Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
What color are the stars on the U.S. flag?:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by lee32279
 - Nov 08, 2004, 09:01 PM
So just like the book says, the bottom line is to never "make any admissions." would it be wise to make sure the background package/poly screen questionaaire is completely correct before going in the box?
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Nov 03, 2004, 07:29 PM
I don't know. I suppose it could, but I don't know how serious an issue it might be with any particular agency.
Posted by Mangle
 - Nov 03, 2004, 07:25 PM
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Nov 03, 2004, 07:08 PMI think that in the circumstances you described, to claim that one had actually passed the polygraph would be to go beyond the available evidence.

Then the question is:

If you're honest and explained these circumstances to your polygrapher would it significantly impede your chances of passing his test?
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Nov 03, 2004, 07:08 PM
I think that in the circumstances you described, to claim that one had actually passed the polygraph would be to go beyond the available evidence.
Posted by Mangle
 - Nov 03, 2004, 07:02 PM
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Nov 03, 2004, 06:35 PMNo, that would not count as a "failed" polygraph, but the admission itself might lead to an unfavorable security clearance or hiring determination.

Okay, follow-up question:

Let's say you get poly'd by a government agency for employment screening, and you make a substanitive admission that gets your employment application summarily dismissed...say, you admitted to a single instance of marijuana use that you had not indicated on your screening questionnaire...When you get the letter rescinding your COE, it does NOT state that you failed the polygraph (even though the polygrapher stated that you had, in no uncertain terms, flunked the test). But it instead states that due to your substanitive admission they can no longer consider your current application. Furthermore, it stipulates that you can resubmit after a year.

I have a friend this happened to  ;)

Now. You have to go through another poly with a different government agency. Would it be correct, when confronted by the polygrapher, to say that you had previously taken and "passed" the poly with the other agency, but were determined unsuitable because of your undisclosed admission of drug use?
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Nov 03, 2004, 06:35 PM
No, that would not necessarily count as a "failed" polygraph (though the Department of Defense's polygraph program reports to Congress have lumped them together), but the admission itself might lead to an unfavorable security clearance or hiring determination.
Posted by Mangle
 - Nov 03, 2004, 06:30 PM
Let's say that before (or during) your polygraph you make a substantive admission, but your charts don't indicate deception.

Would that count as a "failed" polygraph examination?