Hi Bluegrass,

What if there were no hypothetical questions in life ?
If you try to fail and succeed. Which have you accomplished ?

Dont be a plonker. Of course they will keep your data on record forever.
As for thinking that you could reapply as if it were the first time............
................dream on.

Palerider,

As usual your ability to botch facts and truths is endless. First off, the Army MOS's that interest NSA are in the 98 series. With the exception of the interrogators, with at least a 3/3 in their chosen language, most 97's are not even of interest to most of the agencies. The exception are the Area Specialists in the 97 series MOS's. Most CI types consider themselves to be another incarnation of James Bond. With the egos to match. Then they send the real maniacs to DACA (formerly DODPI), to become even bigger ego maniacs known as polygraphers. A certain Army polygrapher named Castleberry comes to mind after that last statement. Maybe he's a buddy of yours. He could even be QuickFix another one of our resident polygraphers. But again all I really ask is you get your facts straight. Its way to easy to hammer on you. 

Regards ....

eos said "First off, the Army MOS's that interest NSA are in the 98 series. [except 97 interros]"

You are wrong, and I don't need to prove it. The NSA is quite interested in everybody chief.

Gee-wiz batman, thanks for the lesson. I love when someone gives me lessons on my specialty. Glass tube, with mercury, in a semi-vacuum---they call it a thermometer. See, I can do it too.

You insist that there are droves of highly qualified and ideal candidates for classified duties---all of whom are summarily denied for no good reason. No good reason at all. I think that you should take that one opinion of yours and rethink it. 
I agree that there have been a stream of neo-cons who couldn't lead ducks, much less a great nation. 
But your opinion regarding wasted resources is grossly exaggerated. I love the fact that you dismiss the empirically-based challenge that it is becoming more difficult to find people who are not former heavy drug users, sex addicts (cannot decline a sexual opportunity) or have stolen so many things of value that it appears quite habitual. There is no question that many of these "DQ" types have valuable skills----it's just that they also have skills that we don't necessarily need---like constructing bongs out of baby bottles, or picking up new sketchy men or women for sex every weekend. You know ..... extremely secretive activities that they tend to lie about to everyone---and are nearly always the types of behaviors that are at the heart of most security violations going back to the beginning of foreign intel. Don't forget personal finance irresponsibility----another red flag.
You write well. You seem well informed. But you, like the other anti-pool blame the Examiners for what is essentially, HR's  ills. Perhaps your ire should focus on HR. As a comparison, you are ultimately blaming the white house security guard for poor foreign policy---and to take the analogy further, you are saying that there should be no security guard(s) at the White House as way too many good people are being forbidden to enter the oval office because of those hard-on types--------types who are getting in the way of good people ready to help the country out. 
Incidently, if you dare remark about needing better Background checks, I will know that your are actually a child pretending to be a grown-up....as those "better" checks, while valuable, are not thorough enough (just like poly isn't enough.) With all due respect Eos, your polygraph protest is a symptom of moronism and my inexplicable curiosity with this comedy of errors website is wearing thin. To be sure, I am really hooked on the graphics, multi-subject boards, and the ease of which to log in though. Polygraph place should copy the decor.

Jesus H Christ. Are you serious? Don't bother going to the oncologist, as they are far from 100% accurate in cancer diagnosis and prognosis. Why bother going to those clowns?------it's all a scam Eos, all a sinister scam. The oncologist "guesses" while you get the bill$. 
Most diagnostic tools have a standard deviation regarding "accuracy." Perhaps a better comparison is polysomnography-----a.k.a. "sleep analysis". 100% accurate? nah. Problems and caveats with the science? yea, some------but make no mistake, a talented polysomnographer will be able to, in most cases, diagnosis properly, any of the known sleep disorders with very basic instrumentation. You really need to get out of that chair once in a while Eos.

I'll be off the site for a while. Keep telling yourself that you are not the hero of child molesters and that this site isn't visited by far more sexual predators than wanna-be cops, cia, fbi-----and that you are actually only empowering those great under-valued applicants for those much-needed jobs------as you you've indicated to exist in such large numbers. Your actual disciples aren't beating the polygraph examiner, they are fooled into believing that they can have sex with more children. I am afraid that you haven't the foggiest idea as to what the consequences of your advocacy actually creates.

Dear Posters,

The very people the federal government needs most right now are technology oriented people.  The hard chargers "out of the the box" thinkers are exactly the ones most likely to question the "polygraph model" for validity.  In questioning the model in any way, they doom themselves to failure by operators who automatically dismiss anyone who does not accept and validate their existence. 

The best are logical and mathmatically driven.   Almost all of science has been derived from math.  Almost all of science can be explained by math.  The practice of polygraph analysis cannot be proven by math but more by "hunches" and "gut-feelings' of operators who condiser themselves "artist" in their fields rather than scientist.

I cannot appeal a "hunch" or "gut-feeling" when falsely accused.  I cannot argue math with someone who will not accept the validity of studies performed by the NAS.

We are preventing thousands of people from being employed by our government strictly based on polygraph results alone which at this point, are not without serious doubt by science and proven not acceptable in a court of law as reasonable proof in and of itself.

The king has no clothes but everyone involved is employed by the king and refuses to open up their minds or eyes to reality.

Regards.

CasualBystander,

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an answer. Thats because you have to have a real, proven, valid instrument with which to randomly sample and do the (honest) statistics on.  That includes the false positive & negative rates as part of the samples. Which our friendly neighborhood polygraphers studies (which they love to quote above 90% accuracy), is removed from their analysis, which makes any study they produce seriously flawed. When you control the information going into it, without independent validation and verification, and no data integrity controls  =   (Garbage in, garbage out ....). 
Enough said, but again don't hold your breath ... 

Regards .... 


PS:

And I am still waiting for Palerider to answer the big question above ...  How many wrong decisions ... hmmmm
I will be waiting a long time for that, as we all know they never make a wrong decision, or at least have balls to admit it !!!