Secretagent,

check out my previous posting , "fail here, pass there".  I think you will find it interesting. 

Never stop trying.  Anyone who tells you in a post that you are not cut out for LE is really speaking about themselves.  LE has a variety of jobs to fill, from mall security to double top secret special agent.

Get in, do good, move up!!!

Secretagent,

Did the application form for the "sister" department have a section asking you to divuldge whether you have applied to any other police forces?

If it does, or if you are ever asked that question during an interview, you are screwed.  They will get your written permission to contact that department to get your FAILED poly results.  As a means of saving them time and money to polygraph you, they will use your old results and fail you too.

If you are as honest as you say, you will tell every new force you apply to about your first application.  They will contact that force and bam!  Fail.  Sorry but thems the breaks!  Happened to me.

secretagent,

I hope that you learned your lesson from your first polygraph!  Don't withhold any information.  If the LE agency has set a standard as far as past activities (criminal or not), then there is not much else to say is there?  LE and other such agencies have good reason for establishing hiring standards.  It is not enough for you to weep all over them to get in!  If you don't fit the bill quit trying.  Unfortunately there are no real jobs for professional victims; you might be good at that.  Go get'em Batman.

Hello Board. I read all the posts and I appreciate the feedback on both fronts. I have "recovered" from the polygraph but will ALWAYS have a fear of that thing. I did want to let everyone know that I was disqualified from the selection process. I do have some questions. I have applied with the "sister" agency to the one I was just disqualified for. The selection processs is exactly the same, the polygraph questions and the EXAMINER are the same. Is it fair to say, I will not be selected for this agency too?  This isnt the end of the road for me and I know I will have to sit in that chair again in the near future. I know I will probably have to take at least 3 more within the next 2 years. I dont believe in countermeasures cause I have nothing to hide, but I have to pass the next polygraph that comes up. I know I probably wont freak out like I did before. I am a little crushed that the polygraph kept me from joining one of best law enforcement agencies in my state. I still think they should find a better system. Take care all! Thanks

Secretagent

Batman wrote on Feb 8^th, 2003 at 4:44pm:


My Dear Batman:
I have read Steincj's post several times, and frankly, I don't see the sexual bias in his as I see in yours.  I do not intend nor try to slam anyone, and I have no problem with anyone who has a different view of my own.  I have three small children for crying out loud - I am used to living in harmony with people who disagree with me on almost every topic you can imagine.  I appreciate your "shove it" remark.  Glad to see that being a lady evokes such pleasantries from a gentleman.
Quote:


I prefer to think of myself as a pawn as opposed to a slug, but thanks for the kindness, Batman.  If you go back and read my posts a bit slower, and thing about them, I did in fact suggest to secretagent that if his admission was one that disqualified him, then it was something with which he would have to accept and deal with.  I didn't come out to fight his case for him, nor did I say that he was a false positive.  My point was, and continues to be, that what he wrote was classical symptoms of how a rape victim describes his or her (yes, men are raped too) experience.
Quote:

Again, my Dear Bat...read my posts again.  In my posts on the Westerfield polygraph, I do in fact state that the case is good ground for proof of utility issues with the polygraph.  I have never suggested that the toy be taken out of an investigator's tool box for criminal matters.  I have absolutely NO issue with it being used in that manner.

