I have a quick question on what I am currently going through regarding polygraghs. I took a Polygragh test for an IC entity in April 2025. In June 2025, I’ve got called in twice by a Special Agent to ask me some questions on a topic which was discussed between me and the polygrapher. After each session, I asked the agent what are the steps in the process. He said my file would be sent to adjudication.
Today, I was just informed that I need to come in for another polygraph. Is this normal? I thought once sent to adjudication then a decision would be made and not another polygraph.
This can happen. Adjudicators can order to have another polygraph done and the polygrapher nor the special agent you talked to has no influence on the adjudicator making that decision. What sort of issues were discussed?
Oh boy. In that case, I am going to advise you to not pursue getting a security clearance at this time. Admitting for paying for sex is a guideline D and J issue. If this was not recent, in the last 5 year, or not very frequent, you are probably going to get a clearance denial.
Admitting that you paid for sex to investigators and polygraphers are their tricks to get you into revealing information that background investigation would not be able to uncover. The way you mitigate this information is by putting time between your last incident for paying for sex to when you apply. If you wait a few years, then that should provide enough time to mitigate the issue of you paying for sex.
@Vanilla_Spice22 then why are they still wanting me to do a Polygragh in coming up in October then? Plus the polygrapher asked if I did prostitution during pre-testing. I would think they would have already denied me already. The incident happened in December 2023. Why continue to put me through the rigor if they are going to deny me? Plus both polygrapher and SA asked me if I still am in contact with those people or would I ever do it again and I said no.
Something to think about is no one here or online will actually know the ultimate outcome of your situation, we can all have opinions. We can have our own experiences that lead to us making a decent educated guess.
the investigator(s), the polygraph interviewers, they’re just one part, the determination is made by the folks that take in all of the possible information gathered and then determined.
I think it’s best to just not stress about the process and cross that bridge of reflection or relief when a determination is made. Just my thoughts though.
They are putting you through this because the polygrapher and special agent do not make the decision to grant or deny your clearance, the adjudicator does. This why you are taking another one in October. The government wants to know what else in your background and they are using a polygraph to see if you are withholding any additional information that are going to admit to.
Even if everyone knows about it, paying for sex is considered illegal in United States and the governments concern is that you partake in illegal sexual activity that could leave vulnerable to being blackmailed to giving away classified information.
If this only happened one time, then I would still withdraw the application, but you could reapply in after December 2026 since that will be 3 years. If you let 3 years pass since your last incident, this show that there was no pattern of behavior and it was a one-time only incident, which could mitigate the concerns.
Do not listen to anyone telling you to withdraw. It is a good thing to still be in processing, no matter what’s in your background. It is also a good thing to know that people are actively working on your file. Keep going.
@fedup Good advice! Like I mentioned before, I was upfront with them before on the first Polygragh test, spoke to a SA, and now they want me to come back for another Polygragh test. Thinking if they wanted to deny me then they would not be scheduling me for an additional test; especially after I spoke to an SA.
@Vanilla_Spice22 well I could assure you that I told them everything first go around. I even told them that I couldn’t be blackmailed because I told co-workers and friends. It’s been since December 2023 since the last incident. If I have to then I’ll appeal and let the board decide. Plus, based on the adjudication mitigation guidelines, I believe I hit most of the mitigation factors except for maybe time.
In addition, there is no federal law for prostitution. There are state laws where some states allow it but most states don’t. The only law that might come close is the MANN Act but that deals with sex trafficking across state lines which I did not do.
I think this would most likely only be a major concern if you were there in any kind of government-related capacity to include working as a contractor. If you were just a private citizen in a country where it is legal that might be a different matter. But I am pretty sure any kind of activity like this is prohibited due to human trafficking concerns… and everybody (military govvies and contractors) have to do some kind of human trafficking awareness training.
There are three potential issues in your case: 1) Criminal conduct, 2) Sexual Behavior, and 3) Personal Conduct. Criminal conduct is rarely invoked in sexual behavior cases. Usually, engaging in prostitution in a foreign country is cited as security concern under Guideline D—Sexual Behavior (unlawful sexual behavior and vulnerability to coercion) and Guideline E—Personal Conduct (poor judgment; while in another country, engaging in any activity that, while legal there, is illegal in the United States; vulnerability to coercion, and rule violation). Contrary to popular belief, if it occurred in a country where it is legal, you don’t need to be concerned about it being illegal in the U.S. It is illegal in 98% of the U.S., but it is not illegal under U.S. federal law. However, if you were in the military, employed by the federal government, or employed by a federal contractor at the time, you were subject to federal rules/policy regarding Combating Trafficking in Persons (CTIP). If you were single at the time and did not (and will not) make any effort to conceal this from your friends/family, then you shouldn’t be concerned about vulnerability to coercion. I had a client with TS/SCI, who received an SOR from the Navy because he freely admitted paying for sex in 3 countries where it was legal. He was unmarried and had made no effort to conceal his past conduct. We successfully rebutted the SOR because he was unaware of the DoD policy regarding CTIP at the time and his organization had failed to provide any information or training to its personnel regarding it. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) makes CTIP applicable to contractors on or off duty and it is a firing offense.
Correct me if i’m wrong but even thought it’s not illegal, it is more than likely disqualifying based on the prevalence with trafficking this day and age and how public it now is regarding knowing it is illegal. Maybe it wasn’t in the case you had it wasn’t as well known. I know in my last FS poly i was asked about it and the polygrapher even said word for word that even if it was legal in the countries i was in, it was still illegal here. I know he wasn’t an attorney but when they are the one writing the report, that gives cause for concern. I’ve been denied for much less.
I wouldn’t rely on a polygrapher’s opinion about what’s legal and what’s illegal. If an exam is “NSI,” a polygrapher, like an investigator, simply writes a report about the information they’ve gathered. It’s the adjudicator who decides what’s relevant/material and ultimately what’s disqualifying. Adjudicators are bound by SEAD 4. They are not allowed to interpret the legality of conduct based on popular perception. Absent any blackmail concern, paying for sex in a foreign country where it is legal or in one of several counties in Nevada is only a security concern if you were subject to US federal CTIP policy (NSPD 22) and it implementing regulations (e.g. FAR and DoDI 2200.01) at the time. Conduct is not disqualifying just because it offends a polygrapher’s moral values or societal norms.
I would like to think that conduct offends polygraphers and adjudicators would not be disqualifying, but from what I have seen recently, I don’t think this is happening. I am still going a through the appeals process for a denial and the reasons cited was because an adjudicator did not like what I said.
There does not seem to be very much oversight on adjudicators in certain IC agencies. Some people are getting denials for benign write-ups and conduct that happened over a decade ago. While I know a clearance denial has to go through several approval levels, the government just seems to rubber stamp whatever the original decision was.