- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Fair Chance
- Mar 06, 2005, 11:30 PMTo All Posters,
The FBI has an exceptional amount of applications and most of them very qualified. They do not have to deal with applicants who have any possible problems in the past, it is easier to discard them.
As for financial responsibility, money has been found to have comprimised many people more than any social or political beliefs.
There are about one hundred highly qualified applicants for every one Special Agent position filled.
There are about seventy-five qualified applicants for every one linguist position filled.
Supply and demand in its ugliest form.
Burp the wrong way and they can send you packing.
When people stop applying and the FBI needs applicants, maybe, just maybe, they will consider the discussions on this site and listen.
Don't hold your breath.
Regards.
The FBI has an exceptional amount of applications and most of them very qualified. They do not have to deal with applicants who have any possible problems in the past, it is easier to discard them.
As for financial responsibility, money has been found to have comprimised many people more than any social or political beliefs.
There are about one hundred highly qualified applicants for every one Special Agent position filled.
There are about seventy-five qualified applicants for every one linguist position filled.
Supply and demand in its ugliest form.
Burp the wrong way and they can send you packing.
When people stop applying and the FBI needs applicants, maybe, just maybe, they will consider the discussions on this site and listen.
Don't hold your breath.
Regards.
Posted by SecureAspects
- Mar 06, 2005, 04:59 PMI am glad I found this site, to begin with polygraphs are a crock and should not be used anything that is subject to that much interpretation from an indivudual is subjective in nature. Second of all I was looking for the reason why a bankruptcy should effect the hiring of an over qualified individual for a federal position. I have been denied employment twice now for state department jobs needing a clearance due to a discharged bankruptcy within the last two years. I feel this is the biggest crock of garbage to use someones personal financial history (Due to a divorce) against a person. I have gotten credit cards and offers to finance houses and cars. My credit is being rebuilt but apparently it is not good enough to obtain a secret clearance. Whats funny is I held a Top secret previously and did not have any credit at all. I had a federal investigator tell me that poor credit and money handling could be a sign that one is more likely to bribes and payoff's. To be honest with you if I could have gotten my hands on the twit at the time I would have been facing assault charges. Instead I told him if I was subject to payoffs and bribes I would not have filed bankruptcy. Anyway I vented now, I am currently enrolled in a Executive Protection Course after which I am going to complete the High Risk Protection course and gain employment not subject to the State Department Qualifications in the private arena.
http://www.secureaspects.com/forum/index.php
http://www.secureaspects.com/forum/index.php
Posted by triple x
- Aug 09, 2004, 10:30 PMAnonymous,
You acknowledge successfully passing your pre-employment polygraph exam, and being disqualified during the BI. What specifically are you searching for on this board?
You felt compelled to point-out what a "super qualified, genius level candidate" you consider yourself to be. I find it very entertaining, that after telling everyone what a genius you are, you misspelled genius. Do you not see the humor in this? Lighten-up!
Quit blaming the drunk driver for your adverse credit problems, and accept some basic responsibility for your financial obligations. If you incurred medical bills due to the drunk driver incident, you should have paid the debt when due. You could have retained legal council and pursued the drunk driver in court.
I think that's what any responsible individual would have done. You don't simply ignore the debt, and allow it to be absorbed by a collection agency... duh....
triple x
You acknowledge successfully passing your pre-employment polygraph exam, and being disqualified during the BI. What specifically are you searching for on this board?
You felt compelled to point-out what a "super qualified, genius level candidate" you consider yourself to be. I find it very entertaining, that after telling everyone what a genius you are, you misspelled genius. Do you not see the humor in this? Lighten-up!
Quit blaming the drunk driver for your adverse credit problems, and accept some basic responsibility for your financial obligations. If you incurred medical bills due to the drunk driver incident, you should have paid the debt when due. You could have retained legal council and pursued the drunk driver in court.