Now, let's talk about this rape thing that had you speaking out of turn.  
During the time that I was the prime age for rape victims, the US DOJ statistics for women being raped was 1 in 4.  Today, as crime has been declining, it stands at 1 in 6.  I think you should be a bit more careful in suggesting to me, a woman, that I have no authority nor knowledge about rape that would allow me to use that phrase.  And, thank you, but no, I did not coin the phrase.  It was actually a most profound and accurate description of a polygraph exam by a federal agent pal of mine.
You think that skull f--king isn't tantamount to mental rape?  My goodness, Batman.  Work with me here for a minute.  If an act is consensual, it is not rape.  Right?  If it is not consensual, it is rape.  Right?  If you don't agree on these basic principles, then the rest of my arguement will be useless.
If I sign a paper before going out with a guy that says that we will have consensual intimacy, but then in the process of the date I decide that it is not in my best interest to be intimate, or let's say that he decided that my idea of consensual gave him a free pass to hurt me, to abuse me, to degrade me, would you fight for his side and say that since I signed an agreement (even though in my mind I agreed to a romantic evening with compassionate and gentle intimacy), I deserved what I got?  If that is the case, then would you think that no matter how I fought, screamed, and begged, that I was still under that signed release and that I just have to take what is dished out to me?
How can you tell me that skull f--king is NOT the equivalent to mental rape?  When someone goes into a polygraph exam, especially in screening exams, they do not go into it with the full knowledge of what is about to happen to them.  They think that they are merely going through another paper drill, and that it will be quick and painless.  I am more than willing to admit that this can and very much is the case in a lot of pre-screening exams.  However, I have heard (from federal agents with whom I would never attempt to question their veracity) some pretty horrid tales of polygraph exams.  I have heard of them not being allowed by the examiner to go to the bathroom before the exam (and the guy REALLY had to go bad), face-to-face screaming matches that had to be broke up once they became physical, and arbitrary accusations of criminal acts.  These agents left the polygraph exam room with the feeling that they had been manipulated, abused, harassed, and unnecessarily put through harsh and inhumane situations.  It fell way short of their expectations and anticipations about a polygraph exam.

In the interest of time and space, I haven't gone into the depths of proving my point in hopes that you can see it if you sit back and think about it.  

Again, it is the validity of the polygraph that I do not accept.  The utility is another subject all together.  If using any prop or toy brings about the conclusion (in a fair way) of a crime, then I would never argue to discontinue its use.  I am willing to accept its use ONLY as it pertains to criminal investigations.

Regards,
Seeker

triple x wrote on Feb 9^th, 2003 at 8:01am:


X,
Thanks, but I didn't ask the Army for my TS back.  The Army is ordering me to resubmit.

I figure the Army wants all its ducks in a row in case of a full recall.  I'd be a liability to the Army if called back and didn't have my TS.

Of course, I'm interested to see how this failed polygraph will come into play.  And I want every pro-polygraph person on this site to try and stop me from regaining my TS.  I want them to see first hand how little weight their pathetic accusations hold.

Of course, this will be a very long ordeal.

For those who have seen my posts regarding clearances, you'll know that this is an interesting issue for me.  Recently I said that I didn't pursue a TS PR while on active duty for reasons of fiscal responsibility.  IRR soldiers may have been required to maintain full readiness, but it was never enforced.  I guess world situations dictate otherwise nowadays.   

I'll be sure to keep everyone posted, including the FBI, who I will inform shortly about this little "issue."

Chris

steincj,

Congratulations on the recent request for reinstatement of your TS. 

With regard to DoD DSS/OPM security clearance background investigations, the following may be of interest:

It's important to note that DSS does not make any security clearance determinations or recommendations. DSS simply gathers information. Once the information has been verified, and the investigations completed, DSS presents the information to the specific military service's adjudicator authority (each military service has their own), who determine whether or not to grant the security clearance, using standards set by that particular military service.

It's impossible to say if any particular thing will result in denial of a security clearance. The adjudicators use the Adjudicator Guidelines to determine whether or not the individual can be trusted with our nation's secrets. Primarily, adjudicators look for honesty, trustworthiness, character, loyalty, financial responsibility, and reliability. On cases that contain significant derogatory information warranting additional action, the adjudicator may draft a request for additional investigation/information, or request psychiatric or alcohol and drug evaluation. Even so, adjudicators are not the final authority. All denials of clearances must be personally reviewed by a branch chief, or higher. 

Because of a recent change in the law, there are some factors which will positively result in the denial of a clearance. As a result of the Smith Amendment, the FY01 Defense Authorization Act amended Chapter 49 of Title 10, United States Code, and precluded the initial granting or renewal of a security clearance by (DoD) under the following four specific circumstances:

(1) An individual has been convicted in any court of the U.S. of a crime and sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. 

