The FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies typically do not subject applicants to the sort of sexual inquisition that some CIA and NSA applicants have reported. That said, the U.S. Secret Service has in the past used (and may still) a question about sex with animals as a sort of "shock control" question. Although it's a "control" question, any admissions are likely to be disqualifying.

You'll find the questions you're likely to be asked on the FBI polygraph in the DoDPI Law Enforcement Pre-Employment Test (LEPET) examiner's guide.

But you might want to reconsider even applying with the FBI for a different reason. Roughly half of applicants who make it as far as the polygraph are being branded as liars by their polygraphers. Given that polygraphy is entirely without scientific basis to begin with, and that it's use for screening purposes is on even shakier ground, it is clear that many are being falsely accused and wrongly denied employment. Such false accusations are recorded in a permanent FBI file that follows the rejected applicant for the rest of his or her life. Not only is a failed FBI polygraph a permanent bar to FBI employment, it may also make it harder to obtain employment elsewhere in government, especially in positions that require a security clearance. In my opinion, the FBI polygraph a risk not worth taking.

maybefbiguy wrote on Dec 29^th, 2005 at 9:36pm:


maybefbiguy,

It's a mistake to lump a polygraph in the same category as a urinalysis--although I foolishly thought they were  similiar types of testing procedures before I took a poly. A person undergoing a urinalysis has control over the outcome--he/she knows what the results will be--take drugs=fail, don't take drugs=pass. Polygraphs are subjective and the examiner has ultimate say over whether the examinee passes regardless of how truthful he/she has been during the so-called testing procedure.

It would be wise to reconsider your decision to apply with the FBI. Even if you make it through the poly--an unscientific procedure over which you have no control--the FBI backgound investigation is very thorough. Investigators will talk with lots of people from your past and present, asking personal questions along the way. Any polygraph failure or failure to receive a clearance because of something uncovered during your background will be recorded in your permanent file and subject to disclosure to other government agencies as well as LE agencies. This is something the agency won't tell you when you apply there. When it's all said and done, you will feel like you have no privacy left. If you've got a problem with drug screening, I'd say it's best that you steer clear of the FBI. Good luck to you in whatever you decide.     

P.S. Why would you turn down employment because of drug screening if you've never used drugs? Drug screening, which is a scientific procedure, has become commonplace, even in the private sector. Employers don't want to be held liable for an employee who may be engaging in illegal behavior which could in turn, harm others. This is perfectly understandable and reasonable. Asking a prospective employee to submit to an unscientific procedure such as the polygraph is both unfair and unreasonable.

maybefbiguy wrote on Dec 30^th, 2005 at 8:31am:


maybefbiguy,

Although your position is a little odd considering you're a non-user, I would have to say your arguement does have some merit. While I don't myself have a problem with pre-employment drug screening and randon drug testing in the workplace, I could see how one might deem it an invasion of privacy of sorts. It seems to be a matter of principle with you and I can respect that. Since you have an issue with an invasion of privacy when it comes to drug testing, you definitely should stay away from the FBI. There's no way you'll put up with the BS that goes along with the application process from the poly all the way through the background investigation. The agency will know just about all there is to know about you once you've applied there--it's all about invasions of personal privacy. For me, I figured that it was understandable and necessary. I was glad that it was so thorough. I had not wanted to work for an agency involved in sensitive issues that didn't thoroughly check out its applicants because I wanted to feel safe working there. Anyway, good luck to you. I agree that no one should sacrifice their principles just for a job.