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 xenonman
 - Oct 08, 2015, 03:27 AM
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Aug 20, 2015, 08:50 PMI think Quickfix is probably the best one to give you the insight on this.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Aug 21, 2015, 06:36 PMRustluu,
You might try sending a PM to quickfix and ask him directly. He is like a mischievous pixie or leprechaun, surfacing, then popping out of existence unexpectedly.
That's exactly the same way that I feel about the proliferation of "guests" on AP! ;)
Posted by xenonman
 - Oct 08, 2015, 03:25 AM
I simply can not believe that someone with a background such as this can even think about employment that involves a security clearance! :o
Posted by Ex Member
 - Aug 21, 2015, 06:36 PM
Rustluu,
You might try sending a PM to quickfix and ask him directly. He is like a mischievous pixie or leprechaun, surfacing, then popping out of existence unexpectedly.
Posted by Ex Member
 - Aug 20, 2015, 08:50 PM
I think Quickfix is probably the best one to give you the insight on this.
Posted by rnstluu
 - Aug 20, 2015, 05:03 PM
And, sorry - I just saw that this forum specifies that it's for non-poly related threads.

I threw those last questions on just hook my overall query into the site's purpose, so I guess just disregard them  ;D
Posted by rnstlluu
 - Aug 20, 2015, 04:56 PM
Hey all -

A federal law enforcement agency is trying to bring my husband on as a non-officer/agent - a tech guy working with and amidst classified material. 

He's been working there for some time with a minimal clearance as a contractor but the Fed position requires a full-scope poly.

I know, I know - I can see the site I'm on.  Given all of the provisos about the accuracy of the test itself, here's a run-down of his situation:
  • He grew up in a horrendous environment w/  awful parents.  There was extensive drug use and dealing (his dad was apparently part of an honest-to-goodness motorcycle gang), periods of homelessness, extreme abuse and neglect, no contact with his father from the ages of 11-18 (which my husband initiated), poverty / hunger.  When I hear stories from him and his siblings, it's amazing that they're all still alive.
  • He was arrested at 14 for B&E.  The charges were suspended under the condition that he complete 2 years of probation and community service.  He did. (I may have gotten some of the terms wrong there - I've had very little contact with the criminal justice system).
  • Starting at about the age of 16 he smoked pot enough that no one could ever dismiss it as "experimentation".
  • At 18, after his Mom was institutionalized for trying to burn down their house and then attacking responding officers (bad.childhood.), he moved out on his own. From about 19-22, he did a lot of drugs. I think that the only drugs that I can readily name that he didn't at least try were heroin and meth.
  • Near the end of his 22nd year, he decided that he really didn't want to live like that anymore and just...stopped. It's amazing, really, but he's an amazing type of guy. Off of everything, he worked his way through a BA, an MA, and into a career in IT.
  • He's now approaching 40.
He's been honest with every question asked of him so far - he's told his security interviewers about the juvenile arrest and has answered in the affirmative when asked if he's ever smoked pot. He's told them that his parents were / are addicts, that his brother's a felon (though living a straight and narrow life for almost a decade now), and that his sister's a mess (alcoholism, drugs) when he was asked about his family.
He's answered, "No," when asked if he's ever had a problem with addiction. Given his ability to stop cold turkey I'd say that he's told the truth, but we'll see what the agency in question thinks as the process moves along.

He plans on being completely honest regarding his past as the questions are asked. 

Given the above, do you (who have a much greater knowledge of federal law enforcement guidelines in general and full scope polys in particular, no matter your opinion of their failings) think that he has a shot?

If his past actions aren't immediately disqualifying, do those who can honestly admit to having done so much have an edge against  false positives?

Thanks, and I hope this post finds you well.