Post Reply

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X
Topic Summary - Displaying 25 post(s).
Posted by: John M.
Posted on: Jun 7th, 2021 at 10:35pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
quickfix wrote on Jun 7th, 2021 at 7:29pm:
We have plenty;  but you're not getting one!

Yet another example of the obfuscation that is required to keep the corrupt polygraph industry afloat.
Posted by: John M.
Posted on: Jun 7th, 2021 at 10:25pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
quickfix wrote on Jun 7th, 2021 at 7:28pm:
It's not?

Not by a long shot. Stay tuned.
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Jun 7th, 2021 at 8:21pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
John M. wrote on Jun 6th, 2021 at 10:48pm:
Does anyone have a copy of one of these consent forms?


The U.S. Army uses DA Form 2801 (Polygraph Examination Statement of Consent). The latest version is dated June 2011:

https://armypubs.army.mil/pub/eforms/DR_a/pdf/A2801.pdf

AntiPolygraph.org has earlier published a nearly identical version dated 1 July 1985:

https://antipolygraph.org/documents/a2801.pdf

Neither version informs the subject that the results themselves cannot be used as the basis of any adverse action.
Posted by: quickfix
Posted on: Jun 7th, 2021 at 7:29pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
John M. wrote on Jun 6th, 2021 at 10:48pm:
Does anyone have a copy of one of these consent forms?

We have plenty;  but you're not getting one!
Posted by: quickfix
Posted on: Jun 7th, 2021 at 7:28pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
John M. wrote on Feb 17th, 2020 at 7:58pm:
Just so you all know, the story still isn’t over. In fact, after a long six years, it’s about to get real. Stay tuned.

It's not?  Seems like it is to me!  You were "medically" retired.  You're done.  Finished.  Adios!
Posted by: John M.
Posted on: Jun 6th, 2021 at 10:48pm
  Mark & Quote
I was studying DoDI 5210.91 today, and I noticed that in Enclosure 4, Section 4. CONDUCT OF A POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION. a. Pretest. (1) Obtain consent from the examinee...

Is the examinee informed of their rights when they sign this consent form? If the purpose for the polygraph is for a reinvestigation, is the examinee informed that the polygraph "results" by themselves may not be used to take unfavorable administrative actions against them?

Does anyone have a copy of one of these consent forms?

Also, Section 5. Polygraph Limitations. It states, "The examinee should not be subjected to prolonged interrogation immediately prior to the polygraph."

Why do you suppose that matters? It should say immediately prior - and during - the polygraph. Being called back for a second, third, fourth, and fifth prolonged interrogation and polygraph has the same effect as "immediately prior."

It's called a Significant Response.

#StopPolygraphAbuse


Posted by: John M.
Posted on: Mar 12th, 2021 at 12:28am
  Mark & Quote
I've been sorting through my denied OWCP claim, and have uncovered several interesting documents. For example, on March 5th, 2015, the Department of Labor asks DIA to comment on a series of questions related to my claim. On April 29th, 2015, Brett Stern submits a carefully crafted letter detailing my polygraph examinations. He explained that I underwent three polygraphs in 10 months and four in 15 months, and then declares that two polygraph examinations in a year, as was NOT the case, is not considered excessive by DIA of federal standards.

That's it. That's all they received from DIA concerning my claim, and they denied it based on that letter.

Once again, here's the final ruling:

"Appellant alleged that the employing establishment committed wrongdoing by requiring him to undergo polygraph testing and by altering his work duties and work conditions due to the results of same. Such administrative and personnel matters, although generally related to the employee’s employment, are administrative functions of the employing establishment rather than the regular or specially assigned work duties of the employee and are not covered under FECA. However, the Board has held that, where the evidence establishes error or abuse on the part of the employing establishment in what would otherwise be an administrative matter, coverage will be afforded.

