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:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by tricon7
 - Dec 15, 2007, 11:40 AM
Quote from: militaryhopeful on May 03, 2006, 07:11 PMMr. Mystery:  minor past drug use prior to military service is not cause for denial of a TS/SCI.  I work down the hall from the clearance adjudicators and have it first-hand.  Extensive drug use, particularly with cocaine, heroin, pcp, methamphetamines, and other "hard drugs" certainly is, but not smoking a little weed as a teenager.

EosJupiter:  you are extremely incorrect;  holding a TS/SCI clearance in the armed forces of the United States does NOT require ANY polygraph exam.  I spent 21 years in the military, held a TS/SCI since 1975, and never took a poly until I became an examiner.  I was in the intelligence and criminal fields.  Unless one is assigned to an NSA support unit requiring access to NSA, a polygraph is not required.  The other requirement for a poly is being granted access to specifically-designated special access programs.  Furthermore, if derogatory information is discovered during military service, a person may be asked to undergo an excupatory poly to refute the allegation.  The person may decline, and no adverse action may be taken based solely on such a refusal.  Revoking a clearance will depend on whether the allegation is founded based on corroborating evidence.

Since you don't know what you're talking about, you shouldn't put out erroneous information that will discourage young people from contemplating a military career.

Militaryhopeful:  please disregard the advice given you by EosJupiter;  his information is bogus.

Speaking of a TS/SCI clearance, I was thinking of applying for a civilian contract job which is doing work on a Navy base, and they require such a clearance. However, The one time in my life I ever tested positive for pot was when I was in the Navy in '95, and I was subsequently discharged with an "other than honorable" discharge. It was one incident only. However, it seems that the Navy in some ways has an eternal memory and they never forgive, even if I were to live to be a hundred - I'd never get even a civilian job on their base. Do you think this is the case?
Posted by Fair Chance
 - Jun 26, 2006, 09:38 PM
Quote from: EosJupiter on May 05, 2006, 12:53 AM


And if you read the post I didn't discourage him, I said make sure its what you want and be sure and think long and hard. As a truly thinking person can see other avenues to work.. And with this current war we are in, I wouldn't recommend a military career or government service to anyone. Not until we get new leadership in place.

Regards ....

Readers,

While I will not just blame current leadership in place for all of the present problems,  the ideas presented by EosJupiter do seem to represent something to think hard about.  The rules of engagement have changed dramatically since the Cold War protocols of almost sixty years.  Government service and military expectations are far different than what I have been exposed to in the past.  In the Cold War, there were very few military who possessed secret clearances let alone top secret clearances with letters after them.  Now, it seems that just about every law enforcement person and military person has to be capable of a much higher clearance than the old "Confidential".  

The whole government mentality of "trust us, we know what is right," is being taken to a much higher level than ever before.  The civilian agencies are adopting a much more militant military protocol that "if you are not with us, you are against us."  Questioning ideas and orders in a peacetime situation are much different than questioning ideas on the battlefront.

The Coast Guard has the right mentality.  They critique everything they do.  They listen to feedback from E-1 recruits, use it, and empower all of their personnel that they are important and their personnel take ownership.  Critiques are not taken as an insult, they are expected, appreciated, and used.  I think that is what is so wrong with most of today's attitude of government.  Differing opinions and critiques are taken as personel rebuffs and everyone gets defensive over change instead of analyzing the result and objectively deciding if it is beneficial.

Regards.
Posted by kockstar
 - Jun 26, 2006, 04:41 PM
haha you people are funny
Posted by EosJupiter
 - May 05, 2006, 12:53 AM
Quote from: quickfix on May 04, 2006, 06:32 PMEsoJupiter:  if you are referring to the MI battalions that support NSA, yes you are correct, because those personnel all require NSA access.  The same applies to Navy, Air Force, etc.  It has nothing to do with holding a TS/SCI, which requires no initial or aperiodic poly;  if you have 26 years of service, you should know that.  One doesn't need to be a SIGINT service member to hold a TS/SCI, therefore a poly is not required.

