Here's the letter:
http://antipolygraph.org/documents/onesimus-letter.pdf In the interest of getting this information out quickly, here are my initial comments, subject to later revision:
I was told by NSA, when I called the number on the rejection letter, that the document should not have been marked “For Official Use Only”, and that I could simply cross out that header. This change was made at their request. Additionally, my name and social security number have been removed from the letter.
letter: John Doe was sponsored for access to the NSA's SCI in August 2005. A records check conducted by the NSA's Contractor Clearances branch revealed John Doe was cleared with another government agency at the SCI level between 2000 and 2003, and was then again cleared at this level by a second government agency in March 2005.
me: I was cleared by a second government agency in 2003, not 2005.
letter: During this exam, and when questioned regarding involvement in crime, John Doe stated he knows he has a concern with the crime question, but refused to cooperate to resolve.
letter: He claimed to have discussed his concern in a prior 2003 interview with another government agency, and made a promise to himself that he would never discuss it again.
letter: He denied being involved in any type of illegal sexual activity and will not discuss this any further with NSA Security.
I believe that I was more than sufficiently candid with NSA. I told all of my polygraphers I had an issue with the crime question because of what the previous agency had done to me. My SF86 form has the contact information for one of the Junior High kid’s parents and NSA is perfectly capable of going to the kids or their parents and asking questions if they do no accept my truthful denial of any wrongdoing, especially considering that one of my polygraphers bragged about the quality of their background investigators. NSA polygraph division’s technical director told me that he had already read the account of what happened to me online. When I mentioned a few of the things the previous agency said to me, he himself stated it was not an appropriate line of questioning. Thus, the only questions I did not answer were those that we mutually agreed were not appropriate to ask.
letter: When questioned regarding what he had discussed during his previous interviews with another government agency, John Doe initially refused to talk about what he told them. He eventually admitted talking about playing Internet checkers with a 13 year old female, but stated it was just fun and no sexual activity was involved.
me: While it is true that I have played checkers online with a 13 year old female on yahoo's website, I never told this to my previous agency, nor did I tell this agency that I had. My polygrapher had asked me to remove the word "serious" from the serious crime question and to tell him anything remotely related to a crime. I did so, and he quickly noted that things like traffic violations and under-age drinking were of no concern to him and told me that he didn't even bother to record anything I said. In order to go above and beyond what was required of me, I told my polygrapher that I would even tell him things that I had no personal problem with, but might be viewed by others as bad. It was in this context that I mentioned checkers. Given it's inclusion on my rejection letter, apparently I was right. My polygrapher asked me if sex was involved and I truthfully answered "no". That was as far as the discussion went on that topic. The fact that I have played checkers online is of no adjudicative significance and none of the government's business, regardless of that person's age, sex, or even bra size. I only gave this information because I was going out of my way to be cooperative. I think it reflects very poorly on them that they have decided to include this information in their rejection letter.
letter: lack of candor... could indicate that the person may not properly safeguard classified information.
me: No reasonable person would think someone who refusal to be sexually harassed by the government a second time is an indication that someone cannot safeguard classified information.
Additional note: The letter makes no mention of how I was cursed at, yelled at, and otherwise harassed during my exams. Eventually, I suppose I will have to take the time to detail all of this.