DIA's Insider Threat Program

[John M.]

I realize now, that not hiring a lawyer was a mistake. One that allowed the government to take advantage of me, and deny my request. This is what I submitted:

[John M.]

In January last year, DIA implemented a new policy to require all of its contractors to successfully complete a Counterintelligence Scope Polygraph (CSP) examination.

http://www.dia.mil/Portals/27/Documents/Business/Contractor%20Personnel%20Security/FAQs_for_Policy_Transition_approved.pdf?ver=2016-11-18-112104-333

If DIA has tens of thousands of contractors worldwide, and they openly admit to a 21% annual failure rate for CSP examinations, it would be expected that thousands of people would be/are being punished.  Is this happening?

#EPPAforall
#stoppolygraphabuse

[John M.]

I recently ran across this story on clearancejobs.com - https://news.clearancejobs.com/2017/05/23/new-security-clearance-criteria-released-sead-4/

I was astonished to discover SEAD-4, National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. http://ogc.osd.mil/doha/SEAD4_20170608.pdf

This directive, signed by Clapper, took effect on 08 June 2017 and is consistent with existing policy under DODI 5210.91.

Appendix A states; "No adverse action concerning these guidelines may be taken solely on the basis of polygraph examination technical calls in the absence of adjudicatively significant information."

If no one cares to enforce DODI 5210.91, will they enforce SEAD-4?  There are 13 guidelines to consider when adjudicating access to classified information. I note that nowhere is the polygraph mentioned under these guidelines.

You know why? Because the polygraph is a supplement to, not a substitute for other methods of investigation.....

[John M.]

Check out this video. "How DIA Monitors Employee Behavior – Steve McIntosh".

This is the guy that this whole thread is about. Makes me sick to even listen to him. Notice how he says they have oversight on what the IG is doing?

https://www.govtechworks.com/talking-tech-how-dia-monitors-employee-behavior-steve-mcintosh/

[John M.]

On this date in 2017, I decided to go public with my story as John M. (guest.) There is no doubt that this thread has helped me to expose corruption in the government's polygraph industry - as evidenced by the 57,000 views of it.

Just so you all know, the story still isn't over. In fact, after a long six years, it's about to get real. Stay tuned.

Sam

[Doug Williams]

On this date in 2017, I decided to go public with my story as John M. (guest.) There is no doubt that this thread has helped me to expose corruption in the government's polygraph industry - as evidenced by the 57,000 views of it.

Just so you all know, the story still isn't over. In fact, after a long six years, it's about to get real. Stay tuned.

Sam

Good luck Sam! Go get em tiger!

[John M.]

Does anyone know of a DoD employee that has had unfavorable administrative actions (in include access, employment, assignment, and detail determinations) taken against them based solely on "not successfully completing" the polygraph?

Or, how about a DoD employee that has been allowed to remain in status with no restrictions after "not successfully completing" the polygraph?

If DIA admits to a 22% failure rate (No Opinion/Significant Response,) these two questions would apply to thousands of people.

[John M.]

The link that I posted above featuring my buddy Steve McIntosh is no longer working. The govtechworks.com link now takes you to fakeidboss.net

In it's place, I'll upload this description of the Insider Threat Program that he wrote in 2014.

[John M.]

I've been sorting through my denied OWCP claim, and have uncovered several interesting documents. For example, on March 5th, 2015, the Department of Labor asks DIA to comment on a series of questions related to my claim. On April 29th, 2015, Brett Stern submits a carefully crafted letter detailing my polygraph examinations. He explained that I underwent three polygraphs in 10 months and four in 15 months, and then declares that two polygraph examinations in a year, as was NOT the case, is not considered excessive by DIA of federal standards.

That's it. That's all they received from DIA concerning my claim, and they denied it based on that letter.

Once again, here's the final ruling:

"Appellant alleged that the employing establishment committed wrongdoing by requiring him to undergo polygraph testing and by altering his work duties and work conditions due to the results of same. Such administrative and personnel matters, although generally related to the employee's employment, are administrative functions of the employing establishment rather than the regular or specially assigned work duties of the employee and are not covered under FECA. However, the Board has held that, where the evidence establishes error or abuse on the part of the employing establishment in what would otherwise be an administrative matter, coverage will be afforded.

