You should be aware that as an active duty soldier/sailor/airman/marine, you are exempt from the full-scope polygraph exam given to NSA and CIA employees.  This exemption is based on a favorable SBI conducted, which does take time.  You would not be asked any poly questions regarding past drug involvement.

Secondly, granting of a TS/SCI clearance does not necessarily require a polygraph exam.  Only particular MOSs require a poly, and then, only if an assignment will require you to have access to NSA/CIA facilities, databaes, etc, or access to special access programs.

militaryhopeful wrote on May 2^nd, 2006 at 11:18pm:


militaryhopeful,

What quickfix told you is essentially correct. But what he failed to inform you of is, that you will be subject to a polygraph every 5 years after that. Or if somehow derrogatory infomation is obtained in your career, guess what you are then subject to a more intensive polygraph test. Think long and hard before you join and before you submit to a polygraph ... and remember they can be beaten !!! hehehe 

Regards ...

Mr. Mystery:  minor past drug use prior to military service is not cause for denial of a TS/SCI.  I work down the hall from the clearance adjudicators and have it first-hand.  Extensive drug use, particularly with cocaine, heroin, pcp, methamphetamines, and other "hard drugs" certainly is, but not smoking a little weed as a teenager.

EosJupiter:  you are extremely incorrect;  holding a TS/SCI clearance in the armed forces of the United States does NOT require ANY polygraph exam.  I spent 21 years in the military, held a TS/SCI since 1975, and never took a poly until I became an examiner.  I was in the intelligence and criminal fields.  Unless one is assigned to an NSA support unit requiring access to NSA, a polygraph is not required.  The other requirement for a poly is being granted access to specifically-designated special access programs.  Furthermore, if derogatory information is discovered during military service, a person may be asked to undergo an excupatory poly to refute the allegation.  The person may decline, and no adverse action may be taken based solely on such a refusal.  Revoking a clearance will depend on whether the allegation is founded based on corroborating evidence.

Since you don't know what you're talking about, you shouldn't put out erroneous information that will discourage young people from contemplating a military career. 

Militaryhopeful:  please disregard the advice given you by EosJupiter;  his information is bogus.

quickfix wrote on May 3^rd, 2006 at 11:11pm:


QuickFix,

Lets see how many MI battalions are there in the US Army, approximately 38 I believe by my last count. Most if not all require all MI personnel to have TS/SCI. And most either support major commands or any one of the 3 letter agencies. And from my sources they are now giving polygraphs to the troops who have not had one. Because of the push to make sure that all cleared personnel have it recorded and are easily transferable should the need arise. And please don't lecture me on military service. With 26+ years of it under my belt I know as much as you.  And tell Castleberry hello and XOXOXOX, and he missed !!!  hehehe 

Regards  ....

quickfix wrote on May 4^th, 2006 at 10:32pm:


quickfix,

Not to belittle the point here, I am happy I did my military career. But equally glad to not have served under the current administration and this half baked war he has us in, in Iraq. Lets see now almost 2600 dead for what, the illusion of WMD's and lying to the american people. Also you need to go to the DCS-G2 website and pulldown the new personnel security regs. Read and update your knowlege on where they are taking folks (mos non specific), and by my own memory TS/SCI are usually only the domain of command staff, MI, and certain other select (SF) personnel. Not every GI gets that clearance, or needs it.
But I would be ashamed of working for the current SECDEF, and the generals that have complained are 100% right in there attack on his leadership.  Again spare me the holy than thou attitude. I gave  up the Uhhh Yahhh long ago and became my own thinking being without the military telling me what to do. But the check is nice every month.

And if you read the post I didn't discourage him, I said make sure its what you want and be sure and think long and hard. As a truly thinking person can see other avenues to work.. And with this current war we are in, I wouldn't recommend a military career or government service to anyone. Not until we get new leadership in place.

Regards .... 

EosJupiter wrote on May 5^th, 2006 at 4:53am:


Readers,

While I will not just blame current leadership in place for all of the present problems,  the ideas presented by EosJupiter do seem to represent something to think hard about.  The rules of engagement have changed dramatically since the Cold War protocols of almost sixty years.  Government service and military expectations are far different than what I have been exposed to in the past.  In the Cold War, there were very few military who possessed secret clearances let alone top secret clearances with letters after them.  Now, it seems that just about every law enforcement person and military person has to be capable of a much higher clearance than the old "Confidential".  

The whole government mentality of "trust us, we know what is right," is being taken to a much higher level than ever before.  The civilian agencies are adopting a much more militant military protocol that "if you are not with us, you are against us."  Questioning ideas and orders in a peacetime situation are much different than questioning ideas on the battlefront.

The Coast Guard has the right mentality.  They critique everything they do.  They listen to feedback from E-1 recruits, use it, and empower all of their personnel that they are important and their personnel take ownership.  Critiques are not taken as an insult, they are expected, appreciated, and used.  I think that is what is so wrong with most of today's attitude of government.  Differing opinions and critiques are taken as personel rebuffs and everyone gets defensive over change instead of analyzing the result and objectively deciding if it is beneficial.

Regards.