AUSA C&F Issues

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
User avatar
TooMuchTuna
Posts: 842
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 10:35 am

Re: AUSA C&F Issues

Postby TooMuchTuna » Mon May 15, 2017 11:15 am

Lettow wrote:
TooMuchTuna wrote:Never. Lie.

As someone else mentioned, in the event you ever apply for a position where a poly is required, lying is an automatic fail (at least that's what I was told by several members of a three-letter gov organization during the recruiting process).


This seems hugely overblown. Exactly which career paths require a polygraph? Google reveals this: "The CIA and FBI require polygraph tests of some permanent employees." https://law.yale.edu/student-life/caree ... und-checks. So, some CIA & FBI employees are polygraphed. If that's pretty much it, polygraphs aren't required for the vast, vast majority of fedgov legal positions.

If an applicant wouldn't or likely wouldn't receive an offer because he/she disclosed, what good reason is there to disclose?


As A. Nony said, you do you, I'm only speaking from my personal experience. But, you do realize it's possible to find out you lied without using a polygraph, right? All I'm saying is that getting caught in a lie is going to be worse than disclosing (sure, you might be able to think of an exception to that, but I'm not going to play a game of hypotheticals with you). But good luck to your character references if that's your mentality.

User avatar
los blancos
Posts: 8418
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:18 pm

Re: AUSA C&F Issues

Postby los blancos » Mon May 15, 2017 11:22 am

TLS has now reached its logical conclusion (poster implicitly instructing applicant for law enforcement role to commit federal crime in pursuit of said role)

Lettow
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 12:51 am

Re: AUSA C&F Issues

Postby Lettow » Mon May 15, 2017 11:24 am

TooMuchTuna wrote:As A. Nony said, you do you, I'm only speaking from my personal experience. But, you do realize it's possible to find out you lied without using a polygraph, right? All I'm saying is that getting caught in a lie is going to be worse than disclosing (sure, you might be able to think of an exception to that, but I'm not going to play a game of hypotheticals with you).


Yes. I'm aware it's possible to find out without the polygraph. For example, it might raise flags if the applicant uses a known drug user or drug dealer as a character reference. There are other things that the applicant could do that might raise flags. So, what if the applicant minimized the flags he/she raised?

I've heard advice from a former JAG officer to not disclose.

Lettow
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 12:51 am

Re: AUSA C&F Issues

Postby Lettow » Mon May 15, 2017 11:26 am

los blancos wrote:TLS has now reached its logical conclusion (poster implicitly instructing applicant for law enforcement role to commit federal crime in pursuit of said role)


Asking questions for further discussion, which could reveal some really good points for and against, is implicit instruction?

User avatar
polareagle
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: AUSA C&F Issues

Postby polareagle » Mon May 15, 2017 12:26 pm

Lettow wrote:
TooMuchTuna wrote:Never. Lie.

As someone else mentioned, in the event you ever apply for a position where a poly is required, lying is an automatic fail (at least that's what I was told by several members of a three-letter gov organization during the recruiting process).


This seems hugely overblown. Exactly which career paths require a polygraph? Google reveals this: "The CIA and FBI require polygraph tests of some permanent employees." https://law.yale.edu/student-life/caree ... und-checks. So, some CIA & FBI employees are polygraphed. If that's pretty much it, polygraphs aren't required for the vast, vast majority of fedgov legal positions.

If an applicant wouldn't or likely wouldn't receive an offer because he/she disclosed, what good reason is there to disclose?


I believe TS-SCI clearance requires a poly. (Top Secret-Secure Compartmentalized Information) If you want to do certain higher-level DOJ jobs or many things involving national security within DOJ (or a US Attorney's office), you will need this. There are many other positions around government. So it's not just FBI agents and CIA officers.

But that's beside the point--committing a federal crime in order to enforce federal law is just monumentally stupid.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 28473
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: AUSA C&F Issues

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Mon May 15, 2017 12:33 pm

@ Lettow - I feel like that's a kind of simplistic way to look at this - drug use in the past doesn't preclude wanting to obey the law in the present. Frankly I think everyone I know in fedgov discloses because they want to answer truthfully, not because they think they're going to get caught if they don't. And yeah, points in favor of not disclosing are technically points supporting committing a crime.

Also, I think people WAY overestimate the risk that brief past indiscretions pose to passing a background check. Given that most past issues won't make/break you, but lying DEFINITELY will, for me the cost/benefit definitely comes out in favor of disclosure.

(I suppose that the flip side is that if the risk of being found out is as slim as the risk of being dinged for your past, why disclose? Again, because the consequences of not doing so are way more dire.)

I think JAG is slightly different because they do have way stricter requirements than the rest of the federal government (there aren't any age/physical fitness requirements for the Feds and you don't get dinged for, say, being on antidepressants, which is a disqualifier for JAG, IIRC). And I have seen anecdotes of JAG interviewers or the like basically telling applicants not to disclose (usually drug use). I can't comment on that because I don't have personal experience (although I also know one poster here who passed on JAG even though it was his dream because he wanted to treat his depression and he knew he couldn't be on anti-depressants and pass JAG, so he disclosed and got dinged. A little different because addressing a present issue rather than past, though, so harder not to disclose given the medical exams required).

But to the topic of the OP, non-military fedgov is very different.

