Onesimus,

The "For Official Use Only" designation governs how the letter is to be handled by government employees. You shouldn't take offense at it. While a third party would not be able to obtain the letter's release under the Freedom of Information Act, you are free to do with it as you please.

While our current message board software does not allow the posting of attachments, if you could scan the letter and e-mail it as a JPEG or GIF file to me at maschke@antipolygraph.org, I'll be happy to convert it to PDF format and post it on-line here. If you'd like any personally identifying information removed, I can do that, too.

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. 

spark wrote on Mar 14^th, 2006 at 7:28am:


Spark,

Your innuendo-laden post provides an excellent example of the kind of "admission inflation" that we warn about at pp. 72-75 of the 4th edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

If we take Onesimus' posts at face value--and I see no reason why not to: after all, he even informed his NSA polygraph interrogators of his posts here--then I think an honest observer familiar with national security law and procedure could only conclude that there is nothing in his background that would preclude him from being granted SCI access. The NSA's decision to deny Onesimus such access appears not only to be arbitrary and capricious, but an act of petty vengeance for his having dared to tell the polygraph emperor, as it were, that he is naked.

George:

Who uses inuendos on this site more than your anti polygraph posters?  You talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!  You are  willing to take the anti poly posts at face value but don't want to appy the same standard to the polygraph posters. I also have news for you.  A polygrapher can not afford the luxury of being as naieve  as you. We always approach our work with open minds and do not make a preconceived decison.We wait until the  exam is over and then we base our decision on our work. You call it petty vengeance but I call it a lack of common sense when someone wants a job and then goes in and antagonizes the people involved in the hiring process.  

spark wrote on Mar 14^th, 2006 at 7:28am:



Another false account of what happened -- does the arrogance of polygraphers know any bound?  Spark decides to insert his verion of the facts despite not being a witness to anything that occurred.  Go back and read NSA's rejection letter without reading my responses.  Even on NSA's own terms Spark's statements are clearly false.

Personally, I consider this rejection to be a compliment.  The security division made no secret that they didn't like me.  My second polygrapher encouraged me to drop out of the clearance process and told me that I would fail my next polygraph exam.  NSA polygraph division's technical director seemed quite happy when I got ready to walk out after his initial 30 minute curse/yell session.  He wanted me to say into the microphone that I was dropping out of the process.  The best they could come up with to reject me with was my lawfuly playing a game on the internet, and my refusal to answer questions we both agreed were inappropriate.

What is the best way to request that they review my clearance decision?  Should I focus narrowly on what little reason they gave for my rejection, or should I broadly list all of the errors/inconsistencies/inappropriate behaviors that occurred during my polygraph examinations?  When I did this during my polygraph examinations, all it served to do was greatly irritate my polygraphers.  Presumably, this is because they are fully aware that much of what they say is nonsensical or contradictory, but simply don't care.  It's all part of the show.

Onesimus,

 You can appeal the denial letter, but since no one
can get hold of the poly charts (no wonder why), one
cannot go after the charts.  I would just stick to the
"facts", if you can call it that.  To get into NSA, years
ago, I had to appeal the decision - I just went through
the letter, sentence by sentence, and had a bunch of
people write me letters of recomendations.  Looking
back, I can laugh now, realizing how ignorant I was
of the whole process and mystified by the almighty NSA.
I think NSA likes those, who grew up in that type of
atmosphere, in submission; the poly is used like a
whipping belt.

The cards are stacked against applicants and NSA
employees; Executive Orders have made sure that NSA
will always have a way out - exempt from the
WhistleBlower Act, polygraph agencies are exempt from
having to accept clearance transfers from other
agencies, any information up for review by Congress
can be classified out-of-reach, and polygraph results
exempt from FOIA. Clearances can be yanked without
question (unlike a DoD clearance, which can be
appealed, mind you, with a lawyer).  If NSA has a
problem with an employee/contractor, they will hook
them up, fail them, or have them fail a psychological 
test.   Unlike NSA, I have never heard of the DoD
yanking clearances without question.  It is a bit
interesting though, NSA is a bit passive-aggressive,
in that they will "get" people, when they change
companies, or leave the Government to go to a
contractor, or vice versa.  So, if one has any issues,
then one has to stay, at least past the next five-year
DoD TS clearance update - but, NSA can schedule one
for a poly anytime, and fail them.

You have nothing to lose by going through the appeals
process.  If you didn't think you were going to pass,
you could have opted out of the processing and saved
getting an actual denial.