Dustin,

Did they do any type of background check before your CVS experience?

Did they ask you about a specific incident (or incidents)?

Did you feel as if they knew something about you  during your questions or did it feel like a fishing expedition?

Was this for pre-employment?

I am interested because most of the agencies state that the polygraph is part of a "total" security package but most background investigations are not started until after the polygraph exam.

Quote:


To who ever might be applying for a law enforcement job:

Whether or not you expect to take the polygraph, CVSA, or other exam, please never try to hide relevant application facts.  Many of these facts will not be disqualifying if they are presented with proper clarification.   The agencies in question are protecting YOUR career by insuring that YOUR past does not come back to bite you in the _ss!   The last thing you need is someone who has information which would look damaging to your career in their pocket with the perfect opportunity to blackmail or compromise your ability to do your job in the future.  If some newspaper reporter digs something up on your past, it better be in your jacket if it appears inappropriate.  No agency or supervisor wants to be in the funny pages because you decided that some past incident was "an exception" without their knowledge.

I do not believe that using CVSA or polygraph is an accurate means to tell if an applicant is lying or acceptable for a position and it would bother me that some applicants are lying about their past and being given the benefit of a doubt by passing their polygraph (or CVSA) test. For the same reason I told the absolute truth and was not found "within acceptable parameters,"  there is someone out there that did pass and might be lying.  Aside from any money or political arguments,  this is troubling and needs to be repaired as soon as possible.

Seeker wrote on Nov 20^th, 2002 at 11:22am:


Keep in mind that "skilled resources" that are lost to false positives in LE almost always find gainful employment in other sectors.  The country still benefits. Maybe they are better off. Personally, I'd rather make a smaller (or maybe bigger) honest living than a dishonest one or submit to voo-doo to attain a position.

-Marty

Marty wrote on Nov 21^st, 2002 at 7:58am:


Dear Marty,

Hindsight being 20-20, I definitely would have reservations about applying for any job requiring a polygraph pre-screening test again.  I have nothing to hide but I now know that its validity makes it nothing more then a crapshoot if you pass or not.  I think that my integrity and honor should not be gambled on a crapshoot.

If I am offered another polygraph on my appeal, I will be looking forward to the whole experience like I would be looking forward to a root canal.  I do not need any job enough to humiliate myself knowing what I now know about the polygraph testing.  I have decided that my current Federal employer is a gem compared to the FBI.  My recognition of this will  help me focus better on what I do now.  I will not wonder if the grass is greener on the other side because I have found that it is an illusion and the grass taste awful.

I do not want to embaress the FBI, they have enough problems to deal with right now, but if an examiner ever tries to treat me the way that I have been treated, I will insist on speaking to the Special Agent Duty Officer before I leave about it.  

I have decided that I do not want employment from them but I do want my integrety restored to the point it was before I applied.  I have made some successful contact concerning my appeal and I hope to allow the FBI to save face as well as restoring my own integrity.

Some would argure that I should draw as much "blood" from the FBI as possible as punishment for what they put me through.  I witness the government being imperfect in small ways almost everyday.  I will instead keep trying to constructively engage fellow workers whenever possible about my personal experience and let them draw their own conclusions about its validity.  I have interactions with a huge amount of law enforcement personnel and this impact will be significant by my standards.

Regards

jen19 wrote on Nov 21^st, 2002 at 7:14pm:


Dear jen19,

1. Address your letter to the department head (most probably Chief of Application Divsion) which appears on your notification letter.  Do not send any correspondance to the regional office or Director at this time (the FBI, like the military and other agencies gets their feathers ruffled if you jump the chain of command and will only refer your letter back to this division anyway).  Start low and work your way up from this point according to their response.

2.  Only use certified return receipt mail for proof of delivery date and division.

3.  I know you are frustrated and somewhat angry at being "not acceptable" so allow yourself enough time to "cool down" to keep any bitterness and personal attacks from detracting from your argument.

4.  Describe any discrepancies that occured which would convince a reasonable person that the test was not administered in good faith or not according to proper test proceedures.

5.  Document all serious accusations and your denials to these accusation with any pertinent facts to back them up.

6.  Be factual and do not come to any conclusions.

7.  This letter will become part of your permanent file so write it with care and have some one you trust (or many) to proof read it and give you what they get out of it.

Here is the tough part, allow at least eight weeks from time of delivery for a response.  Follow up with letters every four weeks as necessary until you get a response (same person and address of the first letter with copies of previous letters enclosed).

Hope this helps.