The Board finds that appellant has not established that the employing establishment committed error and abuse by administering polygraph testing to him between 2011 and 2014. Appellant did not present any documents, such as the findings of a complaint or grievance, establishing that the employing establishment committed error or abuse by conducting the polygraph testing. The submission of the medical evidence that appellant asserts the employing establishment had seen prior to the August 5, 2014 polygraph testing would not, in and of itself, be sufficient to show that he should have been exempted from undergoing the testing. Appellant referenced Department of Defense Instruction 5210.91 and parts of Title 32  of the Code of Federal Regulations, which he believed were violated because the employing establishment proceeded with polygraph testing. However, his mere opinion that these provisions were violated would not constitute probative evidence of error or abuse by the employing establishment. Moreover, appellant did not submit evidence supporting his assertion that the frequency of polygraph testing to which he was subjected exceeded any established limit such that the employing establishment committed error or abuse. The Chief of the Credibility Assessment Program of the employing establishment indicated that the administration of two polygraph tests per year was not considered excessive under the relevant standards and the Board notes that the administration of polygraph tests to appellant fell within these standards.

There is no evidence in the record showing that the employing establishment acted abusively or erroneously by removing appellant from his regular duties, reassigning him to new  duties, or adjusting the parameters of his security clearance. Appellant has not submitted evidence showing that management violated any specific rule or regulation by carrying out these actions. He has not established his claims that he was placed in an office for “misfits” where other colleagues refused to interact with him and that he was given little to no work to perform as an improper form of punishment. Appellant has not submitted the findings of any complaint or grievance showing that these administrative/personnel actions constituted error or abuse by the employing establishment.

Thus, appellant has not established a compensable work factor under FECA with respect to his claims that the employing establishment committed error or abuse regarding administrative or personnel matters."

I haven't been able to submit the findings of any complaint or grievance showing that these administrative/personnel actions constituted error or abuse by the employing establishment because I can't get anyone to hold them accountable.

It's such bullshit. They medically retired me for what they did, but won't pay my doctors bills.
Posted by: John M.
Posted on: Sep 21st, 2020 at 7:12pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
The link that I posted above featuring my buddy Steve McIntosh is no longer working. The govtechworks.com link now takes you to fakeidboss.net

In it's place, I'll upload this description of the Insider Threat Program that he wrote in 2014.
Posted by: John M.
Posted on: Apr 25th, 2020 at 8:48pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Does anyone know of a DoD employee that has had unfavorable administrative actions (in include access, employment, assignment, and detail determinations) taken against them based solely on "not successfully completing" the polygraph?

Or, how about a DoD employee that has been allowed to remain in status with no restrictions after "not successfully completing" the polygraph?

If DIA admits to a 22% failure rate (No Opinion/Significant Response,) these two questions would apply to thousands of people.
Posted by: Doug Williams
Posted on: Feb 19th, 2020 at 11:28am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
John M. wrote on Feb 17th, 2020 at 7:58pm:
On this date in 2017, I decided to go public with my story as John M. (guest.) There is no doubt that this thread has helped me to expose corruption in the government’s polygraph industry - as evidenced by the 57,000 views of it.

Just so you all know, the story still isn’t over. In fact, after a long six years, it’s about to get real. Stay tuned.

Sam

Good luck Sam! Go get em tiger!
Posted by: John M.
Posted on: Feb 17th, 2020 at 7:58pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
On this date in 2017, I decided to go public with my story as John M. (guest.) There is no doubt that this thread has helped me to expose corruption in the government’s polygraph industry - as evidenced by the 57,000 views of it.

Just so you all know, the story still isn’t over. In fact, after a long six years, it’s about to get real. Stay tuned.

Sam
Posted by: John M.
Posted on: Jan 9th, 2019 at 9:25pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Check out this video. "How DIA Monitors Employee Behavior – Steve McIntosh".

This is the guy that this whole thread is about. Makes me sick to even listen to him. Notice how he says they have oversight on what the IG is doing?

https://www.govtechworks.com/talking-tech-how-dia-monitors-employee-behavior-ste...

