19 ms·

"Here, fill it out again and don't mention that." I had the exact same experience when applying for a clearance while I was in college, for the "have you taken

"Here, fill it out again and don't mention that." I had the exact same experience when applying for a clearance while I was in college, for the "have you taken illegal drugs" question. When I honestly answered yes, the interviewer got fidgety and then asked, "well do you take them now?" no. "Do you know any drug users?" We're on a college campus, what would you like me to say? "Well, are you friends with any of them?" Again, we're on a college campus. "Ok, well, we're just going to put down no for all of that."

nunez 4y ago
This is a common one. You try something in the same year you (unknowingly) need to apply for a clearance.
stingraycharles 4y ago
What would the ramifications be if they ever found out you lied? It’s an innocent lie, but still, I can imagine that lying on these types of forms could turn out badly.
- eloisius 4y ago
  Perjury
  - stingraycharles 4y ago
    Exactly. So what is the best approach here? Ignore it? Pretend to be of good faith?
    - jhart99 4y ago
      The guidelines have changed in the last couple of years. With the exception of certain agencies(FBI and DEA), drug use is evaluated with the surrounding circumstances. They treat I smoked pot once in college or I dealt pot or I am currently addicted to heroin differently. The guidance these days is to tell the whole truth and describe the circumstances. Lying on the form will definitely disqualify you and a couple dumb things a few years ago won't necessarily.
    - joxel 4y ago
      Don’t apply
- technothrasher 4y ago
  I don't know, likely at very least they would take away the clearance. That was all over thirty years ago now and I have nothing to do with anything that requires a clearance any longer so I'm not overly worried about it at this point.
- wesleyd 4y ago
  I assume it’s to give you plenty of opportunities to lie. Revoking naturalization or a green card involves a huge legal effort, but if it can be shown you lied on the application, that’s a much easier case. Many US laws seem to be designed for ease of prosecution than for strict fairness. For example, open container laws are probably easier to prosecute than drunk driving.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  Didn't the previous Executive Administration have a few issues with their SF-86 forms? The fact that I remember the form number leads me to believe it must have been in the news a bit. I think they just had to fill out some amended forms or something like that - didn't seem like a big deal.
  - r2_pilot 4y ago
    OPM had a security breach back in 2015 and the data on these forms was stolen. https://news.clearancejobs.com/2015/06/13/sf-86-stolen-opm-hack/ https://news.clearancejobs.com/2015/06/13/sf-86-stolen-opm-h...
- matwood 4y ago
  > It’s an innocent lie It's not the lie itself, it's that you lied at all. Now you are untrustworthy. Drug use in the past is typically not an issue, particularly if you were young at the time. The whole process is to determine if you have good judgement and can be trusted.
  - eloisius 4y ago
    And to find out of you have secrets that other people could use to get leverage over you.
    - Symmetry 4y ago
      Yes, but if you admit everything in your application process then no leverage! And if you're in the habit of admitting things then if some foreign agent get you to commit some indiscretion in the future you might also admit that rather than letting them blackmail you into treason.
- anthomtb 4y ago
  They would revoke your clearance. You would lose the job which required the clearance. And you would never get cleared again (source: happened to a now-former coworker).
grishka 4y ago
My only experience with serious US government forms was applying for a tourist visa. This form also has some bonkers checkboxes like "do you plan to commit any crimes in the US". Also the entry form they give you on your flight deserves a mention. This one has "did you handle livestock in the last X months" repeated like 3 times in different phrasing. Not as stupid as the first one, but... why? Why is that question that important in the first place? Pest control?
- ahoho 4y ago
  It’s about disease prevention (mad cow, avian flus, etc)
- pedrovhb 4y ago
  Ah, the "are you a terrorist" section of the U.S. visa application is hilarious. I was honestly laughing out loud at some of the questions, imagining a sincere terrorist having their plan foiled by their strict moral code which requires them to lay out in detail their plan to topple the government :)
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ArnoVW 4y ago
    I've always understood that those questions are just a legal construct to be able to get you out of the country in case of issues. No need to prosecute for expulsion if there were lies on the immigration form; it becomes just an administrative matter.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - dilznoofus 4y ago
      I mean, yeah. It's like gun laws that prohibit having a joint whilst commit armed robbery or whatever - it's not actually trying to stop the behavior, merely empower the prosecutor after the fact. But, hey, there might be a true believer on the T-side! God says you're not supposed to lie, so it's a real Catch-22 - 'Render unto Caesar the evidence he deserves.'
matwood 4y ago