I think that's what any responsible individual would have done. You don't simply ignore the debt, and allow it to be absorbed by a collection agency... duh....
triple x
Posted by anonymous
- Aug 09, 2004, 11:10 AMAccording to Romans, the Christian can be conceived of in two ways, either as strong- or as weak-in-faith. The weak-in-faith are uncertain as to the adequacy of the Blood of Jesus Christ in justifying them before God, and the adequacy of obeying the Jesus' commandments (i.e., love God with all your heart, mind, and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself) in pleasing God.
So, in search of a supplement, they rummage about the scripture for more specific laws and admonitions, e.g., don't curse, don't talk in church, cover long hair with veils, etc., etc. to justify them before God and please God.
The strong-in-faith dispense with that and realize that no acts of fealty or obedence will ever justify them before a Perfect God. Only the Blood of Jesus Christ, shed for our sins, can do that. Secure in the fact that He paid for humanty's collective sin debt, and finished that work once and for all at the Cross, they seek to implement the commandments Jesus taught in all areas of their lives as best they can, notably perhaps being their conduct around the weak-in-faith, and namely: in the presence of the weak-in-faith they should avoid all conduct which the latter consider to be sinful.
I assumed from the context of this web site that we were all adults here, and no one here would be offended by the honest, and yes, sometimes "profane" (by some standards) language law enforcement professionals routinely use around each other. During my interview, and my polygraph, many FBI representatives, including my polygrapher, often cursed around me, and even further, took the Lord's Name in vain (i.e., "G.D." this, "G.D." that), which I do NOT do, and DO find offensive.
However, since you apparently find such vernacular offensive, I will refrain from that in the future.
Secondly, inasmuch as the Bureau eliminates candidates who have displayed in the past what you describe as a "lack of responsibility", then that begs a few questions. Firstly, is it fair to characterize a medical debt arising from being a passenger victemized in a car crash through no fault of my own, a "lack of responsibility"? And secondly, are you implying that NO employees of the FBI, past or present, have EVER displayed such a "lack of responsibility"? If the answer is no, some have, then according to the criterion you have set for yourself, it is complete hypocrisy to anything but immediately fire anyone in FBI who has ever had past credit problems, or for that matter, has ever been irresponsible in any way. Furthermore, according to your standard, any FBI personnel observed engaging in any behaviour demonstrating a "lack of responsibility" should be immediately terminated, in the interest of national security.
I mean, how far do we take this? Should "lack of responsibility" include speeding (if so, how many MPH over the limit?), drinking (how many drinks?), or generally doing ANYTHING that is "not good for you", hence irresponsible? I mean, whose criteria do we use? Would you characterize the conduct which generated the allegations of J. Edgar Hoover's homosexuality a "lack of responsibility" ? How about the fact that when he died, he left almost his entire estate to Clyde Tolson? Was that irresponsible? Did it reflect negatively on the Bureau? If so, according to whom? Opinions may vary according to geograpic location (i.e., San Francisco vs. Birmingham, for example).
And finally, would you characterize any of the FBI conduct described under oath in past and present Congressional hearings as "lack of responsibility"? Look, we both know that these questions are rhetorical, and the fact is, I'm on your side, so let me make my point:
NO ONE IN FBI is perfect. In fact, one step further, NO ONE IS PERFECT. The only perfect person who ever lived was Jesus Christ. To think otherwise is pride, and to expect perfection out of potential candidates only endures you eliminate anyone who has ever taken any risks, or ever REALLY lived.
Don't be blind to the fact that most acts of uncommon valor, including complicated collars, arise from actions in the field which are usually quite risky, not at all "by the book", and would be described by many (especially administrative personnel and/or Internal Affairs) as "irresponsible".
You know its true.
Thirdly, I think it positively myopic of you that out of all the issues I raised in my previous posts, the most intelligent response you could muster was a hypocritical moral attack, and citation of my poor typing habits. :-)
It's a good thing Jesus loves us all unconditionally. Even you and me.
Have a nice day.
So, in search of a supplement, they rummage about the scripture for more specific laws and admonitions, e.g., don't curse, don't talk in church, cover long hair with veils, etc., etc. to justify them before God and please God.