The Board finds that appellant has not established that the employing establishment committed error and abuse by administering polygraph testing to him between 2011 and 2014. Appellant did not present any documents, such as the findings of a complaint or grievance, establishing that the employing establishment committed error or abuse by conducting the polygraph testing. The submission of the medical evidence that appellant asserts the employing establishment had seen prior to the August 5, 2014 polygraph testing would not, in and of itself, be sufficient to show that he should have been exempted from undergoing the testing. Appellant referenced Department of Defense Instruction 5210.91 and parts of Title 32  of the Code of Federal Regulations, which he believed were violated because the employing establishment proceeded with polygraph testing. However, his mere opinion that these provisions were violated would not constitute probative evidence of error or abuse by the employing establishment. Moreover, appellant did not submit evidence supporting his assertion that the frequency of polygraph testing to which he was subjected exceeded any established limit such that the employing establishment committed error or abuse. The Chief of the Credibility Assessment Program of the employing establishment indicated that the administration of two polygraph tests per year was not considered excessive under the relevant standards and the Board notes that the administration of polygraph tests to appellant fell within these standards.

There is no evidence in the record showing that the employing establishment acted abusively or erroneously by removing appellant from his regular duties, reassigning him to new  duties, or adjusting the parameters of his security clearance. Appellant has not submitted evidence showing that management violated any specific rule or regulation by carrying out these actions. He has not established his claims that he was placed in an office for "misfits" where other colleagues refused to interact with him and that he was given little to no work to perform as an improper form of punishment. Appellant has not submitted the findings of any complaint or grievance showing that these administrative/personnel actions constituted error or abuse by the employing establishment.

Thus, appellant has not established a compensable work factor under FECA with respect to his claims that the employing establishment committed error or abuse regarding administrative or personnel matters."

I haven't been able to submit the findings of any complaint or grievance showing that these administrative/personnel actions constituted error or abuse by the employing establishment because I can't get anyone to hold them accountable.

It's such bullshit. They medically retired me for what they did, but won't pay my doctors bills.

[John M.]

I was studying DoDI 5210.91 today, and I noticed that in Enclosure 4, Section 4. CONDUCT OF A POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION. a. Pretest. (1) Obtain consent from the examinee...

Is the examinee informed of their rights when they sign this consent form? If the purpose for the polygraph is for a reinvestigation, is the examinee informed that the polygraph "results" by themselves may not be used to take unfavorable administrative actions against them?

Does anyone have a copy of one of these consent forms?

Also, Section 5. Polygraph Limitations. It states, "The examinee should not be subjected to prolonged interrogation immediately prior to the polygraph."

Why do you suppose that matters? It should say immediately prior - and during - the polygraph. Being called back for a second, third, fourth, and fifth prolonged interrogation and polygraph has the same effect as "immediately prior."

It's called a Significant Response.

#StopPolygraphAbuse

[quickfix]

Just so you all know, the story still isn't over. In fact, after a long six years, it's about to get real. Stay tuned.

It's not?  Seems like it is to me!  You were "medically" retired.  You're done.  Finished.  Adios!

[quickfix]

Does anyone have a copy of one of these consent forms?

We have plenty;  but you're not getting one!

[George W. Maschke]

Does anyone have a copy of one of these consent forms?

The U.S. Army uses DA Form 2801 (Polygraph Examination Statement of Consent). The latest version is dated June 2011:

https://armypubs.army.mil/pub/eforms/DR_a/pdf/A2801.pdf

AntiPolygraph.org has earlier published a nearly identical version dated 1 July 1985:

https://antipolygraph.org/documents/a2801.pdf

Neither version informs the subject that the results themselves cannot be used as the basis of any adverse action.

[John M.]

It's not?

Not by a long shot. Stay tuned.

[John M.]

We have plenty;  but you're not getting one!

Yet another example of the obfuscation that is required to keep the corrupt polygraph industry afloat.