(2) An individual is (currently) an unlawful user of, or is addicted to, a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 or the Controlled Substances Act (21U.S.C. 802)) 

(3) An individual is mentally incompetent, as determined by a mental health professional approved by the DoD

(4) An individual has been discharged or dismissed from the armed forces under dishonorable conditions. 

The statute also provides that the Secretary of Defense and the secretary of the military department concerned may authorize an exception to the provisions concerning convictions, dismissals and discharges from the armed force in meritorious cases. 


Respectfully,
triple_x

Batman,
Thanks for replying to all of our posts.  Without your comments, everything was just getting too intellectual.   
Batman wrote on Feb 8^th, 2003 at 12:28am:

Your words, not mine . . . 
Quote:

You mean you actually put down your DoDPI polygrapher's handbook?  Judging by your posts, I think you forgot to pull your head out of your ass long enough to see what was in the dictionary.
Quote:

Let's leave Torpedo out of this, shall we?
Quote:

Have you ever put yourself in my shoes?  Or anyone else who was a false positive?  Before you say anything - there really is such a thing as a false positive.  Can you understand how unbelievably painful it must be?  Not only is the career you were seeking taken away from you, but also your dignity, trustworthiness, and everythihg you have ever worked for -- all voided by a simple test result.  If you had this happen to you, maybe you might cry foul.  But you are too tough for that, right Batman?  A real man you just chalk it up as a loss and move on, right?  Wrong.  I'm fighting for my dignity.  Mock me all you want, but I'm not letting that machine ruin me.
Quote:

You're right Batman, this claim might be BS.  None of us have enough information on the situation to determine the truth.  That being said, how can you instantly determine that he is lying?  Could it be that his "crime," even though it might not have broken any law, was traumatic enough to effect him on his test?  And if he was never asked any specific question regarding this incident, yet revealed it during the polygraph as an effort to clear his conscience, can he really be considered "deceptive"?  If you never ask him about it, how can he be punished for not revealing it?
Quote:

First off, your content is what makes you lose credibility.  As I search for some sort of ratioanle while reading your posts, I am interrupted by the spelling alarm that goes off in my head.  I get distracted from trying to find the point in your writing, and your credibility is further diminished.   

And by the way, it's grammar.

Chris 

Batman wrote on Feb 8^th, 2003 at 4:44pm:


Batman,
I hope you have some vacation time coming up.  As tightly wound as you seem to be, I really think you need a break.

Your friend,
Skeptic  

My Dear Seeker (and you too Septic),

I was replying to the following comment by Steinjc, 

"And what is it with you polygraphers not being able to determine gender?  You're "supposed" to be able to detect when some one is telling the truth or lying, but you can't even tell if they can pee standing up!  Your buddy The Breeze called me a 'gal' once, so I put that little gender symbol next to my screen name, just like Seeker has.  Those symbols may be confusing for a man of your intellect, but really, come on.  They're color coded, for Pete's sake!!!"

Now, why didn't you jump on his case for his obvious bias?  Who are you trying to kid?  The only reason you tried to slam me is because I am a polygraph examiner, and my point of view on the topic is different from yours and other jerks like Septic.  You two can take your "blatant bias" crap and shove it!

It's utterly amazing how when someone comments on an asinine post such as secretagent's you slugs all come crawling out of the wood work, not to refute what I said, but to play some lame "blatant bias" card.  Nice try, but a lame attempt to change the topic, and shift blame.  The bottom line is secreagent got caught LYING and now wants to lay blame on the doorstep of the polygraph examiner.  All I'm asking is that on occasion you twits admit that some of the posts with these claims are in fact bullshit.

