s wrote on Oct 14^th, 2005 at 5:41am:


Tough call. If you don't, it might be interpreted by your current employer as a tacit acknowledgment that the polygraph results were correct, and this could potentially have adverse consequences down the road. Normally, the result of any "re-test" with the FBI is foreordained: the applicant is almost certainly going to fail. The practice of offering re-tests seems to be little more than a bureaucratic charade to create the appearance of fairness while continuing to arbitrarily and capriciously disqualify applicants based on pseudoscience.

However, as a currently serving federal law enforcement officer, you might be shown deference that the typical FBI applicant would not receive. You may have a sporting chance of passing a re-test.

Alternatively, you could decline the re-test at this point and explain that you now understand the polygraph is a sham and have no interest in working for an employer that treats prospective employees so shabbily.

Quote:


You bet your life it will.

Quote:


Again, it's a tough call. To a polygraph-ignorant security clearance adjudicator, two failed attempts will look worse than one. There is a further risk associated with taking a re-test: you could also end up being accused of countermeasure use (whether or not you choose to employ them). 

Quote:


While the pre-employment polygraph failure rate is about 50%, the post-employment polygraph screening failure rate is much lower (in the low single digits, I believe).

Quote:


The available research suggests that mental countermeasures and tongue-biting are about equally effective. I think that mental countermeasures are arguably the hardest to detect. While polygraphers have eyes and might observe an ill-concealed tongue bite, they cannot read minds (even though they pretend otherwise).

Quote:


In research led by Charles Honts, about half of deceptive subjects passed the polygraph after receiving a maximum of 30 minutes of instruction on countermeasures. Of course, the more practice one can get, the better.

But I suggest that you abandon any thought of using countermeasures. Polygraphers from federal agencies that use the polygraph read this message board daily. The FBI polygraph unit will be looking for a federal LEO employed by an agency that doesn't polygraph applying for an analyst position who is coming for a re-test soon. Odds are, there aren't many, and you may be the only one. In addition, they know that people who are initially accused of deception and offered a re-test are likely to have researched polygraphy. If a person coming for a re-test denies having done such research, he/she is probably more likely to be accused of attempted countermeasure use (whether or not he/she actually uses them).

Should you decide to subject yourself to a re-test, I think it would be best to adopt the "complete honesty" approach. Courteously explain to your polygrapher that you've researched polygraphy and understand its scientific shortcomings. You might print out this message thread, provide it to the polygrapher, and explain that although you contemplated using countermeasures, you decided against it. Hopefully, the FBI polygraph unit will not retaliate against you for your candor.

Whatever choice you make, I wish you all the best.

s wrote on Oct 15^th, 2005 at 2:09am:


I would have told them that I had read up on the polygraph, realized how utterly unreliable polygraph screening is, and that I no longer had any interest in working with any organization whose leadership would presume to judge my honesty and integrity on the basis of such pseudoscientific nonsense.

Presumably, you verbally informed the FBI that you were not interested in a second polygraph séance. You may wish to follow up with a certified, return-receipt letter explaining your reasons. Your letter should be added to your FBI HQ file, which is a permanent record, and will ensure that any security clearance adjudicator reviewing your file in the future will see your reasons for declining the "re-test."

Quote:


I probably would have declined the "re-test," too.

Quote:


If it becomes an issue, you can contact Dr. Richardson for a signed copy of his "Opinion and Evaluation of CQT Polygraphy" and also refer your boss to the information available here. FBI polygraphers are accusing some 50% of applicants of deception based on a procedure that the National Academy of Sciences found to be completely invalid. You should not be placed in the position of having to explain why an invalid test produced inaccurate results.

Quote:


The type of retaliation I had in mind is an arbitrary accusation of deception and/or countermeasure use. This has happened to people who have admitted to knowing about polygraph procedure and countermeasures.

Quote:


Thank you for sharing your experience through your questions, and I hope you'll also share what you've learned about polygraphy with your colleagues. The public, and in particular those who may themselves someday face polygraph screening, need to be informed about this voodoo science. See our Get Involved page for some ideas on how you can help.