The strong-in-faith dispense with that and realize that no acts of fealty or obedence will ever justify them before a Perfect God. Only the Blood of Jesus Christ, shed for our sins, can do that. Secure in the fact that He paid for humanty's collective sin debt, and finished that work once and for all at the Cross, they seek to implement the commandments Jesus taught in all areas of their lives as best they can, notably perhaps being their conduct around the weak-in-faith, and namely: in the presence of the weak-in-faith they should avoid all conduct which the latter consider to be sinful.
I assumed from the context of this web site that we were all adults here, and no one here would be offended by the honest, and yes, sometimes "profane" (by some standards) language law enforcement professionals routinely use around each other. During my interview, and my polygraph, many FBI representatives, including my polygrapher, often cursed around me, and even further, took the Lord's Name in vain (i.e., "G.D." this, "G.D." that), which I do NOT do, and DO find offensive.
However, since you apparently find such vernacular offensive, I will refrain from that in the future.
Secondly, inasmuch as the Bureau eliminates candidates who have displayed in the past what you describe as a "lack of responsibility", then that begs a few questions. Firstly, is it fair to characterize a medical debt arising from being a passenger victemized in a car crash through no fault of my own, a "lack of responsibility"? And secondly, are you implying that NO employees of the FBI, past or present, have EVER displayed such a "lack of responsibility"? If the answer is no, some have, then according to the criterion you have set for yourself, it is complete hypocrisy to anything but immediately fire anyone in FBI who has ever had past credit problems, or for that matter, has ever been irresponsible in any way. Furthermore, according to your standard, any FBI personnel observed engaging in any behaviour demonstrating a "lack of responsibility" should be immediately terminated, in the interest of national security.
I mean, how far do we take this? Should "lack of responsibility" include speeding (if so, how many MPH over the limit?), drinking (how many drinks?), or generally doing ANYTHING that is "not good for you", hence irresponsible? I mean, whose criteria do we use? Would you characterize the conduct which generated the allegations of J. Edgar Hoover's homosexuality a "lack of responsibility" ? How about the fact that when he died, he left almost his entire estate to Clyde Tolson? Was that irresponsible? Did it reflect negatively on the Bureau? If so, according to whom? Opinions may vary according to geograpic location (i.e., San Francisco vs. Birmingham, for example).
And finally, would you characterize any of the FBI conduct described under oath in past and present Congressional hearings as "lack of responsibility"? Look, we both know that these questions are rhetorical, and the fact is, I'm on your side, so let me make my point:
NO ONE IN FBI is perfect. In fact, one step further, NO ONE IS PERFECT. The only perfect person who ever lived was Jesus Christ. To think otherwise is pride, and to expect perfection out of potential candidates only endures you eliminate anyone who has ever taken any risks, or ever REALLY lived.
Don't be blind to the fact that most acts of uncommon valor, including complicated collars, arise from actions in the field which are usually quite risky, not at all "by the book", and would be described by many (especially administrative personnel and/or Internal Affairs) as "irresponsible".
You know its true.
Thirdly, I think it positively myopic of you that out of all the issues I raised in my previous posts, the most intelligent response you could muster was a hypocritical moral attack, and citation of my poor typing habits. :-)
It's a good thing Jesus loves us all unconditionally. Even you and me.
Have a nice day.
Posted by triple x
- Aug 08, 2004, 09:37 PMISBS,
Indeed it has been a while since my last post. Although I must admit, I'm quite surprised for once that you agree with me...
Having said that, I too made the same observation with respect to the rambling dialog of riddled profanities demonstrated so eloquently by anonymous.
I find it interesting that such a self-proclaimed, super-qualified, genius-level candidate as anonymous claims to be, feels the need to express him/her self in such a manner.
I'm of the opinion, that most "serious Christian's" would be offended by such language.
Triple x
The post to which this message replied has been removed to the Discarded Posts forum.
-- AntiPolygraph.org Administrator
Indeed it has been a while since my last post. Although I must admit, I'm quite surprised for once that you agree with me...