You want to talk about bias, you're all so damn bias in your way of thinking about polygraph you can't, or won't acknowledge that it works under any circumstances.  Any time there is any level of success related to the utilization of polygraph it's simply played off as taking advantage of some poor stupid nitwit, or a mental raping (Oh, I believe you coined that phrase Seeker.  How do you think any woman who has suffered as a victim of rape would feel about your use of the word under these circumstances?  Seems a little insensitive on your part.  Don't you agree Septic?).  In our business we try to be a little more caring for the feelings of others.  We simply call is a "Skull F--king".

Hey Chris, how do you like that grammar?

Batman

Skeptic wrote on Feb 8^th, 2003 at 4:27am:


I am one woman who wouldn't desire to submit to a polygraph by someone with such blatant bias.   

Batman -
Shame on you.  I am willing to chance it (like a polygraph ) that your intentions may not have been exactly as they came across in your post.  I would hope not seeing as how you are, I believe, representing law enforcement in the USA.   

Tsk, tsk, tsk.  And I had come to expect better out of you, Caped Crusader.   

Best,
Seeker

Batman wrote on Feb 8^th, 2003 at 12:28am:


Oh, that's good.  Any women in the reading audience want to take a subjective polygraph from an idiot who thinks like this?

Skeptic

Where do I start,

How about Steincj:  Jeese, I'm sorry I'm such a doofus for using "lieing" instead of "lying".  I guess that just makes me about the dumbest SOB on God's green earth.  I will try harder in the future, however on that one rare ocassion I opened the dictionary, I didn't see your picture next to the word "perfect".  Now when I looked up "jackass"....  You know, some folks probably think you are a "gal" because of all your crying about how your got screwed by the FBI.  Maybe if you would simply dry your tears and start acting like you stand when you piss then folks wouldn't think your a woman!   

Marty: I think I asked, "...why can't you simply look at some of these posts and acknowledge that not all these folks are innocent victims?"  This was more of a general question put to you and the others, based more on the tone of previous postings.  Even though you acknowledged, with some qualifications, that scretagent did not appear to be a vicitm of polygraph, I interpreted the general tone of your post to be that he was still vitimized to some extent.   Sorry if I misinterpreted your post, I guess when you stated, "While the "mental rape" component I am sympathetic to"..." kind of threw me.

Two Block: This is in response to a different thread.  I guess you asked me some questions that I have, to date, failed to answer.  Sorry, but on ocassion I do not have access to the internet for extended periods of time so I must have missed your questions.  If you don't mind, would you please post them again, and I will try my best to answer.  Of course that is if I can pluck out a reponse with these chicken wings of mine.

DISCLAIMER: I am just a poor old dumb ass so please excuse any misspellings, or improper use of grammer, and do not let it reflect negatively upon my credibility.

Batman   

Dear Seeker,

Before I start the following discussion I want to make very clear that I find the "validity" of polygraph usage in the FBI prescreening to be a waste of time and money unless a thorough investigation is done and a very specific incident can be identified.  Even with this, the percentage outcome has not scientifically been proven and a margin of error cannot be defined.  The utility of the polygraph is the main reason it still exist.

The Director of the FBI has requested an additional 13 positions specifically for polygraph for the fiscal year 2003 due to the anticipated increase in examinations (source can be verified on the FBI website under press releases, Congressional Statements).  Someone at a high level is still defending this primative device and I can hear their sly justification, "There is nothing better or more cost effective."  Emphasis on cost effective.  Anyone who has read the complete NAS report knows that this is a very good spin on stretching the truth.  

Many people on this site have attacked "The Breeze"'s posting but he has been very astute in this area.  The FBI believes it saves money and footwork on "believing the polygraph".  Since all successful employees and special agents successfully pass their exams, they have no reason to question or doubt the validity and endorse its usefulness and effectiveness.  It allows the "good-ole-boys club" to selectively enhance the probability of finding a candidate with attributes that the current leadership wants to perpetuate without violating hiring laws.  The refusal to videotape the examination, use tamper resistant time/date techniques (via computer recording), and not allowing the applicant to sign all copies of any current strips used would be ample ammunition for any expert attorney to question the chain of custody and validity of results due to possible tampering.  Any long time examiner will admit that through unethical behavior they could skew the results of any polygraph experience.  The videotape is key to objectively witnessing unethical behavior.  The videotape can protect the polygraph examiners against false accusations and I can find no good ethical examiner who would have a problem with showing his/her exam to an objective person and defending  their actions.  The only outcome of this logic is that examiners who do not use videotape are not proud of their technique or procedure and fear review of such actions.

