- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Mr. Mystery
- Jun 29, 2006, 05:28 PMQuote from: micawber78 on Jun 27, 2006, 08:55 PMHi All,
I did not even get as far into the process as having to take a polygraph. Clearly something triggered the letter although I don't know exactly what it was.
That something was
P.S. Detector, if you must insult someone for not being intelligent, I'd at least spell it correctly.
Posted by antrella
- Jun 28, 2006, 05:07 PMQuoteHi All,
Unfortunately I recently received the dreaded "unsuitable" letter from CIA. I was going for an analyst position. I received the letter about a week following a telephone conversation with a government representative regarding my SF-86...
Micawber78 - I'm sorry to hear you didn't make the cut. The Agency can afford to be very (perhaps absurdly) picky when it comes to making such decisions. As you yourself note, clearly something in your forms/telephone answers triggered the "unsuitable" determination.
With regard to your first question ("...how often people who are at first deemed 'unsuitable' are then hired and granted clearance after waiting a certain amount of time?"), unfortunately you can't expect to find too much hard evidence on this. From my experience/observations, a finding of "unsuitability" means, at the very least, that it'll probably take a good amount of time before you can reapply. A good rule of thumb that I've heard bandied about is the "double rule." In other words, if you were a recreational drug user for the past 3 years, it will take 6 years to demonstrate that you're past it. In such a sensitive industry, everyone will err on the side of caution.
You answer your second question ("Is it a big no-no to disclose...") when you say "the SF-86 explicitly says not to tell the foreign nationals you list as close contacts about the COE." I'm usually very patient and understanding of an applicant's shortcomings - after all, we're all human - but in all honesty, you displayed terribly bad judgment by doing something you should have known was forbidden. I understand you received the SF-86 after you'd made the disclosures - but, in my opinion (and you can be certain that in the opinion of your investigator/point-of-contact), that was, to put it mildly, unwise of you. While the DI is an "overt" position (see my addendum below), informing non-U.S. citizens (however well you trust them) that you're poised to embark on a career with our premier intelligence agency certainly wasn't advisable. Still, it's doubtful that you were deemed unsuitable because of your indiscretion here. Which leads us to...
Your third question ("I have somewhat of a checkered history in terms of drug/substance use..."). The drug issue is tricky. CIA doesn't have a set-in-stone drug policy (like the FBI), so it's more a matter of discretion. Many believe that it's stricter than FBI (one-time experimentation, however long ago, and you're finished), while CIA itself wants you to believe it's a more "intelligent" and "understanding" policy (one-time experimentation, even with hard drugs like cocaine, is fine if it was an isolated, controlled incident). I can't say which is right. I can say that your drug history will demand that you spend a long, LONG time completely drug-free before you reapply. I can tell you frankly and confidently that you'll be laughed at (if even taken note of) should you decide to reapply within a year.
I take it you're young enough to pursue work elsewhere. If you're interested in gov't work, there are plenty of other - let's say "less demanding" opportunities out there. Take one of them, and if you're serious about working with the agency, give it at least (my estimate) 5-7 years before you reapply. Then, you can confidently come back and hope that in their eyes, you've redeemed yourself as a perfectly suitable candidate.
Addendum: A month or so ago, the following was added to the DI positions on the CIA.gov employment pages:
Important Notice: You are interested in a position as an overt employee---which means you can acknowledge your affiliation with the Central Intelligence Agency. But should you? There may be friends, family, individuals or organizations who would be very interested to learn that you are an applicant for or an employee of the CIA. Their interest, however, may not be benign or in your best interest. You cannot control who they would tell. We therefore ask you to exercise discretion and good judgment in disclosing your interest in a position with the Agency.
Posted by detector1012000
- Jun 27, 2006, 11:53 PMQuote from: micawber78 on Dec 31, 1969, 07:00 PMHi All,
3. I have somewhat of a checkered history in terms of drug/substance use. I have a DUI from 1999. I used marijuana fairly consistently since college (although not within the past year).
I don't think you will ever qualify for any agency with your statement regarding drug usage. Why would an intelligence agency want someone with a "Checkered History" of drug abuse? Not very "Intilligent"