TC

I suspect it's for DOD contractor for some overseas work possibilities and since the BI is being done maybe there won't be a poly. A poly would be senceless and a waste of funds, to me, after a BI. No way in hell should a poly be believed after a good BI, but who knows what the stupid asses in D. C. will do. Maybe, if we work hard enough, we can replace them with people that has intelligence and sound judgement.

Twoblock,

Was you neighbor applying for a LE job, or intel agency?

I didn't think they did any background investigating UNTIL AFTER the polygraph.  That is the way NSA operated back in 2000 when I went through preemployment processing.

It makes more sense to do the BI first.  There is nothing more frustrating then being falsely accused of shit on the polygraph, with absolutely NO FOLLOW-UP verification.+

TC

My last five-year security update was performed in 2005.  The field investigator from DOD not only interviewed my references and coworkers but also interviewed me.  I wanted to let the investigator know my opinion of the polygraphs for the purposes of security screening, and was informed that polygraph is indeed controversial among the field investigators.  Probably the proliferation of information about polygraph (establishment of AntiPolygraph.org, the flap at LANL and the NAS study, all occurring between 1999 and 2005) must have been a revelation to the investigators.

So there is reason for hope.

Regards,
Evan S

Fair Chance

One of the many things that impressed me was the professionalism at so young an age. Guess - mid to late thirties. Also, the abundance of intelligence. So much so, my guess is, as not to be intimadated by a polygrapher and his machine which is one of the keys to passing. Another was the BI didn't stick to boilerplate questions. Some of my answers brought on personal questions as should be by a good investigator.

It's too bad that there are so few of this kind, you, Tripple X, etc., in the fed system. I believe there would be more if it wasn't for so many false positives.

Dear Twoblock,

If your faith has been restored, it had to have been quite an interview.  My hat is off to an investigator that impressed you. This is what I need to hear, that the government is not insanely trusting the polygraph to do what foot-stomping good old-fashion investigators do so well: investigate, verify, and present actual observations,  physical interviews, and personal accountability.

This is truly a subjective evaluation which requires more than just a machine's measurement.   

Regards

George

If this is not the correct forum, please change it to the right one.

I just finished an impromptu interview with a BI investigating a neighbor for TS clearance. Man, what an investigation! This is the way it should be done. Not by the polygraph. My confidence is restored.

After the interview, I asked, in jest, was I gonna be polygraphed for truthful answers. This brought on a belly rolling guffaw. I took our conversation to mean the BI had little confidence in the poly for pre-employment. When asked what I thought about it in a criminal setting, my reply was "it extracts confessions from some guilty people and it also extracts false confessions from some innocent people but it sure didn't take the place of good police investigations. To which there was no disagreement.

Before I leave, I hope to talk to my neighbor about their poly experience and with authorization will report back.