-796-2988.
It used to be at the Stafford Bldg in Tyson's Corner at 1500 Westbranch Dr McLean, VA 22102.  This may still be a CIA building.

They probably did get hired, or the feds came and got them.  lol.  Check out this post that I found on here that describes the CIA polygraph and other processing in detail:
https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1289586689/2#2

Hey it's 2010 and I'm just wondering if you guys were ever hired...

AlfredDreyfus, did you ever hear anything on your status?  Did you get in?  Where does everybody else stand in their process?

AlfredDreyfus, it would be very helpful for potential applicants to hear about your experience with your two polygraph sessions, especially the questions asked (provided that they do not give away your identity). Making a statement anonymously (http://www.antipolygraph.org/statements.shtml) is one option.

Thanks for all the help Alfred, really, it's been a big help (and relief!). 

I apologize if you've already said it, but are you still in the BI phase of the process? How long has it been since your interview, and how long after the interview did you complete your polygraph?

Hmmm, you're probably right in what you said about the checking out of our backgrounds before the interview...I can't imagine how they could have gotten any information about me...then again, conspiracy theorists think Facebook is a CIA front, so that could have gained them some info 

Alfred, please keep tabs on this thread, as I may have other questions either before or after the interview...sorry that I'm using you as my personal yahoo answers, but I just feel like you seem like a pretty bright guy. 

Again, thanks for all your help. 

ps - you're completely right about it being on a first name basis so far...it's kind of strange calling these people by their (alleged) first names....but they probably, as you said, aren't even real.

Interesting questions and observations.  No, I didn't get any business cards--in fact, it's all on a first-name basis, and I suspect that the first names aren't even the real names of the interviewers.  Until you're cleared, you are treated as if you might well be working for the other team (although I rather suspect that by the time they are interviewing you they've already done a good bit of background checking).  And I also am virtually certain that when you interview you are the only one (or one of very few) for a particular office.  I think it's more of a referendum on you rather than a competition between you and others in the room.  Anonymous00's advice on researching the agency as if it was any other agency is good advice.  There is a mission statement, a history, significant publications available open-source, etc.  Show them that you're already an analyst and you'll be on your way.  I would say that there was less behavioral interviewing than in other interviews, but this may be idiosyncratic to the interviewer.
All in all, I found it an enjoyable experience, particularly in comparison to the polygraph experience.  With luck, you'll have the chance to glean that experience as well!

Good advice @ AlfredDreyfus.  I hope I get a call soon.  I always ask questions after an interview.  Infact, I would recommend all job-seekers to go online and find a list of the most common asked interview questions, and research the company (by this I mean simply browing through their website when you're not looking at internet porn, just to get a feel for the organization).  Prepare all of your answers before hand, then the interview will be a breeze.  Most interviews are the same in my opinion.  I remember having a few serious technical interviews when I cam out of school, and I did horrible!  Someone should have told me to study for them!  But most interviews are behavior based, questions like "give me an example of a time when you...".  I assume the CIA is like this. 

Thanks so much that's an excellent response!

Fortunately, I was actually told which office would be interviewing me (and I don't mean the Dir. of Intel/Op/Support/etc, I mean the exact office inside of one.

I guess I'll just do a substantial amount of research on the office and try to figure out why they have an interest in me.

I agree that having questions to ask the interviewer is vital...but I think most of those will probably be based off of things that I learn during the information session and possibly the interview. 

Were you able to get a business card of the woman who interviewed you in order to send a follow-up email/thank you email? Something tells me they wouldn't want to disclose their identity. 

Also, were you under the impression that you were in competition with the 30 or so others that were there with you? I'm thinking maybe they have all the people being interviewed for the same office come to the same event. 

Again, I really appreciate your insight, as this process is very mysterious and I will feel a lot more comfortable going into this thing with some background information.

Hello ECBob,

The day starts with an informational briefing about the agency, its component parts, career possibilities and progression, etc.  Then there is a brief about the security process--standard fare.  There are 30 or so others there with you.  Then the interview is 1 on 1 with someone from the office that has expressed an interest in your candidacy.  There is a biographical discussion for about 10 minutes followed by about 20 or so minutes of standard questions--why do you want to work here? what skills and training do you have that would help you succeed here? and so forth.  Then the remainder of the time, in my case, was spent asking questions.  My belief is that as with any other interview you must absolutely have some well-prepared and even -rehearsed answers to the standard questions I cite above.  Then I think it is very important to develop some good questions to pose to your interviewer that demonstrates and reinforces your answers to these questions, and shows that you're not just another butt in a seat.  Although you may not know what office has expressed interest in you, you will know whether you're under consideration as an analyst for example, and in which career field, and based on your own knowledge of your education and training you can probably draw an accurate inference about who might be interested in you.  I would place myself in the mental position of pretending that you were actually going to be starting the job the minute the interview ends--what information would you like to have to be able to do your job well, both now and in 1 year, in 5 years, etc?  Show them that you are eager to learn and that you know enough to frame good questions, and that you have a long-term horizon in terms of your future with the agency.  Help them see you as someone they'd like to mentor, eat lunch with, barbecue with on weekends, etc.  Try to enjoy it--why not?