User avatar
Lahtso Nuggin
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 8:55 pm

Re: AUSA C&F Issues

Postby Lahtso Nuggin » Mon May 15, 2017 2:13 pm

1. TS-SCI does not require a poly
2. three letter orgs. have different kinds of polys that may or may not include 'lifestyle' questions
3. polys seem to work best when the person being tested believes they work, it is art NOT science
4. generally a bad idea to disclose illegal behavior during a poly. You will likely receive some info about the types of information covered on the poly, you may be better off failing the poly for being seen as untruthful than to having your rights read because you thought you could bluff your way past the question about XYZ and then admit to it.
5. if you haven't disclosed it on your forms then that's what you're rolling into the poly with as reality, people who fail polys don't get the job they're interviewing for (all things considered, not a big deal), people who lose their shit and start talking about things they haven't disclosed get charged.

User avatar
TooMuchTuna
Posts: 842
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 10:35 am

Re: AUSA C&F Issues

Postby TooMuchTuna » Mon May 15, 2017 2:28 pm

Lahtso Nuggin wrote:1. TS-SCI does not require a poly
2. three letter orgs. have different kinds of polys that may or may not include 'lifestyle' questions
3. polys seem to work best when the person being tested believes they work, it is art NOT science
4. generally a bad idea to disclose illegal behavior during a poly. You will likely receive some info about the types of information covered on the poly, you may be better off failing the poly for being seen as untruthful than to having your rights read because you thought you could bluff your way past the question about XYZ and then admit to it.
5. if you haven't disclosed it on your forms then that's what you're rolling into the poly with as reality, people who fail polys don't get the job they're interviewing for (all things considered, not a big deal), people who lose their shit and start talking about things they haven't disclosed get charged.


Maybe you know what you're talking about, but holy shit, based on your write-up we have had some very different experiences. I think withholding or lying about anything on something like a SF86 is really fucking dumb and will likely lead to an auto-ding.

User avatar
Lahtso Nuggin
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 8:55 pm

Re: AUSA C&F Issues

Postby Lahtso Nuggin » Mon May 15, 2017 2:42 pm

TooMuchTuna wrote:
Lahtso Nuggin wrote:1. TS-SCI does not require a poly
2. three letter orgs. have different kinds of polys that may or may not include 'lifestyle' questions
3. polys seem to work best when the person being tested believes they work, it is art NOT science
4. generally a bad idea to disclose illegal behavior during a poly. You will likely receive some info about the types of information covered on the poly, you may be better off failing the poly for being seen as untruthful than to having your rights read because you thought you could bluff your way past the question about XYZ and then admit to it.
5. if you haven't disclosed it on your forms then that's what you're rolling into the poly with as reality, people who fail polys don't get the job they're interviewing for (all things considered, not a big deal), people who lose their shit and start talking about things they haven't disclosed get charged.


Maybe you know what you're talking about, but holy shit, based on your write-up we have had some very different experiences. I think withholding or lying about anything on something like a SF86 is really fucking dumb and will likely lead to an auto-ding.


Sorry, I was NOT making a recommendation of any kind just summarizing my experiences and observations of others' experiences with clearances/polys. Oh and yeah, I don't think its a smart thing to do and you could get worse than a ding in some scenarios depending on the offenses/organization.
Last edited by Lahtso Nuggin on Mon May 15, 2017 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 28473
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: AUSA C&F Issues

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Mon May 15, 2017 2:45 pm

I think what they mean is, if you make it to the polygraph, you're better off just lying (consistent with your application) and getting dinged for failing the poly, than failing and admitting (inconsistent with your application)? So they agree with you in a way - if you *do* lie/withold on the app, just fail the polygraph but don't admit whatever you lied about/withheld. You'll get dinged but that's better than getting criminally charged.

(Scooped.)

User avatar
TooMuchTuna
Posts: 842
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 10:35 am

Re: AUSA C&F Issues

Postby TooMuchTuna » Mon May 15, 2017 2:49 pm

Ahhh, okay, my misunderstanding. Did not mean to jump down your throat, sorry!

User avatar
jess
Posts: 17780
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:27 pm

Re: AUSA C&F Issues

Postby jess » Mon May 15, 2017 8:21 pm

.
Last edited by jess on Thu Oct 26, 2017 11:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

JakeTappers
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:38 pm

Re: AUSA C&F Issues

Postby JakeTappers » Mon May 15, 2017 10:44 pm

jess wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I applied to a position and they asked me during my in-person interview about c&f issues. I disclosed, and they said I probably shouldn't apply. First, as I was told, the hiring decisions are at the discretion of the appointed US attorney, so it kind of depends on his/her attitudes toward your past discretion. Second, even if you do apply and disclose on the form, your disclosures are now recorded and accessible by other gov't agencies should you apply elsewhere.

Can you say what your issues were?


Seconding this request. This seems very harsh.

JakeTappers
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:38 pm

Re: AUSA C&F Issues

Postby JakeTappers » Thu May 18, 2017 1:42 pm

JakeTappers wrote:
jess wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I applied to a position and they asked me during my in-person interview about c&f issues. I disclosed, and they said I probably shouldn't apply. First, as I was told, the hiring decisions are at the discretion of the appointed US attorney, so it kind of depends on his/her attitudes toward your past discretion. Second, even if you do apply and disclose on the form, your disclosures are now recorded and accessible by other gov't agencies should you apply elsewhere.

Can you say what your issues were?


Seconding this request. This seems very harsh.


Hate to bump, but just hoping to get a response, either way.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.