Redrum,

I am sorry to hear of your experience.  Despite what those at ATF have told you, you can be sure that ATF polygraphers are categorizing applicant charts as pass, fail, and inconclusive.  They may, however, use different names for these terms.  Two popular terms in the polygraph community are DI--Deception Indicated (lying, in other words) and NDI--No Deception Indicated (read:  truthful).  Whatever terms they use, however, are meaningless.  The fact is that the polygraph is being used as a "lie detector" and that you were accused of lying.

It's tough to speculate as to why you were offered a re-test.  Most agencies do not have an official policy with regard to re-tests.  Some give certain individuals as many retests as they need until they "pass."  Others simply refuse to answer letters sent to them by those who have failed and request a re-test.  Whether or not a re-test is offered depends on both the agency and the individual.  Even within an agency, actual procedures vary widely (depending on who you are, what skills you have, who you know, etc).

The ATF polygraph requirement is new, so we have no solid information on how this agency does things.  If anything, the fact that they had legal contact you to offer the 2nd polygraph and slipped a new sheet of paper into the forms you had to sign appear to me that the reason they extended you the 2nd "test" is that they wanted to try to cover themselves should you decide to sue.

Quote:

Redrum, none of what is going on with any of these agencies with regard to polygraph "testing" is right.  You may have passed with the highest possible scores, only to be silently (and arbitrarily) accused of employing "countermeasures" (attempting to beat the test.  If you did indeed "pass," it is very likely that someone said "Hey, this guy failed the first polygraph and then had the highest possible passing scores on the second one, so he must have done something to beat the test" (the other alternative would be to admit that polygraphy is an unreliable fraud).  

I strongly suggest filing a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request with the ATF.  Instructions on how to do this are in chapter five of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector .  If you are at all interested in attempting to find out what happened to you (which I can infer that you are from the fact that you posted here), do this now.  If you decide to do it even a year or so later, you may find that your records have been conveniently destroyed.

You also should write your senators and representative, let them know you were falsely accused, and encourage them to support legislation removing governmental exemptions to the 1988 Employee Polygraph Protection Act. 

Lastly, you may wish to write an anonymous story of how you were treated in full detail.  It would go far in letting other potential ATF applicants know what they may face.  Please contact me at scalabrini@antipolygraph.org for more information.

Best

George,

I stand corrected.  I was unaware of the differential vocabulary in criminal and specific tests.

While we are at it, we might as well add the DOE screening program's fourth possible outcome, "not finished."  Unfortunatley, DOE polygraph chief David Renzelman and his charges have yet to explain exactly how this conclusion is reached....