Thanks for the info George. I briefly read thru the lawsuit, but found that the only complaint against the DEA was in a case where the applicant changed his statement because the examiner gave him a new definition of what an "occurence" would be. Are you aware of any cases of applicants being DQ's where they admit nothing?
FD,
As noted in the
First Amended Complaint (http://www.antipolygraph.org/litigation/zaid/first-amended-complaint.shtml) in Croddy, et al. v. FBI, et al., passing a polygraph "test" is a requirement for employment with DEA. This is cited from the DEA briefing book, which is available on-line at:
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/briefingbook/page86.htm
This document unambiguously states, "...applicants must successfully complete a polygraph examination..."
George, My issue/question is this: The DEA is a much larger organization and hires more people than the USSS. However, there are very few complaints about their poly procedure that I could find. In contrast, there are many complaints about the USSS. The DEA Admin stated: The polygraph examination is utilized as a tool to determine and direct attention to possible problem areas in an applicant's background. However, it is never the sole determining factor in determining the applicant's suitability for employment by DEA.
I'm just wondering if they are backing this up. Frank
FD
I tested with the DEA and they said that I did not pass my polly. They did tell me the same thing that it is merly a tool to see what direction they need to go with their back ground investigation. They did continue on with the process and they did do the back ground investigation. They have sent my file back to Va with a reccomendation of hiring. If they hire me or not is still to be determined. The recruiter does not think they will pick me up with the poly problems but they sent the packet in anway requesting me to be hired. Now its all in the hands of the people back east. Dont know if this helps you or not.
FD,
The Secret Service has made similar suspect claims.
QuoteJim Mackin, a spokesman for the Secret Service, said the agency has found it to be an effective tool. "But it is just one of many screening tools we use in the application process," he said. "It's not the only part of the process that would eliminate anyone."
This quote was from a Washington Post article entitled "Applicants to File Suit Over Polygraph Exams" published on March 15, 2000.
As many who post to this board are aware, Mr. Mackin's statement is at best misleading. The Secret Service may eliminate candidates by means other than polygraphy (written exams, interviews, etc). Still, the agency appears to be the #1 offender for disqualifying applicants based on polygraphs alone.
As an aside, your point about the relative size of individual agencies and the number of complaints against them is a valid one. As you said, the Secret Service is a relatively small agency. Despite this fact, AntiPolygraph.org is contacted the most by victims of the Secret Service pre-employment polygraph--both via message board and private e-mail--(victims of local PD polygraphs as a whole generate most of our e-mail). The FBI, a much larger agency, places second. We hear relatively little from DEA applicants. Nonetheless, there is a good body of evidence (including the behavior that is described in Mark Zaid's lawsuit) that suggests that your quote from the DEA admin may be untrue.
The fact that many victims of the Secret Service polygraph choose to share there stories may truly indicate that the agency has a much greater false-positive rate than other agencies. On the other hand, Secret Service applicants may just be more likely to share their stories because they are indignant as a result of their treatment. A vast majority of the e-mail depicting outrageously abusive examiner behavior (lengthy interrogations, profanity, threatening gestures, etc) comes from these individuals. Therefore, another plausible possibility is that former USSS applicants are less likely to walk away without a fight when compared to those who are told something to the effect of "you failed... Don't let the door hit you in the rear on the way out."
I applied to the DEA and passed my ploly. The tester told me that he thought that my results would hold up. The background check was completed and I made it to the finaly suitably review. I was denied employment because of my drug history. The only illegal drug I have ever gone near is marijuana and it was some minor expermintal use in my teens. I told the DEA about all of this from the first form I filled out. I have sent away for my file under the freedom of information act. We will see.
The only thing I can think of is that when I joined the military, the recuriter asked me if I had ever done drugs. I told him no because a couple of times with marijuana didn't seem a signifigant amount of drugs. I think the DEA used this to disqualify me.
HI I want to know how are the academics at the DEA academy. I am a border Patrol agent and I had a tough time with immigration law. I want to know if the academy is good in training since I am worried about the 80% passing rate.