This is surprising because it's the exact wrong thing to do. Past drug use will not disqualify you from a clearance, but lying absolutely will. Depending on the clearance level they will interview a number of people, including second degree connections. I know someone who used to be an investigator, and it surprised me when they told me how often first degree connections would say bad things about their 'friend'.
- notafraudster 4y ago
  Yeah. My father didn't do secure work, but he was an immigrant to the country where I was born. As part of the immigration process, he was asked whether he had ever been arrested (maybe it was charged, I don't recall and he's long gone so I can't ask). He said "no". In fact, he had been arrested as a pre-teen for stealing an idling tractor and joyriding in rural post-war England. Immigration authorities don't care that a teen went for a joyride on a tractor. They care that he lied. Took a bunch of lawyering and paperwork to resolve the issue. I guess fundamentally the distinction is "if they can catch you, tell the truth, and if they can't, make yourself look good", but I guess it can be hard to know.
  - walrus01 4y ago
    On the other hand, you can answer this too truthfully and just screw yourself up for no reason. Example: I know Afghan former translators/employees for ISAF projects who have been arrested by Pakistani "authorities", local police in various cities just for the purpose of shaking them down for bribes/money. I can guarantee you that no record of any such arrest exists in paper or electronic form anywhere in a database that can be queried in Pakistan, even if US immigration authorities had a way to get cooperation from Pakistani federal police authorities without involving very high-level diplomatic contacts. Answering truthfully on a question like that will just fuck up your own case. Is it still being legitimately arrested if you've been detained unlawfully for a shakedown by corrupt police? The same happens in many developing nations. It's actually more like being kidnapped. Some of the process of using other data sources to verify that what a person has said is truthful/factually accurate only works if you're dealing with people coming from places with non-corrupted legitimate record keeping and bureaucratic processes.
JamesSwift 4y ago
For the written form, I've always been told to be 100% truthful. During the polygraph though I've had several antagonistic interactions similar to yours. Its all part of the game though at that point. They are trying to get under your skin. My personality does not play well in that scenario. Glad to be out of that line of work now, and I generally say no to anyone asking if I'd be open to having a clearance again.
- WrtCdEvrydy 4y ago
  Bro, they brought the girl that talked to me on campus to confirm it was me at the polygraph.
- sizzzzlerz 4y ago
  Over my years working for defense contractors, I've held clearences from multiple agencies and have gone through 5 or so polygraph tests. In everyone of them, the examiners were professional in every sense of the word. They clearly explained the procedure, went over what questions were to be asked, and ran the tests calmly and fairly. I never had a reason to complain about any one of them. Now, I didn't like to be tested but it was part of process to get and hold the clearance so I could do my job so I went through it. I never heard of any of my colleagues complain either. Still, every job has its assholes and you were unlucky to encounter one.
  - JamesSwift 4y ago
    Thats.... the exact opposite of my experience lol. I was at a 3 letter agency for ~5 years and close to everyone I knew failed the first poly of every round. IMO its a ploy to raise the stakes and get you on edge.
    - sizzzzlerz 4y ago
      I wonder if that's because you were working for the agency instead of as a contractor. Since the testing costs the company money, they might get pissed if too many of their employees kept failing and require a retest. For large contractors like LMSC or Raytheon, that can be a sizeable expense. Of course, it goes into the overhead charges when they bill but still, not something they want.
DontchaKnowit 4y ago
I was completely honest on my form. E.g. i admitted to drug use, but the firm was so insanely detailed there was no way to be fully honest. It literally asked how many times youve done each drug, who with, whered you get etc. Well for a raging polysubstance addict, this is hilarious. Just listing all the differe t drugs would take more room than there was on the forum and that doesnt even start to account for all the tertiary information they wanted. I got interviewed of course. Was a very weird experience sitting in an office in my workplace 14 feet from my boss talking about "yeah I did cocain a few times" "why did you stop" "well it feels good but it makes you act brazen, selfish, and flippant. Also it sucks to be around people who are coked up" Anyway, I got the clearance
- walrus01 4y ago
  The fact that you frankly acknowledged the drawbacks and foolishness of casual cocaine use, with the benefit of additional age/maturity/experience, reflecting upon your own actions as a younger person is probably why they cleared you. Additionally they were looking for any hint that you might have had an ongoing/current drug habit where you would either be vulnerable to financial pressure or societal coercion from drug dealers/persons associated with drug dealers, and that they they believed you were no longer a user was likely a factor.
