DIA's Insider Threat Program

[John M.]

Come on quickfix.  Do you even read what you've cut and pasted?  Reading comprehension must not be one of your strong suits.  Keywords: INITIAL, BASED ON A WRITTEN FINDING.

Please read the ENTIRE regulation again and come to terms with the fact that the results of the polygraph by themselves can not be used to take unfavorable administrative action against an individual who is already been granted a clearance.

This is POLYGRAPH ABUSE!

When the Federal Judges come down with their ruling - and it will come soon - will you believe me then?

Wandersman - see my earlier post about the Code of Federal Regulations and the definition of Unfavorable Administrative Actions.

[quickfix]

I know exactly what it says, as I participated in the creation of the regulation.  You are confusing clearance and access.  A person's CLEARANCE may not be revoked or suspended.  Access is completely different and can be denied or withdrawn.  Every DOD agency follows this guideline.  Access and clearance are NOT the same.  One can have a clearance and not be granted access, which is apparently where you fit.  In addition, initial and continuing access are both covered in 5210.91. I already previously cited the portion of the reg that covers continuing access.  Unless your CLEARANCE has been suspended or revoked, you have no legal argument.  You let us know when you hear from those federal judges.

[John M.]

quickfix, you are part of the problem.  You are either deliberately trying to cover up the truth, or you have trouble with reading comprehension.

What does UNFAVORABLE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION mean to you?

I suggest you read the Code of Federal Regulations - especially definitions.  The regulation doesn't cover anything related to the difference between clearance and access -come on man, you're just making stuff up now. 

Your reference to continuing access was directly in taken from the part where it states who can be subjected to the polygraph - not what you can do with the results.

I have been trying to make this point for over three years now and finally, it's about to be exposed.

How do you know what every DoD organization does?  Maybe everyone outside of DIA follows the regulation.

[John M.]

I have an idea quickfix.  How about discussing this with your OGC.  If you are DIA, start with Brett Stern (202)-231-6094.

Let's see you twist this -

Unfavorable administrative action. Adverse action taken as the result of personnel security determinations and unfavorable personnel security determinations as defined in this part.

Unfavorable personnel security determination.
A denial or revocation of clearance for access to classified information; denial or revocation of access to classified information; denial or revocation of a Special Access authorization (including access to SCI); nonappointment to or nonselection for appointment to a sensitive position; nonappointment to or nonselection for any other position requiring a trustworthiness determination under this part; reassignment to a position of lesser sensitivity or to a nonsensitive position; and nonacceptance for or discharge from the Armed Forces when any of the foregoing actions are based on derogatory information of personnel security significance.

[John M.]

An even better POC in the DAI/OGC is Brent Evitt (703)735-6317.

lawyer up buddy.

[Wandersmann]

Polygraph testing is voluntary, not mandatory.

Are you serious ?  Just like when someone holds a gun to your head and demands your wallet.  If you give the armed robber your wallet under those circumstances, it is also voluntary.

[xenonman]

Polygraph testing is voluntary, not mandatory.

Are you serious ?  Just like when someone holds a gun to your head and demands your wallet.  If you give the armed robber your wallet under those circumstances, it is also voluntary.

Of course it's voluntary; you just kiss the rest of your application processing good-bye!

[quickfix]

lawyer up buddy.

No need.  Unlike you, I passed my poly.

[xenonman]

Access and clearance are NOT the same.

What exactly, in practical terms, is the difference between the two? :-?

[xenonman]

So, for 10 months I sat waiting for my fate - with nothing to do, answering phones and occupying a meaningless position.  They put me in a section they affectionately called "The Misfit Toys".  This is where people go who lose their clearances for things like beating their wife, drunk driving, or drugs.

I suppose that we should be grateful that the DIA at least makes an effort to provide accommodation for its now "useless" employees who've lost clearances.

At the CIA, it would just be "see you later, sucker" !  lol

[quickfix]

For those like John M. who are ignorant of the difference between a clearance and access, here are the differences:

one can have a TS clearance and not have access. A clearance only grants one the eligibility to have access to that level.  Clearance granting is based on a favorable background investigation.

Access is the approval for read-on to special programs, special compartmented information (SCI), or other restricted or protected programs or information.   Certain programs require additional security measures as a condition.  Special Access Programs (SAP), SCI, JWICS, NSA network, CIA access, and other similar programs may require successful completion of a polygraph exam as a condition for that specific access.  Failure to successfully complete a polygraph will result in denial of access, but not loss of the clearance.  As a result, loss of access is not considered "administrative adverse action", as John M. incorrectly believes.  Adverse administrative action means loss of job, loss of clearance when clearance is a condition of employment, loss of pay, or reduction in grade.  Loss of clearance occurs when credible derogatory information exists to justify revocation (loss) of clearance.  A civilian employee who loses access is simply put into another position at the same grade and pay that does not require access.

Which is why John M. has been banging his head against the table for 3 years.  He has no valid argument regarding loss of access after 5 unresolved polygraphs.

[John M.]

Okay, this is getting really old.  Is the regulation that hard to understand?  Possibly, but I doubt it.  If people like quickfix actually believe what he says, DIA's abuse of the polygraph has become institutionalized.

I'll repeat this one more time, the DOD regulation states:

The polygraph is a supplement to, not a substitute for, other methods of screening or investigation.  No unfavorable administrative action (to include access, employment, assignment, and detail determinations) shall be taken solely on the basis of either a refusal to undergo a polygraph examination or an unresolved polygraph examination.

The Code of Federal Regulations Title 32, Part 154, subpart 154 defines an unfavorable administrative action as:

Unfavorable administrative action. Adverse action taken as the result of personnel security determinations and unfavorable personnel security determinations as defined in this part.

Unfavorable personnel security determination. A denial or revocation of clearance for access to classified information; denial or revocation of access to classified information; denial or revocation of a Special Access authorization (including access to SCI); nonappointment to or nonselection for appointment to a sensitive position; nonappointment to or nonselection for any other position requiring a trustworthiness determination under this part; reassignment to a position of lesser sensitivity or to a nonsensitive position; and nonacceptance for or discharge from the Armed Forces when any of the foregoing actions are based on derogatory information of personnel security significance.

Now, what is that bullshit about access and clearance again quickfix?

[xenonman]

If people like quickfix actually believe what he says, DIA's abuse of the polygraph has become institutionalized.

There's doubtlessly a quickfix in all the Offices of Security throughout the IC, the DOD, and the various branches of the Armed Forces. 

With this thread, I'm starting to understand the mentality of these security cadres in the Government.

[Wandersmann]

With this thread, I'm starting to understand the mentality of these security cadres in the Government.

Easy to understand.  Insecure, envious, insignificant people who can feel important by messing with people superior to them in every way through this stupid voodoo that is sanctioned by a corrupt government.  I remember one little miscreant with a high school degree who was getting his jolly's by messing with a PhD.  If it wasn't for the polygraph most of these clowns would be working in a car wash. 

[John M.]

With this thread, I'm starting to understand the mentality of these security cadres in the Government.

Precisely why I started it.  My goal was to expose this insidious and pernicious form of abuse and make it stop.

Major class action lawsuit here - lawyers like Mark Zaid should take notice and seize on this opportunity.

I completely agree with you Wandersmann.