Seeker, you are trying to be logical with a system which is not founded on logic.  No matter how you discuss it, it cannot make sense to a reasonable person.  I would not trust my life on information provided to me by an informant (volunteer or otherwise) strictly based on polygraph.  The polygraph is just another prop to intensify an interrogation. The polygraph just gives a warm and fuzzy feeling without spending any real money on footwork. A good interrogator does not need a polygraph except as a "fear inducing tool."  The utility of confessions is in direct proportion to the fear that the examiner can instill in the examinee that the polygraph works.

My first few postings vented my anger that the polygraph is given so much weight in the vetting process of an FBI application without any other source of information.  This is nothing short of allowing the examiner to be the "gate keeper" of the organization.  By carefully controlling who is allowed to be an examiner, a supervisor can ensure his opinions will be perpetuated in spirit (similar to the sway the President can have on Supreme Court Justices by picking nominees who agree with his personal values).

Polygraphing an unjammed source serves no useful purpose if one knows all the answers anyway from other sources.  If one does not have any other sources, I would be very remiss about just using a polygraph for verification if my life depended on it.

Regards.

Quote:

Fair Chance:
Thanks for your response. To be specific, let us discuss the use of the polygraph with unjammed sources.   
The practice is widely used within the FBI, and only in extreme circumstances within other agencies.   
I suggest that the mere suggestion of submission to a polygraph to these types of individuals who volunteer their time and efforts, place themselves in harm's way, and operate without the advantage of a badge and gun should never be subject to a polygraph examination.  I find it utterly insane.  Information can be verified, and that is the very reason LE has their CI's prove their credibility prior to using them or increasing their status within the agency.
I am further outraged that the polygraph is used in these situations to delegate valuable time, engery, and resources often to the chagrin of the agency.  (case in point was the release of the media frency about 5 wanted Arab men because someone was deceptive and still passed the poly)  Or, on the other hand, they ignore valid information due to a DI, or Inconclusive reading, only to find that they wear the egg cart on their faces afterwards.
I am not, nor have I ever had a desire to be in law enforcement.  I have had a lot of contact with them, and I have been available to them on numerous occassions.  It seems to me that they are very capable of determining the validity of information or the veracity of a source without such asinine practices of hooking them up to the box.
This goes back to an interrogation.  Should a RI or CI be subjected to an hard grilling interrogation?  I assert that a good investigator can determine through genuine field work if the source is reliable, and if so, action should be taken on all information presented.  If, on the other hand, it should be found out that a source should proves to be sending LE on a wild goose chase, there are laws out there that can be applied to this situation and charges can be filed.   
In the end, I contend that sources are too valuable to discard over such lunacy as the polygraph.
This is just one such example that I question about.
Regards,
Seeker

Seeker wrote on Feb 4^th, 2003 at 12:30pm:


I think we are actually closer than would appear. I also agree poly interrogations create stress even with true DI's. I don't think it is caused by dissonance so much as shame/fear. Dissonance based stress is a different animal and has to be reconciled somehow, and probably drives more people to this site post poly than any other factor. I suspect people who are true positives on a DI [usually] don't come here at all. [The secretagent type of post is rare here compared to it's frequency in poly exams.]

[added]

-Marty

Seeker wrote on Feb 4^th, 2003 at 12:41pm:

Dear Seeker,

I would only sit through another polygraph of any kind only if absolutely necessary (my favorite comparison is that of getting a root canal, it might be necessary but I still would prefer for it to not happen).  The jobs that would require (and get away with this) are mostly governmental ones since the polygraph is not legal for pre-employment screening in the private sector.  At this point in time, most government jobs are at the discretion of the government and if you want the job, you do have to jump through the hoops (yes, sometimes it is a "circus" environment!).