During my interview, I got the sense that things were going well, although my interviewer was somewhat reserved--I don't know if this was her typical personality.  I was pleasantly surprised to get a call so quickly after my interview--I was expecting to wait as long as 3 weeks, and my hope is that the quick call is the result of such strong interest in my candidacy that the office is willing to exert its influence on the process to assist me should the polygrapher with whom I met decide he wants to sink my candidacy.  After all, the office is an important stakeholder, polygraphy is fundamentally subjective, and perhaps a manifestation of strong interest might condition the result.  Who knows?

My best advice is prepare good questions, be the best version of yourself (good colleague, good listener, etc.) that you can be, make a good judgment as to why they are interested in you and prepare yourself accordingly, and enjoy the process.

AlfredDreyfus, 

It's good to finally find someone who has gone to one of the CIA's information session/interviews in the past. 

I was just requested to fly in for one, and I am wondering if you would be able to shed any light on what goes on.

-Is the one-on-one interview just like a regular job interview? Are there any tips you could provide as to how to prepare?
-Are you there among many other prospective employees? Or is the information session just for you?
-You got a call on your cell phone 20 min after the interview? Did your interviewer say that that is highly unusual?

Any help for this thing would be greatly appreciated, as mine is coming up!
thanks!

Thanks, BBernie.  I guess we all live and learn.  What is disappointing is that there is no due process to guide either the method by which the BI is conducted or an opportunity to respond directly to allegations of discrepancy or other "derogatory" information at a point where it might be possible to resolve them in favor of the applicant.  Often, it is possible to explain, mitigate, and dispose of issues, provided one is given the chance to do so.  Then, one can square the facts with one's answers, and at least rebut the presumption of dishonesty in the face of questions that are less than clear.  None of us is without any "skeletons" in our closet, especially if skeletons are defined down to include a difficult encounter with a boss or a coworker, or a few drunken nights in a frat house, or a significant speeding ticket, or even someone from the past who wishes to do us ill when speaking with a background investigator.  I would like to think that it would be possible to make reasonable adjudications based on the "whole person" concept and that investigators would always make the correct decisions, but experience, especially as regards polygraphy, has convinced me otherwise.  Glad that you are pressing on in a positive direction.

AlfredDreyfus wrote on Nov 12^th, 2009 at 9:51pm:


Well, I am not blaming anyone but myself.  I screwed it up and I accept full responsibility for it.  I was not as familiar with the SF-86 as I should have been, and that is certainly no excuse for omissions/misrepresentations.  Having said that, I did not intentionally fill the questionnaire out to mislead.  I had a genuine desire to complete the form honestly, in good faith, but felt that stating every problem I ever had with an employer as being unnecessary if the problems never amounted to any form of disciplinary action and/or reprimands.  Performance problems?  sure.  I didn't feel a need to mention it.  Personality conflicts with the boss?  sure.  Again, I didn't feel a need to mention it.  Grievances filed?  Yes.  So, looking back on it, in addition to the SF-86, I should have completed a statement outlining every problem I ever had with an employer (just to cover me), and I had several.  That was the problem, I didn't provide any CYA for myself.  It was a definite mistake on my part to try and skirt around these issues and I understand why it was determined to be dishonest and deceptive.  My issue with all of this is what I was told by the polygrapher after I was polygraphed which was that if there were any discrepancies with my background, I would most likely be called back for another interview.  Well, that never happened.  And I never knew my application was in the tank for an entire 6 month period up until I received that dreaded letter in the thin envelope.   And during all that time, I was providing answers to follow-up questions thinking that everything was on track, because I never had any indication whatsoever that a problem was encountered.  From reading the copy of my investigation, there was a problem with me from the beginning so I am unsure why it dragged on as long as it did.  I believe it was because the background investigation went through to completion for a full blown SSBI Single Scope BI -- which was quite extensive -- but from reading the report, the only people that appeared to have been interviewed were people who had no use for me at all, which is not what I have a problem with, however.