  - euroderf 4y ago
    "Older but wiser" ? Check. Cleared.
kemayo 4y ago
It seems pretty common. My spouse was considering applying to the Air Force almost 20 years ago (for the language learning school), and got the recruiter very excited after demonstrating excellent scores on the ASVAB... then it all fell apart after they answered some questions honestly about past depression and refused to lie about it on the forms as the recruiter wanted them to.
anthomtb 4y ago
My first clearance interview, about 10 years ago, it was all going along just fine. I had the standard litany of "bad" things any early 20-something American guy gets into - a few mushroom trips, an alcohol ticket, friends from foreign countries. No deal-breakers so long as you are honest and I answered honestly. The only stumbling block came when the interviewer asked "have you smoked marijuana?". I truthfully answered no. The interviewer suddenly changed from bored old lady to the hardened, ex-cop that I suspect she was, glared into my soul and asked again. "No", I answered once again. "Well, that does not check out with your background. We will have to ask around on that one." She did ask around, my friends corroborated my story and I got the clearance. My background involved undergrad education at a #1 party school, in a college town where open marijuana usage was common well before being legalized. And I had casual experimentation with other drugs (the aforementioned shrooms) and plenty of alcohol usage. I was probably the only one in my college acquaintance circle that didn't smoke on a semi-regular basis. I sometimes think I could have lied and said "yes I smoked weed", and still gotten the clearance. It would have actually been less of a red flag for the investigator(s).
- favorited 4y ago
  Not related to a security clearance, but a coworker at a summer job in high school was applying to be a police officer. He was told to answer "yes" when they asked if he had ever smoked pot, because anyone answering "no" was presumed to be dishonest.
  - Cyberdog 4y ago
    Interesting, but not at all surprising, to learn how early cops are trained to lie for the "greater good."
    - MrVandemar 4y ago
      "Power attracts the corruptable".
- cfeduke 4y ago
  I had a somewhat similar experience with the polygraph portion of my clearance process - apparently its common to calibrate the machine to the subject by asking "have you ever smoked marijuana" and they expect you to lie and say "no" but then sometimes people have never smoked marijuana.
dmd 4y ago
On a life insurance form, I was asked "Has a doctor ever advised you to stop taking any drugs (including prescription medications)?" I called up and asked them what to do about this question, because obviously the answer is yes if you include prescription medications. They didn't even understand what I was asking.
Merad 4y ago
Interesting. About 10 years ago I got a job offer from a three letter federal agency that would've required a clearance. I ultimately declined so I never started the process, but I was told that past drug use (weed, at least) wasn't necessarily a deal breaker while being caught lying about past drug was an automatic fail.
jredwards 4y ago
I was proactively instructed by an O-6 (full bird colonel) to lie on my application about drugs if I had ever used them. Without even asking me if I had ever used drugs, he said, "I don't care what the truth is, on the form you put no." This was probably 20 years ago; I was pretty young.
sailfast 4y ago
This response is a really bad idea, and I think the security office people that recommend this are actually compromising security by making value judgments about what is and isn't relevant to background investigators based on their own personal beliefs. If this came to light they might get fired, despite it being way too normalized. The conventional wisdom is to answer truthfully, and justify your answers. You really don't want to get caught lying. It's not up to the person asking you to fill out the form to tell you what to list and what not to list. If the government can't find enough qualified people they need to adapt the process (and they have). Some things are 100% dealbreakers and should have been changed a long time ago (see local Marijuana jurisdiction laws), but I'm a firm believer you shouldn't lie to get the job. Find another one and move on. My .02.
geepound 4y ago
>"Here, fill it out again and don't mention that." >I had the exact same experience when applying for a clearance while I was in college Speaking as someone on the autistic spectrum, this is why the entire clearance process is a joke and has been since I had the misfortune of meeting some of these spooks as a child. They claim that the one thing that will preclude you is lying, but obviously as posts like these demonstrate, that's not the case. I still remember going on a date with a woman who was recently divorced... she told me about traveling up and down Baja California for RAND (smoking her brains out along the way). I've met a ton of these people -- they'd have been precluded from federal employment back in the day just for being divorced... or a woman... or a myriad of other things... but somehow they manage to get these cushy roles and cling to them. I've since quit doing any job interviews... at all. I got the sense folks were treating them like free consulting sessions, so I'm very purposefully showing up in the comments when something comes up in the news and refusing to "stop posting". At the end of the day, if you "do a clearance", you're helping perpetuate war crimes, and it's been that way since Iraq, arguably as far back as when the draft ended. (I got the sense they, the royal they, "the feds" were aggrieved I kept applying to the agencies in my hometown, but hey, I was born here, and I'm not required to ignore antisocial behavior. It's not my fault if it begins to look like you're abusing someone you met as a child -- denying them employment in the private sector then overpolicing their applications in the public service)