Having said that, I too made the same observation with respect to the rambling dialog of riddled profanities demonstrated so eloquently by anonymous.
I find it interesting that such a self-proclaimed, super-qualified, genius-level candidate as anonymous claims to be, feels the need to express him/her self in such a manner.
I'm of the opinion, that most "serious Christian's" would be offended by such language.
Triple x
The post to which this message replied has been removed to the Discarded Posts forum.
-- AntiPolygraph.org Administrator
Posted by triple x
- Aug 08, 2004, 03:03 PMAnonymous,
[You wrote]
"Here I am, a super-qualified, genuis-level candidate..."
As a genius level candidate, you misspelled "genius".
[You wrote]
"I'd also like to say that just because a candidate had financial problems in the past, or even if they have current financial problems of a small sort, does not mean IN ANY WAY that they would betray our Nation."
A potential candidate for employment with the FBI, with a history of unresolved adverse financial information is not necessarily viewed by the bureau as someone that would betray his or her nation; or, as a security risk. The FBI views unresolved adverse financial information as a "lack of responsibility".
Additionally, any adverse [unresolved] credit history either past or present, applies not only to candidates for employment with the FBI, but also to gainfully employed special agents and support personnel alike.
Triple x
[You wrote]
"Here I am, a super-qualified, genuis-level candidate..."
As a genius level candidate, you misspelled "genius".
[You wrote]
"I'd also like to say that just because a candidate had financial problems in the past, or even if they have current financial problems of a small sort, does not mean IN ANY WAY that they would betray our Nation."
A potential candidate for employment with the FBI, with a history of unresolved adverse financial information is not necessarily viewed by the bureau as someone that would betray his or her nation; or, as a security risk. The FBI views unresolved adverse financial information as a "lack of responsibility".
Additionally, any adverse [unresolved] credit history either past or present, applies not only to candidates for employment with the FBI, but also to gainfully employed special agents and support personnel alike.
Triple x
Posted by anonymous
- Aug 07, 2004, 10:02 PMYes, I have filed a FOIPA request for my file, and I've also petitioned, in the same letter, for an appeal of the disqualification if such procedures exist. I recieved a "checkbox" form letter acknowledging my FOIPA request, but have heard no word about any possible review, appeal, or other procedures which would allow me to respond to their negative adjudication with evidence of my own. I am aware that there is a way that an existing law enforcement officer who is denied clearance may appeal, but I don't believe anyone has ever done so. I know the DOD has such a process. My guess is that FBI will probably just blow off my request, based on their previous actions.
As far as my personal faith goes, and how that came up for discussion, after recieving the CJO, I read on the CJO where it says "if there is any possibility you wont take this job, please let us know, to prevent undue hardhsip on us", or something-such. After reading that, I called my interviewer and told him that I was seriously contemplating full-time university study in the fall at a local Christian University, but that I might also take a night course, or something like that instead, I hadn't decided.
He told me I had three days to decide whether or not I would accept the CJO 100%, without reservation. I couldn't decide in three days, so I rejected the CJO at the end of the three days. Several things factored into this. Number one, I was working full-time in a high-stress job, and I didn't really had enough time to think about it. Number two, I had verbally negotiated a GS-11 position, firm, with the interviewer during the verbal interview, but the written CJO was for a GS-9 position, which would be much less than I was already making. He assured me that my decision would be over a GS-11 position, but I had nothing in writing, and it just seemed like they were saying one thing and then doing another, which was more of the duplicity I'd come to expect from politicians in general, you know? SO I rejected the CJO.
That weekend, after I had some time off to think, I came to the realization that I may have made a mistake, and that the job was an important one which needed to be done. So, I called the guy back and expressed to him that I wanted him to re-instate me into the process, with the understanding that I had several options open to me, and that I'd haveto decide after all of them panned out/didn't pan out, which one I would take. (I was also a candidate for a prestigious DOD scolarship as well, to study sciences. I would not hear about those results until July either.)