I do not agree with the polygraph used in probation because it is subject to misinterpretation (by chance, poor operators, and countermeasures).

If accused of wrongdoing, I would not subject myself to one in any private sector application.

As a normal person, I do not like anyone yelling, screaming, cursing, or abusing me if I have any choice in the matter.  I stay away from people who do these things on my time.  I do not think this is a good way to get answers because most people just become defensive and shut-down any communications.  The more intellegent and strongwilled the person, the less they will communcate.

If you would give me specific examples of how and what the interrogation is about than I would hopefully be more specific in my answer.

A "one size fits all approach" is definitely not the way to get answers, information, or confessions.  The interrogator must match his/her style to the mindset of the subject (this can be more civil and much more productive as any mother of two or more children learns very quickly!).

Regards.

Fair Chance:
Yes, in fact I agree that any law enforcement officer as well as any person with access to classified information should very well be able to handle stress, including hard grilling as is typical in a lot of polygraph exams.
Your point about someone having some ghost that could open them up to blackmail is very sound and valid.  I appreciate that.   
All of that having been said, I have a question based on what you stated:
Quote:

What if the person sitting for the polygraph is NOT law enforcement, or seeking a LE job?  Let us also presume that it would not be a criminal investigative matter.  Would you contend the same in such a situation?

Regards,
Seeker

Marty:
I appreciate your response, and you raise valid points.  I have only found real issue with one particular thing you said.  
Marty wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2003 at 1:41am:

I suggest that interrogations and confessions do in fact create dissonance and distress for the majority of people - false positive, inconclusive, and DI.  I believe it is the very nature of the beast.  
I contend that I would have less issue with the results of an interrogation regardless of the result - admission, confession, or adamant denial.  At least with interrogations, you do not manipulate your authority as a law enforcement officer by pretending to be capable of determining truth or deception by the use of a toy. A subject would enter into an interrogation full aware of the latitude that could be covered.  With the polygraph, such is not the case.  
I believe it is the realization that what was to be, in the minds of most, a simple paper drill that somehow turns into a horrific interrogation experience to be the most difficult thing to swallow.  
Question:
Why was it when I agreed to submit to an interrogation without the benefit of my attorney present in lieu of the polygraph, it was declined?  
My thinking:  
The circus act that polygraph examiners are trained to go through would not have been in place.  It is their set-up, their dance, that they believe causes the mental manipulation needed to get someone into the right mindset to allow them to then extract what they are seeking.  

Regards,
Seeker

Marty wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2003 at 1:32pm:


Good points by George and Marty.  We do not know the fate of secretagent, we have all made assumptions. 

What we do know is that secretagent made some sort of admission.  My concern is that if he was DQ'd for this admission, was he truly given the opportunity to disclose this information prior to the polygraph??

Let's say applicant X (no relation to x_X_x), when he was in high school, cheated on his all important SAT and was never caught.  It's not really a crime, per se, but something that might eat away at applicant X for the rest of his life.

Under the mental duress of the polygraph, believing that it can truly read your mind, applicant X might spill that he cheated on his SAT.  And the unforgiving polygrapher DQ's him, and then blames applicant X for not revealing this information when he had the chance.  What application gave this applicant the chance to disclose this action?

If the question is never asked, then the applicant believes that the action isn't relevant.  So an admission to the like during the polygraph must be the only solution, in the mind of the unknowing applicant, to get the machine to read correctly.  

How then can applicant X be DQ'd when he was never given the chance to reveal said information??

Batman wrote:
Quote:


Batman, I ask again, what if secretagent was never asked a question relevant to his "crime"??  How can you assume he gambled?  He could only gamble if he knew the DQ criteria.

Chris

Quote:


Well, it appears he passed in that issues that came up in the polygraph were resolved so there would be a NDI. However, he may in fact not have been disqualified by the specific admission - though it is unlikely. The key point here is that the examiner was not asking for more information, a normal process when the examiner does not yet have a DQ'ing admission. It's somewhat possible that the examiner may be uncertain on the law. That would certainly explain the examiners final comments.