none_to_remain 4y ago
Story I was told once was Feds: Do you use drugs? Guy: Yes. Feds: Do you plan to stop? Guy: No. The feds went away and conferred briefly and then came back and told the guy that they needed him to at least say he planned to stop, so he said that, and got the clearance.
yterdy 4y ago
You got off easy. I once had to apply for a clearance for an admin assistant position, coming out of college (which was certainly overkill; I never once came into contact with classified material, with the closest I ever got being walking past the building's one-room SCIF while seeking signatures for textbook order authorizations). When I got to that question, I truthfully answered that my single brush with mind-altering substances had been an edible a peer had passed me, after he realized that I was having trouble relaxing during a particularly difficult time, senior year. Back in then-present day, my boss had gone over the application, tsked, asked why I'd mentioned it, tsked again, and said that it was too late to remove, since she'd already seen it. It was sent off without another word. My reserved, nerdy self was replacing her bubbly English major bestie, so I don't think she liked me much from jump, anyway.
jrockway 4y ago
I still think about a question that used to be on customs forms when entering the United States: "Did you come into contact with any soil while abroad?" My thought is always, well, the planet I visited is called Earth and is made out of earth, so it's more than likely that I came into contact with soil. I answer "no" anyway, because I feel you're not supposed to answer "yes" to that question, but I couldn't actually justify my answer with a straight face. So far, not in prison! Keeping my fingers crossed though.
_eo94 4y ago
My recruiter told me I had to fill out a pre-screening questionnaire. He said “I need all these answers to be NO at the end of this form if you want to join the military” “So you want me to mark No for all the answers?” “No. No. That’s not what I said. You should answer all questions with the proper answers. All I’m saying is I need these questions to be NO if we want to proceed” I read between the lines and everything was no. When I went to MEPS, a processing stop where you get physically and mentally cleared to join, he told me to not admit to smoking weed. When we got into the room at MEPS, they said if you used drugs and we find out and you didn’t tell us, you can go to jail for 10 years, etc., so I raised my hand and told on myself. The whole drive home my recruiter was like “why didn’t you just say no?” When I eventually got to my first command, an investigator came to speak with me about my pending clearance. She said they found some discrepancies, I told her the recruiting story. She asked if I’d be willing to take a polygraph. I initially accepted but then asked if I was required to. I wasn’t and if I didn’t want to do a polygraph I could instead do a sworn statement which I did. Eventually got my clearance but it took a long time.
bradknowles 4y ago
I had a different experience, when I was in front of a Defense Investigative Service agent, filling out my forms in 1989, for a TOP SECRET/SCI clearance required for the job I had accepted working for the Defense Information Systems Agency, in the basement of the Pentagon. I told him that I had smoked marijuana (I was still studying for my degree at University), and that a number of my friends also smoked, and they were the reason why I smoked (peer pressure). I also informed them of the damage I had seen done to our friendships inside the group, as certain friends had gotten into fights with other friends over the money needed to buy the stuff. I also gave names and contact details of various friends in that group. I informed those friends that they would be interviewed, and to just tell the agent the truth -- as I had done. They all reported back that they had been interviewed, and told him the truth. But they also didn't give me any more details, and I was fine with that. What was a little strange about that whole clearance investigation process was that the agent also wanted to know the addresses of my grand parents, in addition to the fifteen year history of everywhere I had lived myself. And about a month later, one of my grandmothers got a visit from a Secret Service agent. Turns out that the Defense Investigative Service didn't have any agents in that area, so they farmed out that work to the local Secret Service office. So, yes -- I did smoke, and I did inhale. And all the agents cared about was whether I was trying to hide something like this, because that would mean I would be vulnerable to blackmail over those events.