Basically my argument was that I was definitely qualified, and I was the best man for the job, but that meant that a "conditional" offer could only be met with a "conditional" acceptance on my part, and that it was wrong for them to attach a buch of "ifs" to their offer ("i.e., if you pass the polygraph, if you pass the background, if you pass this, if you pass that...), and simultaneously expect me to close all other doors and extend premature assurnaced on my part. He agreed to reinstate me on that basis.
After all this happened, I sucessfully passed the security interview (wherein I discussed my debts and car crash), the drug test, got fingerprinted, and passed the polygraph. My polygrapher asked me several questions about God, and who I though God was before the polygraph, and I told him just the basic stuff I learned in Chruch about God and Jesus Christ, you know? Then my background started, and persisted for like 2 1/2 months before I got the call from the lady at HQ. I recieved the rescinscion letter 3 months TO THE DAY after the date on my CJO letter.
The official reason stated on my rescinscion letter was that my "credit history indicates that I may not be suitable for FBI". But the woman from HQ, when she asked about the judgement I owed (and declared on day 1 of the process), also said that "You previously rejected this assignment in favor of posible study at (a christian) university. Is that still a possibility". To which I answered probably not, because I missed the scholarship application deadline. It was obviously an issue, though.
Here's my problem. When FBI found out that I was a candidate for a prestigious DOD scholarship that might pre-empt their offer, they did NOT force me to choose within 3 days. When they found out that I had also applied for seminarial study at a Christian University, the FORCED me to choose between them and the University in THREE DAYS time, months before I would know even if I had recieved funding to go. To me, this indicates a predjudice against my personal faith.
Just because I am a serious Christian, doesnt mean that I am "cracked", or that I can't do what I have to do to get the job done. Anyone remember the sniper-guy from "Saving Private Ryan"? As it turns out, again, ALL of our forefathers wer devout Christians. And it is because of their faith that our Nation has evolved with the character it has, in my opinion. So, I personally find such pre-employment actions potentially discriminatory and personally deplorable, although there's no way in hell I'd wanna be anywhere I'm not wanted. If my disqualification were only their loss, I'd be ok with it. But its also the Amercan Peoples' loss, which makes me sad.
Again, just my personal opinion.
As far as my personal faith goes, and how that came up for discussion, after recieving the CJO, I read on the CJO where it says "if there is any possibility you wont take this job, please let us know, to prevent undue hardhsip on us", or something-such. After reading that, I called my interviewer and told him that I was seriously contemplating full-time university study in the fall at a local Christian University, but that I might also take a night course, or something like that instead, I hadn't decided.
He told me I had three days to decide whether or not I would accept the CJO 100%, without reservation. I couldn't decide in three days, so I rejected the CJO at the end of the three days. Several things factored into this. Number one, I was working full-time in a high-stress job, and I didn't really had enough time to think about it. Number two, I had verbally negotiated a GS-11 position, firm, with the interviewer during the verbal interview, but the written CJO was for a GS-9 position, which would be much less than I was already making. He assured me that my decision would be over a GS-11 position, but I had nothing in writing, and it just seemed like they were saying one thing and then doing another, which was more of the duplicity I'd come to expect from politicians in general, you know? SO I rejected the CJO.
That weekend, after I had some time off to think, I came to the realization that I may have made a mistake, and that the job was an important one which needed to be done. So, I called the guy back and expressed to him that I wanted him to re-instate me into the process, with the understanding that I had several options open to me, and that I'd haveto decide after all of them panned out/didn't pan out, which one I would take. (I was also a candidate for a prestigious DOD scolarship as well, to study sciences. I would not hear about those results until July either.)
Basically my argument was that I was definitely qualified, and I was the best man for the job, but that meant that a "conditional" offer could only be met with a "conditional" acceptance on my part, and that it was wrong for them to attach a buch of "ifs" to their offer ("i.e., if you pass the polygraph, if you pass the background, if you pass this, if you pass that...), and simultaneously expect me to close all other doors and extend premature assurnaced on my part. He agreed to reinstate me on that basis.
