Quote:


Thanks, good to know.  I try to get my points to address the direct and specific issues, thus this set of questions.

Quote:


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:


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:


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:


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:


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:


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:


Most valuable point there.  One I'm considering in the next 96 hours.

Polyfool... I understand.  And It's becomming clearer by the moment.

I'm really straddling the fence at this point.  I doubt they'll poly me on Friday (my 1st interview), but should I move on in the process, I know it's coming, probably shortly after.

Depending upon what I actually want to do with this, I may just see how far, and up to, the poly I can go.  That builds my confidence for many things, mind you, but also lets me have the option of "Just Saying No" to the poly.

I'm a weird, Charmic kind of guy, and I sincerely believe the machine and I would be fine.  I don't, however, believe the interpretation of what the machine produces by the interrogators (oops, polygraphists) is read correctly, including how they phrase specific questions.

Put it another way -- as a younger man (like many of us), I couldn't get into a heated discussion without wanting to take the head off of someone the person I was having the spirited exchange with.  Then, over time and many years and probably a reduction in free testosterone, I'm now able to calmly and specifically discuss matters of almost anything no matter how irksome and heated they actually are.   And I actually mean, I'm able to control, relatively, my blood pressure, heart beat, breathing and beet-red-face-engorging blood that used to dominate my stance in these discussions.  Having kids does that. 

In the land of polygraphs, I don't know what this actually means, if anything.  But I'm not sure, even after what I'm said and certainly after reading all of the information here and using my own suspicions, that I'm willing to put myself through this ordeal.

In a season of 50% failures and high application rates, I'm more and more not liking the fact that I'm going to be so much fodder for the cannons, if you will.

It's looking grim for me, mentally, now.

chitown_dude wrote on Feb 27^th, 2006 at 12:11am:


I do not know who this agency person is but I can assure you that the FBI is VERY interested in getting the answers to such questions.  I will remind you that the FBI states that any questions not completely answered will result in your application not being considered for employment.  Her statement is completely bogus.  If they do not want the information, why do they not create a new form eliminating such question?  The application form has been under legal review before its release. 

In oder to get a TOP SECRET with additional letters clearance, it is imperative that any government agency be reasonably assured that you do not have any psychological problems or physical addictions which would make you more likely to be manipulated.

It almost sounds like they are just trying to get you into the door with bad information just to fill some additional numbers so they can justify themselves to the Director.

She is giving you BAD ADVICE!  Get a second opinion on this matter.

Regards.

Dear chitown_dude,

It is a tough decision but you seem to have an exceptionally well versed head on your shoulders.  The system is absolutely fantastic if the stars all go in your favor but it can be the absolute worst nightmare of your life if they do not align.  They do not align for over 85% of most applicants to the FBI and they are left picking up the pieces of their ruined reputations.

Again, I am a family man, I was in the military, and sometimes you have to sacrifice your personel dreams for the welfare of your family.  You will excel at whatever you do because you think of the big picture, not just of your own personel ambitions.

Good Luck in whatever you do or decide.

Regards.