nunez 4y ago

This is a common one. You try something in the same year you (unknowingly) need to apply for a clearance.

stingraycharles 4y ago

What would the ramifications be if they ever found out you lied? It’s an innocent lie, but still, I can imagine that lying on these types of forms could turn out badly.

eloisius 4y ago
Perjury
- stingraycharles 4y ago
  Exactly. So what is the best approach here? Ignore it? Pretend to be of good faith?
  - jhart99 4y ago
    The guidelines have changed in the last couple of years. With the exception of certain agencies(FBI and DEA), drug use is evaluated with the surrounding circumstances. They treat I smoked pot once in college or I dealt pot or I am currently addicted to heroin differently. The guidance these days is to tell the whole truth and describe the circumstances. Lying on the form will definitely disqualify you and a couple dumb things a few years ago won't necessarily.
  - joxel 4y ago
    Don’t apply
technothrasher 4y ago
I don't know, likely at very least they would take away the clearance. That was all over thirty years ago now and I have nothing to do with anything that requires a clearance any longer so I'm not overly worried about it at this point.
wesleyd 4y ago
I assume it’s to give you plenty of opportunities to lie. Revoking naturalization or a green card involves a huge legal effort, but if it can be shown you lied on the application, that’s a much easier case. Many US laws seem to be designed for ease of prosecution than for strict fairness. For example, open container laws are probably easier to prosecute than drunk driving.
hotpotamus 4y ago
Didn't the previous Executive Administration have a few issues with their SF-86 forms? The fact that I remember the form number leads me to believe it must have been in the news a bit. I think they just had to fill out some amended forms or something like that - didn't seem like a big deal.
- r2_pilot 4y ago
  OPM had a security breach back in 2015 and the data on these forms was stolen. https://news.clearancejobs.com/2015/06/13/sf-86-stolen-opm-hack/ https://news.clearancejobs.com/2015/06/13/sf-86-stolen-opm-h...
matwood 4y ago
> It’s an innocent lie It's not the lie itself, it's that you lied at all. Now you are untrustworthy. Drug use in the past is typically not an issue, particularly if you were young at the time. The whole process is to determine if you have good judgement and can be trusted.
- eloisius 4y ago
  And to find out of you have secrets that other people could use to get leverage over you.
  - Symmetry 4y ago
    Yes, but if you admit everything in your application process then no leverage! And if you're in the habit of admitting things then if some foreign agent get you to commit some indiscretion in the future you might also admit that rather than letting them blackmail you into treason.
anthomtb 4y ago
They would revoke your clearance. You would lose the job which required the clearance. And you would never get cleared again (source: happened to a now-former coworker).

grishka 4y ago

My only experience with serious US government forms was applying for a tourist visa. This form also has some bonkers checkboxes like "do you plan to commit any crimes in the US". Also the entry form they give you on your flight deserves a mention. This one has "did you handle livestock in the last X months" repeated like 3 times in different phrasing. Not as stupid as the first one, but... why? Why is that question that important in the first place? Pest control?

ahoho 4y ago
It’s about disease prevention (mad cow, avian flus, etc)
pedrovhb 4y ago
Ah, the "are you a terrorist" section of the U.S. visa application is hilarious. I was honestly laughing out loud at some of the questions, imagining a sincere terrorist having their plan foiled by their strict moral code which requires them to lay out in detail their plan to topple the government :)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ArnoVW 4y ago
  I've always understood that those questions are just a legal construct to be able to get you out of the country in case of issues. No need to prosecute for expulsion if there were lies on the immigration form; it becomes just an administrative matter.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - dilznoofus 4y ago
    I mean, yeah. It's like gun laws that prohibit having a joint whilst commit armed robbery or whatever - it's not actually trying to stop the behavior, merely empower the prosecutor after the fact. But, hey, there might be a true believer on the T-side! God says you're not supposed to lie, so it's a real Catch-22 - 'Render unto Caesar the evidence he deserves.'