After all this happened, I sucessfully passed the security interview (wherein I discussed my debts and car crash), the drug test, got fingerprinted, and passed the polygraph. My polygrapher asked me several questions about God, and who I though God was before the polygraph, and I told him just the basic stuff I learned in Chruch about God and Jesus Christ, you know? Then my background started, and persisted for like 2 1/2 months before I got the call from the lady at HQ. I recieved the rescinscion letter 3 months TO THE DAY after the date on my CJO letter.
The official reason stated on my rescinscion letter was that my "credit history indicates that I may not be suitable for FBI". But the woman from HQ, when she asked about the judgement I owed (and declared on day 1 of the process), also said that "You previously rejected this assignment in favor of posible study at (a christian) university. Is that still a possibility". To which I answered probably not, because I missed the scholarship application deadline. It was obviously an issue, though.
Here's my problem. When FBI found out that I was a candidate for a prestigious DOD scholarship that might pre-empt their offer, they did NOT force me to choose within 3 days. When they found out that I had also applied for seminarial study at a Christian University, the FORCED me to choose between them and the University in THREE DAYS time, months before I would know even if I had recieved funding to go. To me, this indicates a predjudice against my personal faith.
Just because I am a serious Christian, doesnt mean that I am "cracked", or that I can't do what I have to do to get the job done. Anyone remember the sniper-guy from "Saving Private Ryan"? As it turns out, again, ALL of our forefathers wer devout Christians. And it is because of their faith that our Nation has evolved with the character it has, in my opinion. So, I personally find such pre-employment actions potentially discriminatory and personally deplorable, although there's no way in hell I'd wanna be anywhere I'm not wanted. If my disqualification were only their loss, I'd be ok with it. But its also the Amercan Peoples' loss, which makes me sad.
Again, just my personal opinion.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Aug 07, 2004, 09:09 PMAnonymous,
I'm sorry to read of your experience. I suggest you file a Privacy Act request for your FBI file. Why do you feel the Bureau was "uncomfortable" with your religious faith? How did that become a topic for discussion in the hiring process?
I'm sorry to read of your experience. I suggest you file a Privacy Act request for your FBI file. Why do you feel the Bureau was "uncomfortable" with your religious faith? How did that become a topic for discussion in the hiring process?
Posted by anonymous
- Aug 07, 2004, 08:30 PMHey guys.
Lemme share a little story about this. I applied for and recieved a CJO for a killer position with FBI, after which I filled out their long form and submitted it. I passed the security interview, the urinalysis, and yes, the POLYGRAPH (which I happen to think is easy if you don't have anything to hide. In fact I purposely avoided sites like these prior to my polygraph, so as not to pollute the process).
Anyways, like, 10 years ago, I was a pssenger in a car crash in which we were struck right in my door by an intoxicated driver. I was young and my attorney wasn't worth shit, and we recovered less than half of what I needed to pay my medical bills. I have been paying them off little by little over the ten years, but I was aware there might be ones left unpaid when I applied, so I pulled my credit report prior to filling out the long form.
I had 2 items, a minor medical bill in collection, and a medical judgment for about 2 grand, from 7 years ago. I paid the little one off, and started negotiating repayment of the second (sometimes you can pay it off for like 1/2 or 1/3 on such an old debt.) I declared them both on my long form, and described the crash and my past financial burdens in detail in my security interview. It seemed like no problem during the interview, given the fact that I was put in that situation through no fault of my own, and I have no record.
So anyway, in my THIRD month of investigation, I get a call from some very angry-sounding woman at FBIHQ saying "you need to pay this judgment off or it will disqualify you". I say I will, because I have the money. (I would have rather negotiated it down a bit, but, in the interest of time, I paid it off at what some attorneys may think was a substantial fiscal disadvantage to me, given the circumstances, just to please the woman from HQ.)
I call her back the next day, and tell her its paid off. She says ok. And guess what?
They DQed me in the final phase ANYWAY.
Now, it seems to me like the polygraph gets alot of undue attention, when really, the entire frigging process seems a bit arbitrary and in desperate need of review. Here I am, a super-qualified, genuis-level candidate who will be denied a chance to serve my country and protect her populace because of the indiscression of a fucking drunk driver, ten years ago!
