I recently took a polygraph for the CIA as apart of their ‘2-3 day processing’.
I’ve got to say, thanks to some help on this blog it wasn’t as stressful as it seemed, it actually seemed underwhelming.
It took about 3 hours in total, most of it was spent drilling me over drug use.
The polygraph examiner left the room, came back 5 minutes, said basically that the rest of my readings were ‘in the norm’ and said I wouldn’t need to retake the poly when I return tomorrow to finish up the rest of my processing. I did not disclose anything new or major, it wasn’t as stressful of an experience as I thought.
However, all the other applicants I talked to said they had to take a second poly when they return.
Am I being paranoid or just feeling left out? Is it a bad sign not to return for a second poly considering I would be a new hire? I know polygraphers say you ‘failed’ the exam and later pass, could it be the other way?
It is indeed the norm for CIA applicants to be subjected to more than a single polygraph session. However, under the circumstances that you have described, it does not appear to be a bad sign that you are not being called back for a second polygraph interrogation.
Does “The results are within the acceptable A to C parameters” mean I passed? I did it back in January and haven’t heard anything since. The examiner said that i’d be contacted if I needed to re do it.
Congrats on passing! I had to go back the next day since mine was “unresolved” from the first day but the examiner moved to different topics.
My examiner also left the room but for maybe 20 minutes the second day and the exam ended shortly after. I was told the results would be passed to QC and was asked if I would be open to take another poly if need be. Is that a good/bad sign?
It’s not a good sign but it may not be a bad sign . . . It sounds like the operator wants or needs a review of your results. If they decide that you passed, your good as far as that goes. If the result remains inconclusive, you will have to go back.
When the polygraph charts are scored as “significant response” (i.e., failing), it is standard operating procedure to interrogate. All federal polygraph examinations are routinely reviewed by a “quality control” section that has the prerogative of overturning the original polygraph operator’s determination (and of opining that an examinee employed polygraph countermeasures).
Yes, it’s a good sign. Note that in the context of pre-employment polygraph screening, it is unusual for the operator to directly tell the subject that he or she has passed.
I’ve heard my client tell us you are all good…no issues. And get a call back. I’ve had them say "Holy heck you got issues we need discuss…and no call back. But if you truly move on to other processing you just may be done with that portion. Or get called back 6 months later for another round.
I had a terrible experience with a completely unethical polygrapher Jeremy who sabotaged my polygraph, lied about the things I said in the interview, and ultimately made a baseless complaint that lead to the immediate disruption of our adoption of two children my wife and I love with all our heart. During the second interview, I attempted to make a complaint to the supervisor about how Jeremy conducted the polygraph and she refused to take it saying I needed to follow up with my point of contact. When I attempted to make the complaint with the point of contact, I received notice the following day that I had failed to get the security clearance.
Being approached by the CIA to join them ultimately is the worse thing that has ever happened to me. I would strongly advise anybody considering applying to the CIA to reconsider. The polygraphers are not “good” but rather self-adsorbed, egotistical, and prone to confirmation bias. If they could not see the difference between me and someone who has an actual sordid background then they can’t tell the difference between anybody. Since my terrible experience, I have talked with a number of people who share social circles with me and they have common stories of being “accused” of saying things they didn’t say or doing things they absolutely never did.
While my story is the worse I or anybody I know has heard, this agency is out of control.
Retired CIA polygrapher John Sullivan has opined regarding CIA pre-employment polygraph screening that “…an honest subject has no better chance than a dishonest subject of getting through the process.”