matwood 4y ago

This is surprising because it's the exact wrong thing to do. Past drug use will not disqualify you from a clearance, but lying absolutely will. Depending on the clearance level they will interview a number of people, including second degree connections. I know someone who used to be an investigator, and it surprised me when they told me how often first degree connections would say bad things about their 'friend'.

notafraudster 4y ago
Yeah. My father didn't do secure work, but he was an immigrant to the country where I was born. As part of the immigration process, he was asked whether he had ever been arrested (maybe it was charged, I don't recall and he's long gone so I can't ask). He said "no". In fact, he had been arrested as a pre-teen for stealing an idling tractor and joyriding in rural post-war England. Immigration authorities don't care that a teen went for a joyride on a tractor. They care that he lied. Took a bunch of lawyering and paperwork to resolve the issue. I guess fundamentally the distinction is "if they can catch you, tell the truth, and if they can't, make yourself look good", but I guess it can be hard to know.
- walrus01 4y ago
  On the other hand, you can answer this too truthfully and just screw yourself up for no reason. Example: I know Afghan former translators/employees for ISAF projects who have been arrested by Pakistani "authorities", local police in various cities just for the purpose of shaking them down for bribes/money. I can guarantee you that no record of any such arrest exists in paper or electronic form anywhere in a database that can be queried in Pakistan, even if US immigration authorities had a way to get cooperation from Pakistani federal police authorities without involving very high-level diplomatic contacts. Answering truthfully on a question like that will just fuck up your own case. Is it still being legitimately arrested if you've been detained unlawfully for a shakedown by corrupt police? The same happens in many developing nations. It's actually more like being kidnapped. Some of the process of using other data sources to verify that what a person has said is truthful/factually accurate only works if you're dealing with people coming from places with non-corrupted legitimate record keeping and bureaucratic processes.

JamesSwift 4y ago

For the written form, I've always been told to be 100% truthful. During the polygraph though I've had several antagonistic interactions similar to yours. Its all part of the game though at that point. They are trying to get under your skin. My personality does not play well in that scenario. Glad to be out of that line of work now, and I generally say no to anyone asking if I'd be open to having a clearance again.

WrtCdEvrydy 4y ago
Bro, they brought the girl that talked to me on campus to confirm it was me at the polygraph.
sizzzzlerz 4y ago
Over my years working for defense contractors, I've held clearences from multiple agencies and have gone through 5 or so polygraph tests. In everyone of them, the examiners were professional in every sense of the word. They clearly explained the procedure, went over what questions were to be asked, and ran the tests calmly and fairly. I never had a reason to complain about any one of them. Now, I didn't like to be tested but it was part of process to get and hold the clearance so I could do my job so I went through it. I never heard of any of my colleagues complain either. Still, every job has its assholes and you were unlucky to encounter one.
- JamesSwift 4y ago
  Thats.... the exact opposite of my experience lol. I was at a 3 letter agency for ~5 years and close to everyone I knew failed the first poly of every round. IMO its a ploy to raise the stakes and get you on edge.
  - sizzzzlerz 4y ago
    I wonder if that's because you were working for the agency instead of as a contractor. Since the testing costs the company money, they might get pissed if too many of their employees kept failing and require a retest. For large contractors like LMSC or Raytheon, that can be a sizeable expense. Of course, it goes into the overhead charges when they bill but still, not something they want.

DontchaKnowit 4y ago

I was completely honest on my form. E.g. i admitted to drug use, but the firm was so insanely detailed there was no way to be fully honest. It literally asked how many times youve done each drug, who with, whered you get etc. Well for a raging polysubstance addict, this is hilarious. Just listing all the differe t drugs would take more room than there was on the forum and that doesnt even start to account for all the tertiary information they wanted. I got interviewed of course. Was a very weird experience sitting in an office in my workplace 14 feet from my boss talking about "yeah I did cocain a few times" "why did you stop" "well it feels good but it makes you act brazen, selfish, and flippant. Also it sucks to be around people who are coked up" Anyway, I got the clearance

walrus01 4y ago
The fact that you frankly acknowledged the drawbacks and foolishness of casual cocaine use, with the benefit of additional age/maturity/experience, reflecting upon your own actions as a younger person is probably why they cleared you. Additionally they were looking for any hint that you might have had an ongoing/current drug habit where you would either be vulnerable to financial pressure or societal coercion from drug dealers/persons associated with drug dealers, and that they they believed you were no longer a user was likely a factor.
- euroderf 4y ago
  "Older but wiser" ? Check. Cleared.