And someone with 26 years of military service who discourages a young person from considering military service on the false premise that getting a TS/SCI is contingent upon passing a poly ought to be ashamed of himself.

quickfix,

Not to belittle the point here, I am happy I did my military career. But equally glad to not have served under the current administration and this half baked war he has us in, in Iraq. Lets see now almost 2600 dead for what, the illusion of WMD's and lying to the american people. Also you need to go to the DCS-G2 website and pulldown the new personnel security regs. Read and update your knowlege on where they are taking folks (mos non specific), and by my own memory TS/SCI are usually only the domain of command staff, MI, and certain other select (SF) personnel. Not every GI gets that clearance, or needs it.
But I would be ashamed of working for the current SECDEF, and the generals that have complained are 100% right in there attack on his leadership.  Again spare me the holy than thou attitude. I gave  up the Uhhh Yahhh long ago and became my own thinking being without the military telling me what to do. But the check is nice every month.

And if you read the post I didn't discourage him, I said make sure its what you want and be sure and think long and hard. As a truly thinking person can see other avenues to work.. And with this current war we are in, I wouldn't recommend a military career or government service to anyone. Not until we get new leadership in place.

Regards ....
Posted by quickfix
 - May 04, 2006, 06:32 PM
EsoJupiter:  if you are referring to the MI battalions that support NSA, yes you are correct, because those personnel all require NSA access.  The same applies to Navy, Air Force, etc.  It has nothing to do with holding a TS/SCI, which requires no initial or aperiodic poly;  if you have 26 years of service, you should know that.  One doesn't need to be a SIGINT service member to hold a TS/SCI, therefore a poly is not required.

And someone with 26 years of military service who discourages a young person from considering military service on the false premise that getting a TS/SCI is contingent upon passing a poly ought to be ashamed of himself.
Posted by EosJupiter
 - May 04, 2006, 02:06 AM
Quote from: quickfix on May 03, 2006, 07:11 PMMr. Mystery:  minor past drug use prior to military service is not cause for denial of a TS/SCI.  I work down the hall from the clearance adjudicators and have it first-hand.  Extensive drug use, particularly with cocaine, heroin, pcp, methamphetamines, and other "hard drugs" certainly is, but not smoking a little weed as a teenager.

EosJupiter:  you are extremely incorrect;  holding a TS/SCI clearance in the armed forces of the United States does NOT require ANY polygraph exam.  I spent 21 years in the military, held a TS/SCI since 1975, and never took a poly until I became an examiner.  I was in the intelligence and criminal fields.  Unless one is assigned to an NSA support unit requiring access to NSA, a polygraph is not required.  The other requirement for a poly is being granted access to specifically-designated special access programs.  Furthermore, if derogatory information is discovered during military service, a person may be asked to undergo an excupatory poly to refute the allegation.  The person may decline, and no adverse action may be taken based solely on such a refusal.  Revoking a clearance will depend on whether the allegation is founded based on corroborating evidence.

Since you don't know what you're talking about, you shouldn't put out erroneous information that will discourage young people from contemplating a military career.

Militaryhopeful:  please disregard the advice given you by EosJupiter;  his information is bogus.

QuickFix,

Lets see how many MI battalions are there in the US Army, approximately 38 I believe by my last count. Most if not all require all MI personnel to have TS/SCI. And most either support major commands or any one of the 3 letter agencies. And from my sources they are now giving polygraphs to the troops who have not had one. Because of the push to make sure that all cleared personnel have it recorded and are easily transferable should the need arise. And please don't lecture me on military service. With 26+ years of it under my belt I know as much as you.  And tell Castleberry hello and XOXOXOX, and he missed !!!  hehehe

Regards  ....
Posted by Mr. Mystery
 - May 04, 2006, 12:34 AM
That is what I thought.  Lord knows there is no one who ever smoked pot and joined the military.......

To the original poster:
It is not clear if you were thinking about listing the pot and then hoping the polygraph was accurate, or just not listing it at all.  Whether or not the clearance requires a polygraph you should disclose it.

