Skinz4Life12 Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 So I applied for a job with a company a week or so ago and the job description mentioned that I'd need to be able to possess a "National Security Clearance". Well, I already have a Top Secret Clearance so I should be good. Fast forward to today. I get an email from the company saying that I'd be a good fit for the position and they wanted to schedule an interview. All I had to do was fill out some pre-security clearance screening forms. One of the questions asks about prior drug use. I already disclosed in my TS investigation that I experimented with pot in college. Anyways, come to find out this job is a contract position with the DEA. Well I emailed the company back and told them that I already had a TS clearance and I had to disclose that I smoked pot in college to receive it. They write me back and tell me that this disqualifies me for the position that I was scheduling to interview for. :wtf: How does that make sense? And before anyone says it was a position for the DEA, check out the DEA's drug policy that clearly states this: "Exceptions to this policy may be made for applicants who admit to limited youthful and experimental use of marijuana. Such applicants may be considered for employment if there is no evidence of regular, confirmed usage and the full-field background investigation and results of the other steps in the process are otherwise favorable." I don't get it, and its pretty discouraging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMK9973 Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 "Exceptions to this policy MAY be made..." doesn't say it always will...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinz4Life12 Posted August 15, 2011 Author Share Posted August 15, 2011 "Exceptions to this policy MAY be made..."doesn't say it always will...... So I guess the exception can be made to give me a TS clearance? They could have at least let me interview before they made that decision. Just another reason to legalize pot IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SloppyOneXXVI Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 DEA requires a full scope poly which may have disqualified you. Also, you probably tried pot pretty recently (assuming you are 25). Generally, if you are going to apply for a job with a full scope poly your "experimental days" need to be FAR behind you. A TS isn't that high on the clearance hierarchy. I have a friend who is currently in the hiring process with the DEA. It has been taking a LONG time, and she has never used a drug in her life, served in the Army (including deployment to Iraq), and has two master's degrees. Getting into the DEA is tough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 "Exceptions to this policy MAY be made..."doesn't say it always will...... Was just about to post this. Honestly, I would have never admitted to smoking pot in college. There was nothing positive that could come from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Was just about to post this. Honestly, I would have never admitted to smoking pot in college. There was nothing positive that could come from it. Other than being proven a liar on a polygraph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Other than being proven a liar on a polygraph. Polygraphs don't "prove" anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Sucks for the OP that he was honest and admitted to trying pot in college. However, I still don't have much sympathy for him not getting an interview because of it, as I am one of those that have never did drugs in my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 First mistake. You admitted you smoked pot. Bad decision. Never admit to anything like that unless there is a record of your usage, like a misdemeanor charge or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Polygraphs don't "prove" anything I've never taken one before, so I wouldn't know. I would assume that if they were useless, they wouldn't still be used during security clearance screenings. Either way, if he had lied, the truth would have probably come out at some point during the process. Better to admit it up front in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 I've never taken one before, so I wouldn't know. I would assume that if they were useless, they wouldn't still be used during security clearance screenings.Either way, if he had lied, the truth would have probably come out at some point during the process. Better to admit it up front in my opinion. My brother got his security clearance in the military. He was advised by those above him to never ever admit to anything like that unless you have a record somewhere, no matter how much the system tries to scare you into admitting it. There is no way to know what you did or didn't do in the past unless there is a record of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 My brother got his security clearance in the military. He was advised by those above him to never ever admit to anything like that unless you have a record somewhere, no matter how much the system tries to scare you into admitting it. There is no way to know what you did or didn't do in the past unless there is a record of it. Doesn't part of a security clearance involve an extensive background check where they interview acquaintences, that may verbally testify during an interview that they witnessed the person do pot ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Doesn't part of a security clearance involve an extensive background check where they interview acquaintences, that may verbally testify during an interview that they witnessed the person do pot ? There is an extensive background check. I'm not sure if they contacted people my brother knew or what. I'll ask him. That said, I'm just going by his experience. He was told to never ever admit to anything unless there is a hard copy record of it, such as a police charge or a school suspension of sorts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Doesn't part of a security clearance involve an extensive background check where they interview acquaintences, that may verbally testify during an interview that they witnessed the person do pot ? Sometimes. That does not automatically disqualify you though. ---------- Post added August-15th-2011 at 05:27 PM ---------- There is an extensive background check. I'm not sure if they contacted people my brother knew or what. I'll ask him. That said, I'm just going by his experience. He was told to never ever admit to anything unless there is a hard copy record of it, such as a police charge. Exactly. No reason to admit it at that point. It has no bearing on anything job related typically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeaconTheVillain Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 First mistake. You admitted you smoked pot. Bad decision. Never admit to anything like that unless there is a record of your usage, like a misdemeanor charge or something. yea this. Normally, I would say honesty is the best policy. However, I think it is justifiable to say you never did any drugs in the case. "experimented with pot" lol (maybe you were one of the few is honest when they say this) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 yea this.Normally, I would say honesty is the best policy. However, I think it is justifiable to say you never did any drugs in the case. "experimented with pot" lol (maybe you were one of the few is honest when they say this) Just to add to this, my brother was told something to the effect "don't be a fooled into thinking honesty is the best policy. Many people have blown opportunities thinking that the system will appreciate your honesty. Wrong." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinz4Life12 Posted August 15, 2011 Author Share Posted August 15, 2011 a few things i should have mentioned in the OP. it was a financial analyst position. i've never seen a financial analyst position require anything more than a TS. not to mention they never mentioned it was a contract position with the DEA. btw, whats higher than a TS? A TS w/sci and poly? Do you even permanently hold SCI clearance or just when you are working on a project that requires it? To me a TS should be high enough to cover any position I'm looking at. Of course I told the truth to the company that was going to interview me. I had already disclosed my marijuana use in college to obtain my TS clearance. No, I don't have any record or anything like that but the background investigation takes forever and they talk to people you haven't been in contact with for years that may say "Oh yea, I remember him. I smoked pot with him in college." It only takes one person to say something like that to screw up everything. Btw....do you know what happens to you if you get caught lying for a security clearance? I'd rather tell the truth. Btw it has been 4 years since I last used pot ---------- Post added August-15th-2011 at 05:37 PM ---------- yea this.Normally, I would say honesty is the best policy. However, I think it is justifiable to say you never did any drugs in the case. "experimented with pot" lol (maybe you were one of the few is honest when they say this) how about you take the chances of getting caught lying on an SF-86 and face the repercussions. Honesty is the best policy in these cases. Point in case, I got the TS clearance despite not being able to work for the DEA ---------- Post added August-15th-2011 at 05:41 PM ---------- here is why i came clean for my clearance: "Lying on the SF86/SF85-P constitutes perjury, same thing as lying while under oath in court. You can get in a lot of trouble, up to and including losing your job or even jail time." ---------- Post added August-15th-2011 at 05:43 PM ---------- Sometimes. That does not automatically disqualify you though. Wait, what? That's news to me. Getting caught lying on an SF-86 about past drug use won't get you disqualified? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boofMcboof Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 I had a friend go through the FBI screening process all the way up to the polygraph. This is a guy whose on the straight and narrow, always refuse to smoke pot with us and never touched drugs in his life. Somehow he got nervous with a question about marijuana and his association with it. He said afterwards that question was the one that doomed him. Man did I feel bad and a little guilty. So don't feel bad. My friend never touched the stuff in his life and still got rejected. The FBI recruited him hard too because of his biochemical and law degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinz4Life12 Posted August 15, 2011 Author Share Posted August 15, 2011 thanks for sharing boof. that does make me feel better. i was just surprised because i already had a clearance and i didn't think it would be an issue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 S4L, sometimes they take age into consideration as well. At your age sometimes they look at it as. "maybe again". It's crappy and BS in my mind but it happens. Sometimes they see potential based on former...again it's BS. It was just never my thing. But if you tried it (or still smoke), who cares. With the way things are these days they should be happy to have someone who was honest and forthcoming about former behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Polygraphs don't "prove" anything They are frequently used in the corporate, government, and military world. And with the right system and right administrator, they can actually be astonishingly effective. But even when not, they are still used. The people saying "don't admit" are giving potentially (and serious) damaging input if you're applying to many such positions. In the papers you sign for many such situations, you also declare civil and criminal liability for misrepresentation or falsehoods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winstonspencer Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 america, **** yeah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 It was just never my thing. But if you tried it (or still smoke), who cares. With the way things are these days they should be happy to have someone who was honest and forthcoming about former behavior. The DEA is certainly supposed to care ,kinda in their job description. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Doesn't part of a security clearance involve an extensive background check where they interview acquaintences, that may verbally testify during an interview that they witnessed the person do pot ? I asked my brother this. He said you use friends and acquaintances that are clean and have no ties to anyone that you might know who parties. In other words, don't use a friend or acquaintance that brought the Aqua Buddha over to the party lol. Also, don't use a clean friend as a reference who also knows the Aqua Buddha guy. Basically, make sure you only use clean friends that you've never partied with and who don't know the Aqua Buddha guy as references. Obviously, the original poster now has a record of his usage. He created the record by confessing what he did when he didn't have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 So much bad advice in this thread. OP You did the right thing, you would have been polyed and shown up as Deception Indicated. Also its a contract billet meaning that they really didn't have to accept you, for all we know it could be written into the contract that no one with a prior drug history can fill the billet. Full disclosure is the best policy when it comes to these things because you are right, you will get hammered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.