almost all agencies have color vision requirements that must be met and the test you described is a standardized test that I have also taken, the reason is because of night vision and "starburst" problems that can interfere with working night shift.

You can see a different optomologist at your own expense and go from there if you want to try to apeal the descision.....

good luck..

I have heard of a lot of people  that have appealed it and most were unsucessful (the advice I gave you is what I have heard what they were told by the medical unit) as with appealing your FBI poly results.  More information can be foud on some of the many other LEO websites that deal with other aspects of the hiring process such as this and you will probably get a better response.  As you can see you are hanging out with the shadows here as the point of the site is with Poly's and how unbelievably accurate they are.  Try 911 forums or police.com or delphi forums and look up federal leo jobs vision problems.  You will find that you are not alone with your problem.  Wish I could be more help.

colorman,

I've heard of many people successfully appealing medical DQs, especially with larger departments. The medical (followed closely by the psych) tends to be one of the easiest things to appeal (anecdotally anyway). 

I would go to a civilian doctor and get tested. I would then send them a letter via certified mail informing them that you have been independently tested (and that you passed) and that you wish to be re-tested.

Note that while there is a lot of good info on 911jobforums.com, you need to keep in mind that the site is heavily censored. 911jobforums depends heavily on advertising revenue from police agencies. Thus, posts demeaning to a police agency or hiring process (among other things) are often quickly deleted.

nunyun,

Until this year, the only posts we deleted were those containing nothing more than commercial advertising not related to polygraphy (i.e. people posting ads for electronics stores, cigarettes, etc). Registration was not required.

This year, we were hit with a deluge of posts made by angry polygraphers consisting solely of insults, profanity, personal attacks, etc. These posts, made by unregistered users employing different names, added absolutely nothing to the discussion. They simply attacked others for failing polygraphs (which the facts show are worthless “tests,”), creating this site, etc. 

We decided to deal with this issue by moving such posts to the Discarded Posts Forum. You can see for yourself the type of posts that have been moved.

Unfortunately, while this slowed our problem, it did not stop it. We were still spending a great deal of time cutting and pasting posts. Last month, we took the regrettable step on enabling “force registration” for the board. This requires malicious posters to take the additional step of creating a new account (which requires a unique e-mail address) each time they want to re-register. It has cut down on a lot of our problems.

I am going to try to dig up a bunch of the old stuff re: the censorship issues we dealt with on 911jobforums.com (formerly lawenforcementjob.com). As you know, they quickly rip down any posts exposing the truth and/or trickery behind polygraphy. The reasoning, they facetiously claimed, was that they wanted to avoid “commercial” posts. As their site was a for-profit site then (and it even moreso now), this did not make sense. Moreoever, AntiPolygraph.org is a non-profit site. We don’t even accept donations. It is a money-losing, out-of-pocket operation run by a few victims of polygraphy. I wrote an e-mail to Bob Amaral (the owner of LEjob.com), explaining this, and asking for clarification on the terms of service (specifically, if the criteria is commercial posting, why were posts still being deleted?). I never received the courtesy of a reply.

The fact is that 911jobforums is a commercial site that law enforcement employers pay to advertise on. It appears that any posts that portray the negative side of an employer (no matter how respectfully written and accurate they are) are being deleted. This is deplorable, especially when the site is funded in substantial part by checks from LE employers (essentially tax money).   

Exposing this site is something on my list of priorities when we map out a re-design of AntiPolygraph.org (currently scheduled for late 2005/early 2006). Drew Richardson and I discussed having him respond to threads on polygraphy at 911jobforums.com. Copies of his posts (which I'm sure will be deleted) and links to the 911jobforums threads will be posted on a page at AntiPolygraph.org. This could be very interesting, as Dr. Richardson is uniquely qualified to speak on polygraph matters. It would also be very hard to accuse him of having a commercial interest here.   

nunyun;

I'm pleased to see a LEO on this site recognize poly testing as a gamble.  I don't know how many other LEOs would agree, but it's good to see you here.   More importantly, you took the time to research the polys b4 you tested.

When I initiate my polys to discredit two diff allegations, I didn't bother w/research; I was going to tell the truth, so I didn't NEED to research polys... then failed it...  The second time I didn't research polys because I felt that, maybe the first time I failed the poly, it was just a 'fluke'... then failed it, too...   

Poooor judgement on my part.

Good thing you went in prepared, and didn't allow the possibility of the "chance" testing of a poly affect your career.

It's an ugly animal though: those who pass will agree polys work... and how can you refute an argument like that...