Um, I don't mean to be an asshole here or anything, but it seems to me that one of the main reasons for all the "intelligence failures" we read about on CNN is because the recruitment process is designed to screen out all but the blandest of individuals, so they end up with a 2-dimensional force, completely devoid of any real richness, intuitive depth, or creativity.
No wonder they all wear the same suit.
I also got the distinct impression that they were uncomfortable with my faith. Like, if you REALLY believe in Christianity, then that is some form of "intellectual weakness". Well, that's pure bullshit.
I'd also like to say that just because a candidate had financial problems in the past, or even if they have current financial problems of a small sort, does not mean IN ANY WAY that they would betray our Nation. I take offense at the implication that because I was unfortunate enough to be nearly killed by a drunk driver, and then suffered financial ruin through no fault of my own, which I CAME BACK FROM by working MY ASS OFF, that I am somehow a "security risk". Fuck that. The real security risk is generation of a hollow force by enforcing arbitrary recruitment policies which exclude excellent candidates who could be saving lives, but now have to check "yes" to the question "Have you ever been denied a security clearance?" on every job application they will fill out for the rest of their lives.
It is a HISTORICAL FACT that MOST of our Founding Fathers and some ex-presidents suffered extreme financial distress and/or had to file bankruptcy at some point in theri early lives, and it is precisely because of their determination to rise above the negativity that got handed to them, that agencies like FBI have the freedom they do, to exercise penny-anty pride-game bullshit like this, in the first place.
Get a clue. Not everybody who is in an excellent position to further you rmission is a fucking saint. Just like none of you are. In the end, God sees the secret sins of everyone which they think no one knows about, and we are all in the same boat, notwithstanding your false sense of superiority, and no matter what you put on paper.
Just my personal opinion.
Lemme share a little story about this. I applied for and recieved a CJO for a killer position with FBI, after which I filled out their long form and submitted it. I passed the security interview, the urinalysis, and yes, the POLYGRAPH (which I happen to think is easy if you don't have anything to hide. In fact I purposely avoided sites like these prior to my polygraph, so as not to pollute the process).
Anyways, like, 10 years ago, I was a pssenger in a car crash in which we were struck right in my door by an intoxicated driver. I was young and my attorney wasn't worth shit, and we recovered less than half of what I needed to pay my medical bills. I have been paying them off little by little over the ten years, but I was aware there might be ones left unpaid when I applied, so I pulled my credit report prior to filling out the long form.
I had 2 items, a minor medical bill in collection, and a medical judgment for about 2 grand, from 7 years ago. I paid the little one off, and started negotiating repayment of the second (sometimes you can pay it off for like 1/2 or 1/3 on such an old debt.) I declared them both on my long form, and described the crash and my past financial burdens in detail in my security interview. It seemed like no problem during the interview, given the fact that I was put in that situation through no fault of my own, and I have no record.
So anyway, in my THIRD month of investigation, I get a call from some very angry-sounding woman at FBIHQ saying "you need to pay this judgment off or it will disqualify you". I say I will, because I have the money. (I would have rather negotiated it down a bit, but, in the interest of time, I paid it off at what some attorneys may think was a substantial fiscal disadvantage to me, given the circumstances, just to please the woman from HQ.)
I call her back the next day, and tell her its paid off. She says ok. And guess what?
They DQed me in the final phase ANYWAY.
Now, it seems to me like the polygraph gets alot of undue attention, when really, the entire frigging process seems a bit arbitrary and in desperate need of review. Here I am, a super-qualified, genuis-level candidate who will be denied a chance to serve my country and protect her populace because of the indiscression of a fucking drunk driver, ten years ago!
Um, I don't mean to be an asshole here or anything, but it seems to me that one of the main reasons for all the "intelligence failures" we read about on CNN is because the recruitment process is designed to screen out all but the blandest of individuals, so they end up with a 2-dimensional force, completely devoid of any real richness, intuitive depth, or creativity.