kemayo 4y ago

It seems pretty common. My spouse was considering applying to the Air Force almost 20 years ago (for the language learning school), and got the recruiter very excited after demonstrating excellent scores on the ASVAB... then it all fell apart after they answered some questions honestly about past depression and refused to lie about it on the forms as the recruiter wanted them to.

anthomtb 4y ago

My first clearance interview, about 10 years ago, it was all going along just fine. I had the standard litany of "bad" things any early 20-something American guy gets into - a few mushroom trips, an alcohol ticket, friends from foreign countries. No deal-breakers so long as you are honest and I answered honestly. The only stumbling block came when the interviewer asked "have you smoked marijuana?". I truthfully answered no. The interviewer suddenly changed from bored old lady to the hardened, ex-cop that I suspect she was, glared into my soul and asked again. "No", I answered once again. "Well, that does not check out with your background. We will have to ask around on that one." She did ask around, my friends corroborated my story and I got the clearance. My background involved undergrad education at a #1 party school, in a college town where open marijuana usage was common well before being legalized. And I had casual experimentation with other drugs (the aforementioned shrooms) and plenty of alcohol usage. I was probably the only one in my college acquaintance circle that didn't smoke on a semi-regular basis. I sometimes think I could have lied and said "yes I smoked weed", and still gotten the clearance. It would have actually been less of a red flag for the investigator(s).

favorited 4y ago
Not related to a security clearance, but a coworker at a summer job in high school was applying to be a police officer. He was told to answer "yes" when they asked if he had ever smoked pot, because anyone answering "no" was presumed to be dishonest.
- Cyberdog 4y ago
  Interesting, but not at all surprising, to learn how early cops are trained to lie for the "greater good."
  - MrVandemar 4y ago
    "Power attracts the corruptable".
cfeduke 4y ago
I had a somewhat similar experience with the polygraph portion of my clearance process - apparently its common to calibrate the machine to the subject by asking "have you ever smoked marijuana" and they expect you to lie and say "no" but then sometimes people have never smoked marijuana.

dmd 4y ago

On a life insurance form, I was asked "Has a doctor ever advised you to stop taking any drugs (including prescription medications)?" I called up and asked them what to do about this question, because obviously the answer is yes if you include prescription medications. They didn't even understand what I was asking.

Merad 4y ago

Interesting. About 10 years ago I got a job offer from a three letter federal agency that would've required a clearance. I ultimately declined so I never started the process, but I was told that past drug use (weed, at least) wasn't necessarily a deal breaker while being caught lying about past drug was an automatic fail.

jredwards 4y ago

I was proactively instructed by an O-6 (full bird colonel) to lie on my application about drugs if I had ever used them. Without even asking me if I had ever used drugs, he said, "I don't care what the truth is, on the form you put no." This was probably 20 years ago; I was pretty young.

sailfast 4y ago

This response is a really bad idea, and I think the security office people that recommend this are actually compromising security by making value judgments about what is and isn't relevant to background investigators based on their own personal beliefs. If this came to light they might get fired, despite it being way too normalized. The conventional wisdom is to answer truthfully, and justify your answers. You really don't want to get caught lying. It's not up to the person asking you to fill out the form to tell you what to list and what not to list. If the government can't find enough qualified people they need to adapt the process (and they have). Some things are 100% dealbreakers and should have been changed a long time ago (see local Marijuana jurisdiction laws), but I'm a firm believer you shouldn't lie to get the job. Find another one and move on. My .02.

geepound 4y ago

>"Here, fill it out again and don't mention that." >I had the exact same experience when applying for a clearance while I was in college Speaking as someone on the autistic spectrum, this is why the entire clearance process is a joke and has been since I had the misfortune of meeting some of these spooks as a child. They claim that the one thing that will preclude you is lying, but obviously as posts like these demonstrate, that's not the case. I still remember going on a date with a woman who was recently divorced... she told me about traveling up and down Baja California for RAND (smoking her brains out along the way). I've met a ton of these people -- they'd have been precluded from federal employment back in the day just for being divorced... or a woman... or a myriad of other things... but somehow they manage to get these cushy roles and cling to them. I've since quit doing any job interviews... at all. I got the sense folks were treating them like free consulting sessions, so I'm very purposefully showing up in the comments when something comes up in the news and refusing to "stop posting". At the end of the day, if you "do a clearance", you're helping perpetuate war crimes, and it's been that way since Iraq, arguably as far back as when the draft ended. (I got the sense they, the royal they, "the feds" were aggrieved I kept applying to the agencies in my hometown, but hey, I was born here, and I'm not required to ignore antisocial behavior. It's not my fault if it begins to look like you're abusing someone you met as a child -- denying them employment in the private sector then overpolicing their applications in the public service)

