Wow. 2 weeks, over 100 views, and no replies!  I just want to know my chances of getting contacted, and the average response time.  Are there any scientists/engineers in here that applied for the CIA, or did everyone apply to be in clandestine services?

Fair Chance wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2009 at 6:28pm:


Actually, that's not quite correct. To be sure, AntiPolygraph.org is in no way government sponsored. But because we receive so many non-polygraph employment-related questions, we early on set up four forums specifically for non-polygraph employment-related discussion. The original poster posted to the correct forum. (I don't, however, know the answer to his/her question.)

Fair Chance wrote on Aug 4^th, 2009 at 12:15am:


I came to this website because I was recently sent a letter from the FBI rescinding their conditional job offer to me.  Because the letter did not mention anything about why (except to say that "due to the highly competitive process, I was not selected" -- whatever the heck that means) I my original job offer was rescinded.  I contacted my AC and asked several questions and was told by them to request a FOIP and wait for the results and then call back.  I thought this was patronizing and pure BS -- I've seen movies like this before and wasn't born on 10/4/2009.  Anyway, Like I stated, I was drawn to this website (which I have found completely informative and enlightening) because I could not get any answers from the FBI (or their website).  I don't know if I failed the polygraph, or the pre-interview, or the drug test because nobody will give me an answer.  I think it is understandable for people to inquire on these things on here because it seems like that's what these threads are intended to do.

Don't sorry about it.  I'm just concerned about the whole hiring process and how the federal government treats job applicants.  When I applied to the FBI, I researched the eligibility requirements and knew that my background should not have posed a problem with me getting hired.  I mistakenly thought that prior alcohol abuse and treatment as well as obtaining psychiatric help would not be grounds for denial of a Top Secret Security Clearance.  In my case, I have sought out and obtained help with these issues and currently taking antidepressant medication.  Since I have no criminal background or used drugs, the only reason I can think of for the FBI rescinding my conditional job offer is that they simply did not want to take the risk of hiring me because of these past problems.  I know this is illegal but proving it is a different story because the FBI is hiding behind the statement that I was "not selected because of the competition" which is total BS.  It is a non-answer to a question that I have a right to know.  I am certain I did not flunk the polygraph or the drug test (there is no reason for me to have).  Reading through these posts, it is obvious that the vetting process is really a crap shoot on how people are hired, since it appears many well-qualified individuals are looked at, but only the ones that look really good on paper or satisfy whatever the hiring authorities are really looking for, regardless of what their true potential is.  I guess what I mean by all this is that the FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA and other alphabet soup organizations do just whatever they want as far as who they hire and are able to justify ANY hiring decision because they can hide behind this seemingly mysterious cloak of "national security" and "suitability" reason that is given to those that apply for employment within these agencies.  It bothers me that the polygraph does not have ANY scientific credibility, yet it is a tool that these organizations seem to hide upon in order to justify whatever decision they make.  I think the polygraph is just a huge smokescreen from the actual reasons that intelligence agencies and federal law enforcement organizations use to justify their hiring or firing decisions.  I suspect that many of the reasons are flawed and amount to little more than "I like this person" or "I don't like this person" based on perceptions and observations or on a background that is just not considered to be good for "PR".