quickfix wrote on May 3^rd, 2023 at 11:43am:

I take it you missed my post at the top of this page.

John M. wrote on Feb 17^th, 2020 at 7:58pm:

It is now.  As Don Meredith used to say, turn out the lights, the party's over!

And here is the Administrative Judge's final ruling. Ultimately, I filed a timely Request for Reconsideration, which was swiftly rejected.

And here is the Agency's Opposition to my appeal.

Here is the brief in support of my appeal to the EEOC.

UPDATE

As my case sits on the DC District Court docket, I feel the need to share something.

The Agency has repeatedly escaped culpability in my complaints by claiming that they were not aware of my disabilities.

This is a report that was written by a DIA psychologist which describes my condition less than an hour after my 5th and final polygraph interrogation.

Polygraph abuse is real.

quickfix wrote on Jun 7^th, 2021 at 7:29pm:

Yet another example of the obfuscation that is required to keep the corrupt polygraph industry afloat.

quickfix wrote on Jun 7^th, 2021 at 7:28pm:

Not by a long shot. Stay tuned.

John M. wrote on Jun 6^th, 2021 at 10:48pm:


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.

John M. wrote on Jun 6^th, 2021 at 10:48pm:

We have plenty;  but you're not getting one!

John M. wrote on Feb 17^th, 2020 at 7:58pm:

It's not?  Seems like it is to me!  You were "medically" retired.  You're done.  Finished.  Adios!

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

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.

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.

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.

John M. wrote on Feb 17^th, 2020 at 7:58pm:

Good luck Sam! Go get em tiger!

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

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...

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.....

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

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:

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

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

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.

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.