Posted by: John M.
Posted on: Jul 9th, 2018 at 1:06am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
I recently ran across this story on clearancejobs.com - https://news.clearancejobs.com/2017/05/23/new-security-clearance-criteria-releas...

I was astonished to discover SEAD-4, National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. http://ogc.osd.mil/doha/SEAD4_20170608.pdf

This directive, signed by Clapper, took effect on 08 June 2017 and is consistent with existing policy under DODI 5210.91.

Appendix A states; "No adverse action concerning these guidelines may be taken solely on the basis of polygraph examination technical calls in the absence of adjudicatively significant information."

If no one cares to enforce DODI 5210.91, will they enforce SEAD-4?  There are 13 guidelines to consider when adjudicating access to classified information. I note that nowhere is the polygraph mentioned under these guidelines.

You know why? Because the polygraph is a supplement to, not a substitute for other methods of investigation.....

Posted by: John M.
Posted on: May 1st, 2018 at 12:09pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
In January last year, DIA implemented a new policy to require all of its contractors to successfully complete a Counterintelligence Scope Polygraph (CSP) examination.

http://www.dia.mil/Portals/27/Documents/Business/Contractor%20Personnel%20Securi...

If DIA has tens of thousands of contractors worldwide, and they openly admit to a 21% annual failure rate for CSP examinations, it would be expected that thousands of people would be/are being punished.  Is this happening?

#EPPAforall
#stoppolygraphabuse
Posted by: John M.
Posted on: Apr 23rd, 2018 at 5:55pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
I realize now, that not hiring a lawyer was a mistake. One that allowed the government to take advantage of me, and deny my request. This is what I submitted:
Posted by: John M.
Posted on: Apr 23rd, 2018 at 4:45pm
  Mark & Quote
Here's the link to the ECAB decision. They mistakenly determined that the decision to reassign me was not solely based on my inability to pass the polygraph (no one ever said that), that two polygraph tests per year was not considered excessive, and that no standards were violated when they took the unfavorable actions against me.

Through interrogatories, affidavits, testimonies, emails, letters to my Congressman and many other memos, I have the indisputable material proof that the only reason for taking unfavorable administrative actions against me was because of my inability to "pass" the polygraph.

It is a fact that approved and relevant DOD and DIA regulations explicitly direct that individuals with emotional, psychological or other mental disabilities should be exempted from polygraph examinations and interrogations. I presented them with numerous medical reports and they continued with the abusive treatment.

They approved my disability retirement based on these reports, but now I can't get them to pay for my medical bills.

They lie and no one will or can hold them accountable.

https://www.dol.gov/ecab/decisions/2017/May/16-1575.htm

#stoppolygraphabuse
#EPPAforall
Posted by: John M.
Posted on: Apr 20th, 2018 at 4:45pm
  Mark & Quote
I apologize if some of this is repetitive - it is a combination of some of my posts on other threads and simply serves to help further explain my experience.

As we all know, people can “fail” the polygraph for several reasons.  These are called false positives, and happen at a rate of 10-50%, depending on who you ask.  The point is, it is an indisputable fact that there are an infinite number of reasons that can cause ones physiological reactions to mimic what is termed the “lie reaction.”

In my case, I was clinically diagnosed with an anxiety disorder – a disorder that was exacerbated by being forced to undergo five polygraph interrogations in three years. Conducting a polygraph examination on an individual with a psychological disability is illegitimate.  Punishing that individual based solely on those ill-gotten results is obvious discrimination.

My first polygraph session lasted for about three hours, and resulted in a score of “No Opinion”.  Throughout that session, the interrogator/polygrapher would stop the “test”, and say that he was seeing “something”.  He told me that it involved the question related to handling classified information.  He said that he was seeing “signs” that something was bothering me - maybe it didn’t even have anything to do with the question.  Maybe I was gay, or I was cheating on my wife, or maybe I did drugs.  He suggested all kinds of horrible things, and said if I just told him about it, we could get past it and get the test over with. I told him about our office’s sometimes confusing policies on handling classified information - he said that wasn’t it.