none_to_remain 4y ago

Story I was told once was Feds: Do you use drugs? Guy: Yes. Feds: Do you plan to stop? Guy: No. The feds went away and conferred briefly and then came back and told the guy that they needed him to at least say he planned to stop, so he said that, and got the clearance.

yterdy 4y ago

You got off easy. I once had to apply for a clearance for an admin assistant position, coming out of college (which was certainly overkill; I never once came into contact with classified material, with the closest I ever got being walking past the building's one-room SCIF while seeking signatures for textbook order authorizations). When I got to that question, I truthfully answered that my single brush with mind-altering substances had been an edible a peer had passed me, after he realized that I was having trouble relaxing during a particularly difficult time, senior year. Back in then-present day, my boss had gone over the application, tsked, asked why I'd mentioned it, tsked again, and said that it was too late to remove, since she'd already seen it. It was sent off without another word. My reserved, nerdy self was replacing her bubbly English major bestie, so I don't think she liked me much from jump, anyway.

jrockway 4y ago

I still think about a question that used to be on customs forms when entering the United States: "Did you come into contact with any soil while abroad?" My thought is always, well, the planet I visited is called Earth and is made out of earth, so it's more than likely that I came into contact with soil. I answer "no" anyway, because I feel you're not supposed to answer "yes" to that question, but I couldn't actually justify my answer with a straight face. So far, not in prison! Keeping my fingers crossed though.

_eo94 4y ago

My recruiter told me I had to fill out a pre-screening questionnaire. He said “I need all these answers to be NO at the end of this form if you want to join the military” “So you want me to mark No for all the answers?” “No. No. That’s not what I said. You should answer all questions with the proper answers. All I’m saying is I need these questions to be NO if we want to proceed” I read between the lines and everything was no. When I went to MEPS, a processing stop where you get physically and mentally cleared to join, he told me to not admit to smoking weed. When we got into the room at MEPS, they said if you used drugs and we find out and you didn’t tell us, you can go to jail for 10 years, etc., so I raised my hand and told on myself. The whole drive home my recruiter was like “why didn’t you just say no?” When I eventually got to my first command, an investigator came to speak with me about my pending clearance. She said they found some discrepancies, I told her the recruiting story. She asked if I’d be willing to take a polygraph. I initially accepted but then asked if I was required to. I wasn’t and if I didn’t want to do a polygraph I could instead do a sworn statement which I did. Eventually got my clearance but it took a long time.

bradknowles 4y ago

I had a different experience, when I was in front of a Defense Investigative Service agent, filling out my forms in 1989, for a TOP SECRET/SCI clearance required for the job I had accepted working for the Defense Information Systems Agency, in the basement of the Pentagon. I told him that I had smoked marijuana (I was still studying for my degree at University), and that a number of my friends also smoked, and they were the reason why I smoked (peer pressure). I also informed them of the damage I had seen done to our friendships inside the group, as certain friends had gotten into fights with other friends over the money needed to buy the stuff. I also gave names and contact details of various friends in that group. I informed those friends that they would be interviewed, and to just tell the agent the truth -- as I had done. They all reported back that they had been interviewed, and told him the truth. But they also didn't give me any more details, and I was fine with that. What was a little strange about that whole clearance investigation process was that the agent also wanted to know the addresses of my grand parents, in addition to the fifteen year history of everywhere I had lived myself. And about a month later, one of my grandmothers got a visit from a Secret Service agent. Turns out that the Defense Investigative Service didn't have any agents in that area, so they farmed out that work to the local Secret Service office. So, yes -- I did smoke, and I did inhale. And all the agents cared about was whether I was trying to hide something like this, because that would mean I would be vulnerable to blackmail over those events.