AUSA C&F Issues Forum

[TooMuchTuna]

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.

[los blancos]

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]

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]

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?

[polareagle]

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.

[Lahtso Nuggin]

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.

[TooMuchTuna]

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.

[Lahtso Nuggin]

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.

[A. Nony Mouse]

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.)

[TooMuchTuna]

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

[jess]

.

[JakeTappers]

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]

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.