So yes, I shouldn't have stated unequivocally that he was DQ'ed. However, I don't consider him a victim in the usual sense of being a false positive or giving a bogus confession - the concerns NAS's had.

-Marty

Marty,

You wrote:

Quote:


At this point, we don't know whether SecretAgent "passed" or not. Nor is it clear whether SecretAgent's admission -- which was evidently regarding a matter highly embarrassing/humiliating to him/her -- was in fact a disqualifying factor, or whether it was responsive to any of the relevant questions in the polygraph interrogation.

Torpedo wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2003 at 5:41am:

Torpedo,

I thought we talked about thinking before we typed, right?  When will you learn this valuable tool?

Let's go back to our younger school days (although I'm sure you don't believe anything you learned except for what was taught at DoDPI).  There is spelling and then there is grammar.  Everyone makes typos (that stands for typographical error).  Hell, I even got myself a new keyboard and now I'm fat-fingering the keys.  I'll try not to pick on people for typos.  But then there's grammar.  And grammatical errors are inexcusable.  Using "your" instead of "you're," "no" instead of "know," or even "lieing" (not even a word) instead of "lying."  Poor grammar makes an individual appear uneducated.  Deal with it.

Quote:


I won't attack anyone for spelling anymore (message received, Skeptic), but I'll have everyone know that you will inherently lose credibility with me by use of poor grammar.

And, Torpedo, last time I checked, grammar wasn't a part of the FBI polygraph, it was part of Phase II, which I passed.  It's a good thing it wasn't part of the poly, because if your mastery of the English language was the knowledge base used to grade applicant grammar, the fail rate would be 100%.

And we're back to my clearance again.  I did not lose my TS/SCI.  I never submitted an EPSQ for a TS/PR becasue I knew I would be leaving the service 3 months before expiration.  I asked my applicant coordiantor with the FBI if I should get a PR, and she told me that the DoJ does their own TS investigation, independant of the DoD.  So in an effort of fiscal responsibility, I opted to not order a PR on myself.  

And Torpedo, you continue to blast ME about clearances, while you fail to respond to my challenge to you.  Belly up and take my challenge from this post:Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge « Reply #77 on: 01/30/03 at 22:56:34 »:  Ohterwise, for you credibility, keep quiet.

Chris

My, how this thread has degenerated.

In general, guys, I'm not a big fan of "spelling and grammar" flames.  They add nothing to arguments, and almost always, the flamer is living in a glass house.  And yes, Torpedo, that includes you, too -- though I must say, I have yet to see you add anything of value to any thread, regardless.

I think attempting to deduce the whole story from most of our one- or two-paragraph horror story posts is nearly always a case of "going off half-cocked".  Generally speaking, there's no way to derive "Secret Agent"'s indiscretion based upon what he's written, nor whether he's deserving of ridicule or praise.  Unfortunately, unfounded, baseless assumption regarding those who post their stories here seems to be all too common among a couple of current posters who shall remain nameless (they know who they are).  

I respectfully suggest that we keep our commentary confined to the polygraph itself in such cases, considering the lack of certainty regarding anything else.

Skeptic

See Captain Chris...this is how it is done...you realize a mistake...and you come back and correct it....it is easy..I misspelled "where"...incorrectly spelling it "wherte" and when I was attempting (that means trying, Captain Chris) to underline an error you made, I erred and the result was a code "" rather than the underlining I wanted. I repeated this error when I was attempting to underline your misspelled word "applicnts" rather than "applicants".  Also, when apparently stuttered and said "an an" when a single "an" would have been sufficient. It was a good thing that I went back and checked for MY errors...because I found yet another one of yours. The correct spelling/punctuation of the contraction for "was not" is "wasn't", not "was'nt.  Next time you wish to have credibility with any of my fellow crime fighters....check your language skills!