Will I be be approved for a TS clearance

An investigator came to my house and things went smooth… the only part is, I wrote no on drug use for the e-quip and answered no on drug use when asked. I have smoked weed once when I was 16 and once when I was 19… I’m 21 now and I have never done any other drug. So i have a polygraph coming and I knew they would find out I’m lying so I call my investigator moments after he left and tell him that I was answering questions a little fast, and I realized that I had something to say about the drug part. So I told him about the 2 times… do you think this will stop me from getting my top secret clearance??? My older brother told me to just be honest because he didn’t lie about his weed use in his teen years and he was much worse than me.

No . . . I don’t think that the drug use will become an issue. The lie on the forms is an issue but you, somewhat, mitigated that by coming clean before being confronted with it.

Nobody knows if you will get your clearance. There are too many other factors involved.


Depending on how fast yu called and how credible you sounded…it can be viewed as honest enough. Or if captured as “applicant falsified the form, denied ever using non legal drugs, but later changed his story…” See how that frames it differently? Normally 2 years is more than enough time to mitigate a one or two of MJ use. Are there any other drugs you sampled along the way?

Another home visit post.

What is going on?

1 Like

So you lied twice and think you deserve a clearance? SMH…

1 Like

I don’t understand the home visits either.

1 Like

I don’t understand them either.

1 Like

I haven’t tried any other drugs, but I left out that I have tried weed a 3rd time when I was 19 in my last post. So I got a polygraph and told them that I have smoked twice… it was a lie and the lady knew it was so she reminded me that now is a time I can change my story in my e-quip without being pentalized for it, she IMPLORED this to me that this is the only time. So I told the full truth, but it still showed as a lie.I was lost at that point because I had nothing left. The polygraph ended and she came back and told me that I failed the drug part and the counter intelligence part. She then told me that I am a member of nsa and had me say yes or no to some policies, and then told me it’s not about what I did it’s about how I owned up to the honest truth. It sounds like I passed the way she told me this but I never got a “ you passed” or a overall “you failed this” what should I expect next???

Your not going to clear.

1 Like

Your forgetting a few, and then forgetting another one…how far will you go to cover a lie? You falsified an application to be exposed to classified material. You didn’t provide much info on what CI questions you failed. What exactly did you leave out concerning that aspect? There can be a moment of speaking to something not on your form. Normally it comes prior to starting the test, not being caught in a lie. She was correct it has nothing to do with the MJ per say. It has everything to do with your willingness to lie, falsify forms, continue to lie…then admit you lied, and admit you falsified a form, etc. If you signed a conduct letter expressly stating you understand false information will not be tolerated nor will drug use…that can still go either way. But I would agree with Merlin you are about done. If you do get called back for a second poly. Be on point with the absolute truth as the margin for error will be very small. At this point you have either ended the process or possibly you will be able to validate the truth. Given that chance…it literally proves you did lie the first time and attempt to deceive.

But it’s obvious I have nothing to do with counter intelligence that’s insane… and that was the only opportunity to rewrite my drug part on the e-quip without being penalized , so I told everything willingly and voluntarily off the bat, so when she ran the lie detector my lies weren’t actually lies because I was genuinely telling the truth + I was nervous. The lie detector was wrong… as soon I spoke with the lady I was on a mission to let her know I’ve smoked weed 3 times in my life.

Ok. And how was that? Did it lie? Did it lie again?

1 Like

In all honesty . . . An adjudicator isn’t going to care if it was two, or three, times. There’s not a practical difference and you should have, if it is true, just pointed out that you forgot about the third time until you were questioned. My guess is that this would be pretty common. Sticking to the lie is only going to make matters worse. I have said here, many times, they aren’t looking for people who are perfect, they are looking for people who are honest.

The problem is that the poly is taken seriously.

1 Like

Nope. You disclosed it. Unless someone else says you’ve done more you’ll be fine.

Yes the lie detector lied by saying my truth was a lie. Especially on the counter intelligence part. how could I be lying about that, I have nothing to do with anything like that.

lie detectors are not people, they don’t lie. your responses to counter intel questions showed when faced with a decision to be honest or lie, you failed and more than likely would turn over. take our word, it’s over Johnny, It’s over.

1 Like

I always enjoy it when people argue with advice they don’t agree with.

Just say thank you and move on or don’t bother in the first place.


I’m not argueing about anything… I’m just saying the lie detector was wrong I have nothing to do with any counter intelligence and I spoke my full truth, when she turned the lie detector on but it still said I was lying. Lie detectors have been proven to be inaccurate some of the time that’s just a fact

The idea that a lie detector does not lie is rather absurd. There have been countless counts of serial killers, spies, current security clearance holders, and others who have taken a poly, passed, and then go on to continue killing people, confess to previous things, etc. A polygraph has no scientific basis and is merely mapping your physiological responses to questions. Simply thinking about your puppy being beaten, your wife being mutilated, or etc could spike your BP, heart rate, and or your GRS reading. All of which would be seen as an act of deception.

There’s a reason polygraphs are not admissible in court. They aren’t factually correlated. If there was a lie detector there would be no real reason for court, lawyers, etc.

Lie detectors are EXTREMELY useful for getting confessions. Especially to people who fall victim to the idea of a “lie detector.” It sounds like they were working hard to get you to admit to something that you haven’t already disclosed. Your peaks on a graph, unless examined by many “trained” people and agreed upon as deception, will likely not fail you. It’s very likely that you would be called to give another poly. Also it’s normal to not know the results of a poly immediately.

1 Like

Lie detectors do not lie . . . It’s a machine. It just reports the measurements that it is designed to read. That’s it. The operator COULD lie and they do.

The lie detector portion of a clearance investigation is really nothing more than another interview. Granted, this interview is more adversarial but it’s nothing more than an interrogation to help further verify the veracity of the information provided on the SF86 and any previous interview. That’s all that it is.

In this case, we are talking about a subject who lied initially, corrected that lie with a another lie and only THEN came clean about drug use (drug use so minor that it wouldn’t be a problem if he had told the truth from the start.) Is it a surprise that there is still suspicion about further drug use?

Is it any surprise that the same subject exhibited a poor response to some other questions? The fact that he failed the counter intelligence portion doesn’t mean that anyone thinks that he is a member of a terrorist organization. It means, again, that he exhibited a poor response to one or more questions in that area.

Of course they were working hard to get him to admit to something that he had not disclosed. First, that’s the point of the interview. Second, HE ALREADY ADMITTED SOMETHING THAT HE HAD NOT DISCLOSED.

This stuff isn’t complicated.