I have a friend that is thinking about taking a job at NSA.  She has a TS/better clearance and happened to do some Ecstasy (twice) while she had the clearance and was in the military.  Does experimental us of Ecstasy automatically dismiss you from TS access?  If there are a few other pot uses within the last year would that be "the straw"?  She wants to tell the truth and get the monkey off her back so she can take a poly and not have to worry about it....does she have a lot to worry about?

jennifer wrote on Jan 19^th, 2003 at 8:21am:

Dear Jennifer,

Chris is very politely trying to tell you that your "friend" should completely abandon their desire for future TS employment.  Many on this website have talked about how alcohol is a drug.  There is one big difference.  Alcohol is legal, Ectasy is not.  I am not pro-polygraph, I am a taxpayer and I expect someone who has a topsecret clearance to have enough common sense to stay away from drugs.  Drugs are the perfect blackmail material since they are obviously illegal and will set anyone up for compromise.  Alcohol is dangerous but I doubt it is as easy to say "someone got drunk once" and use this to threaten their job or living.

Regards.

Jennifer,

Your friend may wish to review the U.S. Government's Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information. Guideline H covers drug involvement. For examples of how the aforementioned guidelines have been interpreted recently, see the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals' industrial decisions for 2002 and look especially for those cases where drug involvement is concerned. Although NSA's adjudicators might implement the guidelines somewhat differently, I would not expect them to be more liberal in interpreting the guidelines than are DOHA's administrative judges. Especially because of her marijuana use within the past year (while holding a top secret clearance at that), I believe your friend has a lot to worry about.

Food for thought:

When consumed at will by a citizen, dexedrine is an illegal Schedule II controlled substance. When distributed by The State to fighter pilots controlling some of the most deadly weapons known to man, amphetamines are wonderful.

US Air Force Says 'Speed' Good for Tired Pilots

Just pointing out the hypocrisy of the drug issue as it relates to pre-employment screening.

Quote:

Dear Guest,

My intent was not to "scare" anyone.  After many years in the military and federal government, I have witnessed how just the "appearance" of wrongful conduct adversely affects careers.  Is this right? Of course not but it happens more often then I would have expected it to.

Lower food chain federal employees like myself are more likely to get caught up in this "appearance" backlash than elected officials.

Despite what some people have posted here, I have seen federal law officers lose their employment after a DUI conviction.  A DUI is a felony in many states and felons are not allowed to use firearms in most states.  The ability to use a firearm is a job requirement and the officer is terminated due to a lack of "fitness for duty."

Where I work, if you have alcohol on your breath while reporting to work or doing work, you are subject to test and refusal of such test can lead to dismissal.  Any registered reading of .02% blood alcohol or higher is an infraction that can lead to immediate dismissal.

Please remember for the ten or twenty cases that are posted in papers concerning law enforcement that "beat the system", there are thousands who get caught and are disciplined.

I am sorry if my posting came over as a threat or scare tactic, for any regular readers of my post, they know my attitude to not be like that.

This site is set up to expose the "truth" of the polygraph as being inaccurate and not trustworthy.

I am not saying that this person is not a good person or a smart person.  I am saying that they should do their utmost to meet all application requirements in a truthful manner.  I have read too many inquiries of fine officers who justified omissions which eventually cost them their jobs.  

I try to enforce all laws equally.  I put my job up on the chopping block if I decide which ones I want to enforce because in my case I believe it is an "exception" not worth enforcing because no one else will know about it.  Am I an idealist?  Yes, I have to be one or else the ignorance and evil I witness everyday would jade me and I would become useless in my job.  This thought pattern of "there are no witnesses" or it is "your word against mine" is weak justification to avoid being truthful in ones job or on an application.  This way of thinking can lead into many problems in future decisions.  It becomes a behavior pattern which becomes more acceptable with time and harder to stop.  I am not a psychologist or doctor but I have been exposed to the flaws of human nature first hand for many years in my job.

An applicant who does not truthfully answer all questions places the foundation of their career on quicksand.  This statement is not a scare tactic.  It comes from my heart and I would say so even if the polygraph disappeared tomorrow.

Regards.

Quote:


I don't recall seeking to turn any debate over the scientific validity of the polygraph into a debate over standards of conduct. My point was tangential to the debate, and merely pointed to the wry irony of-- on the one hand-- the State insisting that the consumption of certain drugs (in this case, Dextroamphetamine) is such heinous behavior as to warrant immediate dismissal from candidacy for employment with the aforementioned State... and on the other hand the State freely feeding its Air Force pilots the exact same drug-- even blessing such actions as 'good'.

Quote:


Whatever. Even though it's becoming rapidly apparent that you and your kind are quite knowledgable concerning all the different shades of yellow, I doubt seriously that you were actually there when the original battle flag was hoisted. Your mindset wasn't there, that's certain.

Quote:


Hey, you forgot to throw in your opinion about Ed Gelb, Professional hair Dresser! Get back here!

Quote:


Beech,

You are quite right, I was not alive (in this life anyway) at that time.  And true my mindset is not in the 18th Century.  While I very much believe in the ideals for which our founding fathers fought, and I work everyday to defend what they created; my "state of mind" would have extended the belief that "all men are created equal," to encompass men and women of all races and ethnicities.  My "state of mind" would never have allowed slavery in a nation founded on such primciples. So in that vein, you are correct about the absence of my 21st century state of mind under your 18th century banner.  However, if you are questioning my patriotism or devotion to the ideals on which this nation was founded, then your ignorant statement proves that while all men are created equal; how effectiviely they use what they are given, sets them apart! 

Have a nice day!

Quote:


Little did he know that Britain would, in a few decades,  go on to abolish slavery in the Kingdom and Provinces that it controlled.  Of course the USA wasn't amongst them then so we had that execrable "custom", rationalized in some of the most extraordinary ways, another half century.

Speaking of rationalizing inhuman things in most extraordinary ways......

-Marty