Former CIA officer Brian Jeffrey Raymond, who evidently beat the polygraph during his CIA employment, has again pleaded guilty to federal sex abuse charges. (He had previously withdrawn his guilty plea.)

Fu Ting, Jim Mustian, and Joshua Goodman report for the Associated Press. Excerpt:

Quote:

On October 25, 2021, the FBI confirmed that Brian Jeffrey Raymond was in fact, a CIA officer.

https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/washingtondc/news/press-releases/se...

Troll,

The policy you referred to in DoDI 5210.91 is on page 11, paragraph g. It also goes on to say, "except as provided in sections 6 and 7 of Enclosure 4," which is on page 22.

Section 6 addresses personnel who refuse to take or complete a polygraph examination and are in positions designated as requiring a PSS polygraph examination as part of determining initial eligibility for access, assignment, or detail. In other words, if they refuse to comply, they "may be denied access, assignment, or detail."

Section 7 deals with DoD-affiliated personnel who are unable to resolve all relevant questions. This is what happened to me. According to the regulation, "if, after reviewing the examination results, the requesting agency determines that they raise a significant question relevant to the individual’s eligibility for a security clearance or continued access, the individual shall be given an opportunity to undergo additional examination." It goes on to say that they may initiate a Counter-Intelligence Investigation – which in my case they did – twice. Additionally, it says that the Head of the relevant DoD Component may temporarily suspend and individual’s access to controlled information and deny the individual assignment or detail that is contingent on such access, based upon a written finding that, considering the results of the examination and the extreme sensitivity of the classified information involved, access under the circumstances poses an unacceptable risk to the national security. Such temporary suspension of access may not form the part of any basis for an adverse administrative action or an adverse personnel action. There never was any written finding of any wrongdoing. Both investigations were summarily closed due to lack of any evidence of wrongdoing on my part.

As you've probably already read in my thread, I was interrogated with the polygraph FOUR times from March 2011 to June 2012. As I said before, I was never accused of any wrongdoing, nor was I ever accused of using countermeasures.

I have also spoken to many people in the IC, and no one has ever heard of anyone losing their access, employment, assignment, or detail based solely on their inability to "successfully complete" the polygraph. One close friend of mine has a coworker who's "failed" nine times!

So, in a sense, you are correct that once you’re in, you’re in. No one ever gets punished for failing the polygraph – at least that’s the way it’s supposed to happen. Apparently, they skirt the rules whenever they want to, and no one can, or will, do anything about it. My goal is to expose this type of abuse. I spent 34 years with a TS/SCI working in the Air Force Electronic Security Command, Air Intelligence Agency, US Central Command, US Special Operations Command, and Defense Intelligence Agency. I never had a single security related incident. Not one. If they can do it to me, they can do it to anyone.

Interestingly, during the investigation of my EEOC complaint, DIA provided a list of 12 DIA employees who had been subjected to unfavorable administrative actions solely as a result of their inability to successfully complete the PCA.

Then in discovery for my hearing, I asked for a complete list of DIA employees who had been subjected to unfavorable administrative actions as a result of not being able to successfully complete the PCA. Their answer? “No DIA employee has ever been subjected to adverse administrative actions solely as a result…” They changed the wording. Then they provided a list of 21 other employees who had been subjected to unfavorable administrative actions for seemingly not “passing” the PCA.

The bottom line is that the polygraph requirement is fraught with fraud, abuse, and corruption. If you can’t be punished for “failing” it, why do they make tens of thousands of employees submit to it every year?

Hey John M.  I delete my post after reading your reply.  As you posted here, I was referring to a few official policies and word of mouth.  I did not read your entire thread, just a few posts. From the Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 5210.91 policy, you quoted that the policy states that "No unfavorable administrative action (to include access, employment, assignment, and detail determinations) shall be taken solely on the basis of the results of the polygraph examination."  I could not find that statement in this copy of DODI 5210.91.  I did find a similar quote in an older 1984 versions of a DODD 5210.48 policy, but I'm not sure if that policy is antiquated and has changed or not.

I'm sure you have read this story.  It is similar to yours only "Logan (obvious alias)" was FBI and you were DIA. 

Then there was John Dullahan who was fired from the DIA after failing three polygraphs, similar to your story.

I have spoken to many people in the IC that say once you are in, you are in, unless you do something egregious which is usually a felony conviction.  If you are under suspicion or arrested, you will get your clearance suspended but you still get full pay for unclassified work and you are not fired until you are convicted.  The IC employees that usually "fail" their periodic paragraphs suffer no disciplinary action.  I guess your story and others that make the news are a few of the cases where the employee does get severely penalized.  

Does anyone have any data on how many other IC employees are fired or severely disciplined solely on the basis of deceptive polygraph charts?

troll_of_truth wrote on Jul 28^th, 2021 at 12:14am:


Wanna make a bet?

troll_of_truth wrote on Jul 28^th, 2021 at 12:14am:


Why would they need to learn to beat the polygraph if "failing" it wouldn't result in disciplinary action?

On Friday, 23 July 2021, Brian Jeffrey Raymond, who, as previously reported on the blog, was until last year all but certainly a career CIA intelligence officer, pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual abuse and one count of transportation of obscene material in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. He awaits sentencing and will be required to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

In connection with his plea agreement, Raymond also signed a 9-page Statement of Offense detailing criminal sexual abuse committed over a period dating back to 2006.

Since CIA employees are required to submit to regular polygraph screening, which includes questioning about crime, the question arises, how was Raymond, who was reportedly polygraphed ten times during his career, able to get away with a 14-year sex crime spree?