If you go on and leave the military seeking a law enforcement or intelligence job I can guarantee that lying on any background questionnaire is looked upon more unfavorably than the marijuana usage you've described.
Posted by quickfix
 - May 03, 2006, 07:11 PM
Mr. Mystery:  minor past drug use prior to military service is not cause for denial of a TS/SCI.  I work down the hall from the clearance adjudicators and have it first-hand.  Extensive drug use, particularly with cocaine, heroin, pcp, methamphetamines, and other "hard drugs" certainly is, but not smoking a little weed as a teenager.

EosJupiter:  you are extremely incorrect;  holding a TS/SCI clearance in the armed forces of the United States does NOT require ANY polygraph exam.  I spent 21 years in the military, held a TS/SCI since 1975, and never took a poly until I became an examiner.  I was in the intelligence and criminal fields.  Unless one is assigned to an NSA support unit requiring access to NSA, a polygraph is not required.  The other requirement for a poly is being granted access to specifically-designated special access programs.  Furthermore, if derogatory information is discovered during military service, a person may be asked to undergo an excupatory poly to refute the allegation.  The person may decline, and no adverse action may be taken based solely on such a refusal.  Revoking a clearance will depend on whether the allegation is founded based on corroborating evidence.

Since you don't know what you're talking about, you shouldn't put out erroneous information that will discourage young people from contemplating a military career.

Militaryhopeful:  please disregard the advice given you by EosJupiter;  his information is bogus.
Posted by Mr. Mystery
 - May 03, 2006, 11:18 AM
Quickfix,

While I know the exact threshold cannot be released.  Is anything he described even disqalifying for a TS/SCI?
Posted by EosJupiter
 - May 03, 2006, 02:49 AM
Quote from: militaryhopeful on May 02, 2006, 07:18 PMThanks for the quick answer! That helps my decision alot, again, thanks a ton!

militaryhopeful,

What quickfix told you is essentially correct. But what he failed to inform you of is, that you will be subject to a polygraph every 5 years after that. Or if somehow derrogatory infomation is obtained in your career, guess what you are then subject to a more intensive polygraph test. Think long and hard before you join and before you submit to a polygraph ... and remember they can be beaten !!! hehehe

Regards ...
Posted by militaryhopeful
 - May 02, 2006, 07:18 PM
Thanks for the quick answer! That helps my decision alot, again, thanks a ton!
Posted by quickfix
 - May 02, 2006, 06:59 PM
You should be aware that as an active duty soldier/sailor/airman/marine, you are exempt from the full-scope polygraph exam given to NSA and CIA employees.  This exemption is based on a favorable SBI conducted, which does take time.  You would not be asked any poly questions regarding past drug involvement.

Secondly, granting of a TS/SCI clearance does not necessarily require a polygraph exam.  Only particular MOSs require a poly, and then, only if an assignment will require you to have access to NSA/CIA facilities, databaes, etc, or access to special access programs.
Posted by militaryhopeful
 - May 02, 2006, 06:31 PM
I am joining the military soon, and am busy trying to decide which job I would be interested in. Many of the jobs require a TS/SCI clearance. I've been hesitant about these jobs because a year ago when I first started college I hung around with a bad crowd and smoked pot probably between 3-5 times. Even knowing that the poly is a fraud, I'm stil hesitant to pick one of those jobs because I don't want to start training and waste my time just to take a poly a few years down the road and "fail".

I'm thinking the military may not be so quick to toss people out in polygraphs because they've paid so much for the training? Plus if I didn't admit it they wouldn't be able to prove it unless they found my friends from the first semester of college and they told them... I think

Does anyone know anything that could be helpful to me at this point? I really know nothing about it would work out. I've read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and several others articles but I just still don't have the info to make me comfortable. Thanks a bunch!

After reading the posts I have the impression that as long as I don't admit it, the poly won't be enough to raise serious doubt if I simply refrain from making any admission, is this true?

Thanks!