Quote:
Dear chitown_dude,
You are asking all the right questions.
Thanks, good to know. I try to get my points to address the direct and specific issues, thus this set of questions.
Quote:
My answers are only "to the best of my knowledge" and experience but I know how difficult it is to get accurate information in this process.
You ain't lying. When in doubt, I refer my time with the Marines and remember the joy of not knowing anything until the ultimately possible last moment. Now that I'm a grown up and all (heh), I hate that situation, but I have to accept it. And as a more mature person today, I realize they don't have time to babysit and explain everything to everyone. Understood completely. It's just good to talk to folks 'offline' and get some knowledge afore-hand.
Quote:
Point 1: Forget about what you see on CSI or other computer TV shows about FBI forensics. Your task will be more probably trying to get the FBI computer infrastructure to work at late 1990's private sector operational capacity. The FBI had a 170 million dollar fiasco called TRIOLOGY ...
Right, I read/heard/listening to media about that. While I do have my opinions on that,they'd be kept to myself until such time as I could actually
do something about them. And then again, after getting hired, it's probably obvious everyone in the IT org knows about it and it's a sore thumb. I'd just keep shut about it until I'm actually asked something about it, would be my approach.
Quote:
Reading about this should send a chill up your spine about the "high technology" you hope to play with. You will be assigned to making a "new" system work which the FBI cannot even put a price tag on yet ...
Yep. I assume the FBI (being governmental, but yet advanced by it's very mission and new requirements) would presently be in a state of high-tech/low-tech flux. You know, VAX's and green-screens in the same datacenters with 64-bit compute clusters analyzing NSA by-products for intel and analysis. Maybe, however, they'd be reversed and the VAX would be doing intel and the cluster would be printing paychecks.
Again, while there are reasons for everything, it takes tact and skill to enter an organization and make effective changes in a short amount of time. I probably wouldn't have any gumption for a few years, and I'd expect that.
But then, I'd move to my usual tactics of attempting to find broken things and fix them. Technology is never broken, it's just mis-applied. People and processes are often broken. Realistically, I'd be a warrior and evangelist aiming to arm the SA's, the IA's and the entire FBI with the most technologically appropriate methods to do their jobs.
Weird, but I'd also hope that one day an agent would consider their PDA/XDA just as valuable as their duty weapon. Time will tell. I don't even have the job yet and I'm thinking this way. Guess I'm just that much of a forward thinker.
Quote:
Point 2: The FBI WILL contact your present employer with a mandatory interview of one or more supervisors or fellow employees (typically at least one of each) before performing any adjudication of your final background clearance or offer of final appointment. If you are at all concerned about their negative input, DO NOT APPLY. While they will not automatically take negative comments at face value, it will cause them to spend alot more time doing a much more extensive interviewing of many supervisors and employees to rectify the truth to their satisfaction. The FBI does not like individual expression. The want a "team" player that follows orders and keeps their opinion to themselves. All you have to do is look at FBI employees who have expressed concerns and are now unemployed and blackmarked for life as "whistleblowers."
Understand completely.
And therein is the single risk that I'm not sure I'm willing to take. The poly, background, all that -- dont' worry me. Hell, my coworker interviews don't worry me. I live my life in a way that I know I need to call on people, and thus I make close friends and when that's impossible, at least allies. I choose wisely, and I ... well, that's all jib-jab.
The bottom line is that I know I would do just fine. Except, therein lies the challenge -- at what point would they actually do the interviews (using my list, previously message). Because, honestly, I'd like to be at 90% confirmed with that being the last hurdle. I could even spin it to my management chain that I wanted to move closer to my wife's family, yadda yadda, which would buy me credits/tokens to take a swing at this. But then ... well, it just gets interesting. And I may opt out entirely. It's not fun putting your emotions on your sleeve and then having the shirt taken off your back, so to speak.
I don't believe the FBI maliciously does that, of course, but they're a in the business of doing what they do without much regard for personal impact, and while understandable, I think the largest detractor from my current position. I figure I need to be honest with them in the interview (the only one, as the way I heard it being told to me from my AC) and let them know that I have a good position and that wihtout jeopardizing it, I need to know what would disqualify me so I may intelligently associate the risk with the reward. If they're unwilling to understand that, then I may end the interviewing process and re-engage later down the road when I'm not being put into a situation of financial risk. Already having filed CH13, I don't want to foobar myself much further right now, and losing a job b/c I considered another, with the other being now rescinded based upon confidential adjudication criteria, isn't my idea of fun and happiness.
Quote:
Point 3: Please go to the FBI website for employment and you will find that the FBI wants many background questions completed all the way back to age 18. In your case, this would involve over 17 years of information. Not supplying the information as directed will immediately raise red flags.
Understood. But interestingly, a few quick things I omitted:
On the SF-86, my FBI recruiter (didn't identify herself as an SA, so she may be HR support staff) told me to
IGNORE questions #21 (Mental Health status), #24 (Drug involvement), and #24 (Alcohol involvement/treatmentConcerns). While obviously 'very cool', that doesn't guarantee that's not being considered. I don't know really what this means, and I'd like others to weigh in. Her response was "We aren't allowed to ask you those questions". WTF? Like, totally rad for joe-skateboarder-cum-computer-expert, but that's just my concern, and doens't impact me either way. I am going to fill those out, because it looks very good for my answers to be the way they are.
But specifically, #23 (Arrest Record) and really everything between #20-#25 indicates CONFLICTING periods of scope and history. For reference, I'm using SF-86 Revision 11/95. (Ref:
http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/SF86.pdf). In most cases, the form requires a period of 7 years. I'm sure they can extend that to any degree they need (and from reading your information, it goes back to Age 18, which really doensn't change anything). In fact, the way I answer question #23, it completely removes any suspicion that I'm hiding or failing to disclose ANYTHING. Again, I've been through the government paperwork and due-dilligence approaches enough to know that I need to list 110% of every nuance. And if I missed something, I'm going to pre-work every angle to ensure that I have the documentation ready and waiting to hand over when they say "What about this..." (hands paper). "Didn't think you needed that, because, as instructed Sir, the form required 7 years and I've provided that. But here is everything up to my 18th birthday, which by the way, doesn't really impact it otherwise."
Quote:
Point 4: While publicly stating that certain drug "experimentation" is acceptable to the FBI employment standards, the unwritten rule of polygraph operators is to find any drug usage questionable and means for "an unacceptable parameters" finding. There are plenty of applicants and they would prefer one with no drug history at all if possible.
Understandable and the gamble I'm most willing to take among all of them. I'll admit to curious pot-smoking and some boozing. But in the adjudication process (if, making it out of poly-fun-land is possible), they should consider my recent 11 year stint as a father, husband, holder of steady and stable jobs and nose-clean approach to law and order, etc. If they don't, screw em, let them have Joe Mormon (just a joke, folks). Etc.
Quote:What I have stated is the truth to the best of my knowledge. I can understand your boredom with your current position. If you were single and it only affected you, I would say, give it a shot. I would not risk my family's future on the FBI employment opportunity considering the conditions you describe.
Most valuable point there. One I'm considering in the next 96 hours.