I have at long last received my copy of retired CIA polygraph examiner John Sullivan's book,
Gatekeeper: Memoirs of a CIA Polygraph Examiner (Dulles, Virginia: Potomac Books, 2007), publication of which was delayed as as result of foot-dragging by CIA censors whose
nihil obstat was required. Eager to learn anything more about events leading up to the author's recently filed
lawsuit against the CIA, I began reading at the end. In his epilogue, Sullivan writes how he, who conducted more polygraph examinations than anyone else in the Agency's history, came to fail a CIA polygraph examination to which he submitted after his retirement from the CIA. Sullivan writes (pp. 262-63):
Quote:...In November 2003 I had submitted an application for a contract position with the Agency. My security clearances were due to expire in May 2004, and they would have to be updated in order for me to take the job. To update my clearances, I would have to take a polygraph test.
I had no anxiety about taking a test, but I thought it was strange that I was instructed to go to a site in Northern Virginia and not to the Agency's polygraph facility. When I mentioned this to two of my former supervisors in PD [the CIA's Polygraph Division], both suggested that something was amiss, and one said, "John, they're coming after you for your book."
During the pretest of my polygraph examination, when the examiner previewed the question on removals of classified material, he qualified the question by advising me that OS [the Office of Security] wanted to know if I had removed materials to make money, either to sell classified information to a foreign intelligence service or to write a book. That got my attention.
The test did not go well, and I left the session thinking I would be brought back for more testing within a few days. That didn't happen, and on March 25, 2004, I had a meeting with someone from Clearance Division who, among other things, told me that I was concealing information about my book and that the results of my test were "unresolved reactions to all issues." This is PD speak for deception indicated to all issues. I was surprised, angry, and a little bit frightened.
At a subsequent retirement party in November 2004 that I attended at PD, I saw a former friend and colleague coming toward me. I said hello and stuck out my hand. He turned his back and walked away without saying a word.
Three months later, on February 14, 2005, I was notified that my request for a security clearance had been denied. The comments made by two former colleagues prior to my polygraph test, the way the test was conducted, the interview with the Clearance Division reprenestative, and the incident at the retirement party left me with no doubt that OS/PD had in fact come after me for my book. I immediately appealed the decision.
Appeals of OS security clearance denials are rarely upheld, and I was completely taken by surprise when on June 27, 2005, I was notified that "the security decision to deny me a clearance had been overturned." Any satisfaction I derived from that decision is tempered by my knowledge that between the time I took my polygraph test and the time I had my clearance restored, two job offers were withdrawn, my reputation was damaged, and my chances working as an Agency contractor are slim to none.
Throughout my career I believed in and advocated the Agency's polygraph program. If my last polygraph test is an example of how PD is now doing business, I can no longer advocate the division, and that saddens me....
Well,
of course Mr. Sullivan's last polygraph test is an example of how the CIA's Polygraph Division is doing business! And Mr. Sullivan is far from the only person to have been falsely accused of deception and wrongly denied a security clearance following a failed polygraph. But those without a 31-year history of CIA employment are generally not so successful in appealing such wrongful denials. See the
personal statements of some recent CIA applicants for some recent examples.