I was called back two days later.  I already knew which question was causing me to react excessively, and I couldn’t do anything about it.  This time they were ready for me.  They even used a good guy/bad guy approach, telling me that if I would just confess to whatever it was that was bothering me, we could be finished.  I told him more details of how I was tasked to move, or remove classified media from different classified systems – often not knowing if what I was doing was approved or not.  Once again, he said that wasn’t it, and that I needed to come clean with him.

This is a very important point - once they tell you that you are reacting “deceptively” to a question, it is virtually impossible to not, not react again the next time.  This is the fear reaction that Dr. Richardson knew so much about.  Because of my anxiety disorder, I was overwhelmed with fear.  Fear of failure.  When the failure will result in terrifying consequences, this “fear reaction” is intensified.  Once I was accused, it was impossible for me to suppress that reaction.  This fear reaction is fraudulently being labeled as a lie reaction.  Once again, I was judged as “No Opinion”.

10 months later, I was summoned to HQ DIA for another round of questions and interrogations, followed by more polygraph.  My anxiety was out of control from the moment I was notified of the trip to DC.  Predictably, I “failed” miserably, had a nervous breakdown, and was judged “Significant Response”.

I returned to work and continued as if nothing happened until five months later.  I was summoned once again to appear for more questions and interrogations, followed by more polygraph examinations.  I have no idea how, but this time the examination was judged “No Opinion”.  Again, I returned to work without any restrictions.

Two years and two months later, after recently having been stripped of my clearance and physically removed from my workspace, I was sent again to DC.  I was told that if I could “pass” this time, everything would return to normal and I could go back to work.  If I “failed”, I would be forever banished, labeled a vulnerability to security, and forced to relocate to an unclassified position in DC.  My fear of failing was overwhelming, as my career, my reputation and my life were on the line.  They brought in all their “experts” trying to get me to crack – the problem was, I had nothing to confess – other than what I had already told them.  Well, I “failed” miserably and had another nervous breakdown.  Immediately after the session, I was taken to see two DIA psychologists who talked me down.

Ultimately, I acquired PTSD from the inescapable and unavoidable abuse, and was disabled retired from federal service.  So far, I’ve been unsuccessful in getting the Department of Labor to pay for my medical bills and medications – ironically, because senior officials have lied to investigators and federal judges.  They have also perjured themselves in interrogatories, testimonies and affidavits by saying either they didn’t know of my disabilities, or that no regulations or policies were violated.

It is reprehensible that we permit a policy that condones using the polygraph results by themselves, to rule against, or to penalize anyone.  Especially, when there are approved and relevant regulations that prohibit doing so in the first place.  It is a pernicious form of abuse to impugn ones character, to label them untrustworthy and a vulnerability.  I worked 35 years in the IC without a single security related incident – if they can do this to me, they can do it to anyone.

Now is the time to stop the fraud, waste and abuse known as the polygraph.  Let’s all work together to remove the government’s exemption to use this scientifically unreliable polygraph test to punish, abuse or judge an otherwise innocent individual.

#stoppolygraphabuse
#EPPAforall
Posted by: John M.
Posted on: Apr 9th, 2018 at 4:29pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Here is another memo that is already in the public domain.

It's a letter from the SOCOM Special Security Office advising leadership that they should adhere to established policies and recommends that they restore my access to classified information.
Posted by: John M.
Posted on: Apr 9th, 2018 at 4:24pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
This is the Defense Intelligence Central Adjudication Facility's advisory letter concerning continued access to sensitive compartmented information.

Despite this favorable decision, senior officials from USSOCOM and DIA Office of Security conspired to take unfavorable administrative actions against me.

These officials have maintained throughout this ordeal, that they were unaware of my psychological disabilities. I have a mountain of evidence - in the form of email correspondence and memos - that they were all very much aware

I have been advised that this evidence will be useful in future court proceedings, so I will not be posting it here yet.
Posted by: John M.
Posted on: Feb 11th, 2018 at 10:48pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
This is how they do it.  The lying bastards lie right to their face.