Polyfool,

I did ask for a retest.  I was a little more fortunate than others.  I found the site before my retest, but not before my first test.   I knew that I had to ask for a retest in order to get one.  The first round of letters I sent went nowhere.  After the second set of letters I got a call in less than a week to schedule my retest.   

To inform them I called the polygrapher and just cancelled.  I told him I was no longer interested.  And, then I took George’s advice and sent them a letter to make sure any background investigator gets that too.  At least they will get my side of the story at the same time the FBI gives their side.  I am going to file under FOIA in a while to make sure the letter is in there and see what they put in my file.

I understand your point about the retest, but I just think that one failure, an offer to retest, and then a voluntary withdrawal of my application might look a bit better then two failures.  I feel like the background investigator may at least have a little doubt about the results of the first poly in the absence of a second polygraph supporting the findings of the first.   Otherwise, it would just be a second nail in the coffin they are trying to put me in.  Who really knows what the answer is.  I guess I will find out.  It seems I was doomed to fail the retest from what I have read here.  Besides, I was completely truthful before, and it got me a failure.  I will say that the polygrapher that called me this time seemed less like a robot than the one who gave me the original poly, so who knows what might have happened.  But, I think that negatives outweighed the (unlikely, but slightly possible) positives.  I hope that these other agencies that will actually go out in the field and get the facts won’t pay much attention to this crazy FBI file.  Besides, it is easy enough to find out that I was telling the truth about these two things by looking into my history.  I was also scared that (as has happened to some others) I might get falsely accused of something else that was couldn’t be proved easily and could really screw a person.

So, knowing what you know now would you have taken the second one or would you have skipped it?  Are you working for the govt. now?  Have there been any repercussions from your failed attempts at passing?  Thanks!

Polyfool,

I wanted to clarify something.  You said “As you know, in order for an applicant to be granted an FBI polygraph retest, he/she must first be interviewed by an agent.”  I am not sure what you mean.  Are you talking about the interview just before you go into the room with the polygrapher, or an interview before you even get the green light to take a retest?

I am curious because I didn’t speak to anyone before I got the call to set up the time/date of the retest.  Just wondering if they changed their policies.

And, if you don’t mind me saying…….keep trying for the federal govt.  There is nothing like it.  I have had good experiences (until this one) with the feds.  Great benefits, lots of variety and even if you change from being say an accountant to being a lawyer, you don’t have to “start over”.  You usually get to keep your grade/pay and move on.  So, don’t let this horrible experience sour you on the federal govt. as a whole.  As you know there are PLENTY of agencies that don’t use the polygraph.

By the way, what did they accuse you of doing?

Good luck to you too!

Polyfool,
It looks like our experiences were different.  Here is how mine went:  Failed first poly, employment offer rescinded, sent round one of appeal letter and heard nothing, sent round two of appeal letter and got a call from the polygrapher in less than a week to schedule the second poly.  Of course, I never did it, I cancelled it via telephone and sent a letter to a bunch of people too.  I had no interview scheduled with an agent before the second poly.  In fact, he tried to get me to come in the day after he called for the second poly.   

The first time: I went in for an interview, passed and was given a conditional offer of employment.  Then, I was scheduled the next day for the poly.  I went in for the security interview and then right into the poly (where the usual pre-test interview, etc. took place).

I wonder what the difference was?

Polyfool,

There was about 5 months between testings.  But, a few of those months were because of me.  I delayed the letters because I wasn’t sure what I wanted to do.  Once I wrote them, it went really quickly!

I did not get the second offer of employment.  The first time I was given the offer right after my group interview.  Then, polygraphed the next day.  The second time I was just set up for a poly.  You are correct about the first time, the polygrapher had maybe 30 min. MAX to look over my security interview before he administered the poly.

By the way, I was going for a non-agent position too.

They falsely accused me of using drugs and an incomplete application.  Even though I have had years of negative employment-related drug testing (I have never done any drug in my life) and a complete federal background for my current position.