Wandersmann wrote on Aug 9^th, 2017 at 12:20am:

So far they have.  I promise you - there will come a day very soon that this abuse will be exposed and those responsible will finally be held accountable.

Here is DIA's official rationale for taking unfavorable administrative actions against me.  The "mitigation strategy" included taking away 1) my access to classified information,  2) my employment and assignment to USSOCOM and 3) forcing me to make a permanent change of station to DC. 

[Complainant] was informed that his “inability to successfully complete the counterintelligencescope
polygraph examination, which is a basic security requirement for all DIA employees,
presents a security vulnerability that must mitigated.” McIntosh pointed out that although
Complainant’s “inability to pass examination does not - on its own – suggest that [he was] a risk
to national security,” his inability to successfully complete the counterintelligence-scope
polygraph examination presented “a vulnerability that must be considered and properly
mitigated’ and that the “mitigation strategy implemented [was] designed to better protect
national security while giving” Complainant the opportunity to eliminate the vulnerability.

Even more disturbing is that DIA has (thus far) been able to get away with this abuse - in direct violation of DOD's authority.

My EEOC case was decided (wrongly) on August 23, 2017, with the honorable William Rodriguez rendering a decision in favor of the Agency.  I'm working on the appeal now.

The Judge wrote, “It is not for the Commission to review and decide whether the criteria required to obtain and maintain a Top Secret Security Clearance could be set aside when an employee is unsuccessful in completing the required criteria.  In essence, the anti-discrimination statutes were not intended to give the Commission the authority to substitute its judgement for that of the Agency.  Complainant is a qualified disabled individual under the Rehabilitation Act in that he could perform the essential functions of an Intelligence Analyst without successfully completing a polygraph, just not at the Agency or Co-Agency when a security clearance like the one he lost is required.” 

Well, they took the clearance that was required because I didn’t “pass” the polygraph.  The judge also fails to acknowledge that DODI 5210.91 prohibits them from taking my clearance in the first place based solely on the polygraph “results”.  Instead, he sides with the abusers and the abuse is allowed to continue.

Due to testimonies from senior officials, and without any corroboration from an independent source, the Judge declared that the Agency had in fact, been in full compliance with DODI 5210.91 and met its burden of providing me reasonable accommodations - by allowing me to keep my job - even though it was 1,000 miles away.

In fact, the judge even misquotes the regulation.  He justifies the actions by incorrectly stating: “An employee who refuses to take or is unable to successfully complete PCA’s may be denied access to the handling of classified information.”  This is especially not true.  In enclosure 4, paragraph 6 (p. 22) the application is for determining initial eligibility for access, not for continuing access.  I was performing in my job - with the clearance - for nearly 14 years.  Section 7 of the same enclosure directs that they may temporarily suspend my access and deny assignment or detail that is contingent on such access, based upon a written finding.  There never was any sort of written finding in my case.  It also goes on to direct that such temporary suspension of access may not form the part of any basis for an adverse administration action or an adverse personnel action.

It is indisputable material fact that the Agency and the Command have violated key elements of DODI 5210.91 as well as my civil rights in this case.  In addition to the obvious disparate treatment, the Agency has defamed my character and denied me due process.  I have previously complained to my supervisory chain-of-command, the USSOCOM OIG, the DIA OIG, the DOD OIG, the IC OIG and even my Congressman and Senators.  All have thus far been unable, or unwilling to condemn those involved, or to stop the abuse.  As a result, I am being denied benefits and compensation for the abusive actions that were taken against me.

I vowed from the beginning to expose this evil abuse to the highest levels possible.  I had no idea it would take so long to reach those levels.

Question - If according to the EPPA it is illegal, and a violation of individual rights to use the polygraph against someone, why in the world does the government have an exemption?

Doug Williams wrote on Sep 30^th, 2017 at 6:24pm:

God Bless you Doug. Your efforts have helped save the lives and careers of countless innocent individuals.  You are indeed a hero and deserving of many more awards.

So, if I get this straight, the EPPA provides certain exemptions. Like for the government - to allow them to "administer" the polygraph machine.  But doesn't the Act also have restrictions on the use of exemptions (Sec. 8, a. and b. 1. d.)?

Why aren't government employees given the same rights as all other citizens?

I complained about the unfavorable administrative actions that were taken against me based solely on the results of the polygraph to my chain of command.  Then, I went to the SOCOM IG.  I told them that the Command had improperly removed me from my duty section, suspended all my accesses, and was involuntarily reassigning me to an unclassified position 1,000 miles away.  He told me that since I was civilian, he couldn't help me.  Instead, I would need to address it with my Agency's OIG.

Attached is my initial complaint to the DIA OIG.

This is the SOCOM reply to an "Action Referral" request from the DOD IG related to my Case #20140723-026622.

They are admitting to violating DOD regulations - and then they turn around and blame it on DIA:

-----Original Message-----

From: //REDACTED//
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 11:11 AM 
To: //REDACTED//
Subject: RE: DoD IG Action Case 20140723-026622-CASE-04 (FOUO)
THANKS
I am unsure of what DOD IG is asking but here goes. USSOCOM has reviewed these documents and believes it is a DIA issue since he is a DIA employee. SOCOM follows DIA guidance when it comes to the polygraph test. If an individual fails it several times, SOCOM suspends their access and moves them out of the secured area. The case is reviewed by DIA's General Counsel and Security Chief for disposition.
Let me know if this answers the questions.
THANKS

During initial hearings in my EEO case, DIA tried to get SOCOM removed from the complaint.  The judge determined rightly that they should not be removed, as they were primarily responsible for initiating the abuse in the first place.

Attached is the DOD IG case summary, which ever so succinctly, exposes the truth behind my allegations.