No wonder they all wear the same suit.
I also got the distinct impression that they were uncomfortable with my faith. Like, if you REALLY believe in Christianity, then that is some form of "intellectual weakness". Well, that's pure bullshit.
I'd also like to say that just because a candidate had financial problems in the past, or even if they have current financial problems of a small sort, does not mean IN ANY WAY that they would betray our Nation. I take offense at the implication that because I was unfortunate enough to be nearly killed by a drunk driver, and then suffered financial ruin through no fault of my own, which I CAME BACK FROM by working MY ASS OFF, that I am somehow a "security risk". Fuck that. The real security risk is generation of a hollow force by enforcing arbitrary recruitment policies which exclude excellent candidates who could be saving lives, but now have to check "yes" to the question "Have you ever been denied a security clearance?" on every job application they will fill out for the rest of their lives.
It is a HISTORICAL FACT that MOST of our Founding Fathers and some ex-presidents suffered extreme financial distress and/or had to file bankruptcy at some point in theri early lives, and it is precisely because of their determination to rise above the negativity that got handed to them, that agencies like FBI have the freedom they do, to exercise penny-anty pride-game bullshit like this, in the first place.
Get a clue. Not everybody who is in an excellent position to further you rmission is a fucking saint. Just like none of you are. In the end, God sees the secret sins of everyone which they think no one knows about, and we are all in the same boat, notwithstanding your false sense of superiority, and no matter what you put on paper.
Just my personal opinion.
Posted by NeutralObserver
- Jul 26, 2004, 12:54 PMQuote from: dimas on Jul 26, 2004, 01:55 AM
Neutral O, thanks for the help. Too bad you aren't intelligent enough to know how to spell SARCASM.
Here is a free tip for you. Before you go out and attempt to make a comment regarding a person's intelligence, make it a point to improve yours first. So that in the end you don't end up looking like an idiot.
Hey, maybe you do know everthing. You should start your own website. IKNOWITALL.COM
Posted by dimas
- Jul 26, 2004, 01:55 AMQuote from: NeutralObserver on Jul 26, 2004, 12:01 AM
I don't think Dimas is intelligent enough to grasp the sarcasim in your post. COP is pulling your chain Dimas.
Neutral O, thanks for the help. Too bad you aren't intelligent enough to know how to spell SARCASM.
Here is a free tip for you. Before you go out and attempt to make a comment regarding a person's intelligence, make it a point to improve yours first. So that in the end you don't end up looking like an idiot.
Posted by NeutralObserver
- Jul 26, 2004, 12:01 AMQuote from: COP on Jul 25, 2004, 09:27 PMDimas, is there no end to your vast knowledge? You answer questions in every category! I wonder if you and George are twins. You both seem to know it all. Thanks for sharing with everyone, your wisdom is truly astounding.
I don't think Dimas is intelligent enough to grasp the sarcasim in your post. COP is pulling your chain Dimas.
Posted by COP
- Jul 25, 2004, 09:27 PMDimas, is there no end to your vast knowledge? You answer questions in every category! I wonder if you and George are twins. You both seem to know it all. Thanks for sharing with everyone, your wisdom is truly astounding.
Posted by dimas
- Jul 25, 2004, 09:20 AMIt is not an automatic disqualifier, if since then you have become responsible and display a pattern of responsiblility. Fact of the matter is that you will more than likely still have to bring this up and admit to is even if it was more than 10 years ago. The standard background form that the Gov't uses does indeed only make inquiries for the last 10 years, however, there are other forms that particular federal agencies also issue you that ask questions regarding your entire life to include financial responsibility and drug use.
The main factor is how long ago it occured, if you have repeated the behavior and how much it was for.
The main factor is how long ago it occured, if you have repeated the behavior and how much it was for.
Posted by RULYING
- Jul 23, 2004, 05:15 PMThe State Department issues the clearances and for FBI, which issues "Top Secret" you must go back ten years. PAY YOUR BILLS and make it right only then will you be considered for a postion. Talk to you recruiter.