In remembrance for all who have fought against this instrument of tyranny known as the polygraph machine, I have some memos of my own that I will soon be authorizing for release.

Don't worry, they aren't classified. They do however, incriminate several high-level officials of lying under oath and perjuring themselves.  I suspect though, just like the current memos, they'll only serve to embarrass the offenders. (It's not like anyone can hold them accountable or anything.)


Posted by: Aunty Agony
Posted on: Feb 2nd, 2018 at 4:21am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Wandersmann wrote on Jan 31st, 2018 at 3:38am:
I've noticed Quickfix never responds to you because  he knows you would own him.

quickfix does not usually respond to me because I usually attack him ad hominem rather than on the merits of his position. This, in turn, is of course because he rarely takes a position.

The true tragedy of evil in us is the corruption of the good in us. On the occasion when quickfix argues an issue he is quite capable of defending his opinions. Sadly such occasions are rare.
Posted by: John M.
Posted on: Jan 31st, 2018 at 11:33pm
  Mark & Quote
Aunty Agony wrote on Jan 29th, 2018 at 2:52pm:
coming here and crowing about getting away with it

How can this be allowed to happen?

Violating approved and relevant higher command is an abuse of authority.  Why is it that no one will/can hold them accountable?  Attached is DODI 5210.91 and DIAI 5200.002 side by side.  Look at paragraph g on the left, and compare it to 4.22 on the right.  BTW, Encl 4 deals with INITIAL eligibility and allows them to temporarily suspend access, based on a WRITTEN FINDING.  Such temporary suspension may not form the part of any basis for an for an adverse administrative action or adverse personnel action.

It also goes on to say that the individual shall be advised in writing of the determination, that the determination may be appealed to the Head of the relevant DoD Component, and that his or her final determination is conclusive.

I appealed and they blew me off.  Everyone points the finger at each other and they get away with it.  The corruption within the DIA Office of Security is appalling and their deal with the polygraph industry devil is pernicious.

I like what Trey Gowdy said today - comparing politics and law.  It's because of politics that the government is allowed to violate our individual rights.  If rules and laws were enforced, they'd see right through this fraud, waste and abuse.

I remember last year when Wandersmann was pinning his hopes on Mr. Gowdy.  I just hope he didn't take any blood money from the polygraph cabal.

Posted by: Wandersmann
Posted on: Jan 31st, 2018 at 3:42am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Aunty Agony wrote on Jan 29th, 2018 at 2:52pm:
there is no cogent defense against a polygraph-based accusation.


Just like there is no way to respond with a "yes" or "no" to the question, "have you stopped beating your wife?"  These conniving polygraph low-lifes have hit the jackpot with the polygraph.  Only the devil himself could have dreamed something like this up.  Of course there are always plenty of dirtbags willing to sell their souls to make a buck.   
Posted by: Wandersmann
Posted on: Jan 31st, 2018 at 3:38am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Aunty Agony wrote on Jan 29th, 2018 at 2:52pm:
quickfix is well aware that the "lie detector" is a complete fraud that ruins careers and deprives employers of valuable talent. He just likes to get his nut off by coming here and crowing about getting away with it.


Love your posts Aunty!  You are always spot on and more eloquent than I could ever dream of being.  I've noticed Quickfix never responds to you because  he knows you would own him.   Cheesy
Posted by: Aunty Agony
Posted on: Jan 29th, 2018 at 2:52pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Wandersmann wrote on Jan 27th, 2018 at 7:28pm:
Someday [quickfix] and his polygraph colleagues will realize their entire adult life was centered around a complete fraud.

I think he realizes it now. quickfix does not present arguments that the polygraph has ever exposed a spy, criminal, or liar of any stripe. He simply repeats the known fact that there is no cogent defense against a polygraph-based accusation.

quickfix is well aware that the "lie detector" is a complete fraud that ruins careers and deprives employers of valuable talent. He just likes to get his nut off by coming here and crowing about getting away with it.
 
  Top