Can prior unsuccessful polygraphs derail new investigation with another agency?

My new employer is about to put me through the process ( NGA , TS with CI poly) and I wonder if prior unsuccessful experiences can derail the new one? About 6 years ago I went through a CIA’s clearance which I totally botched ( I think since the contracting company never got back to me and I don’t have any other info). Now I am about to go through a CI clearance with another agency and wondering if the DOD investigators/adjudicators are going to review the old CIA poly records.

No two cases are the same but some years back I myself had an ‘inconclusive’ poly with CIA (as a contractor) and later got cleared by other agencies which use the polygraph. One of them even mentioned one of the issues that came up during the earlier CIA poly and said ‘we don’t care about that’ (who knows if that was just a head fake or what) so I know they got a copy of the report and read it.

So I can say I know of at least one person who ‘survived.’ I might also add that I was already cleared to work on CIA contracts when that polygraph occurred and I still worked on them afterwards, just never got the staff-like access.

Is there a way I can see the report? I had nothing to hide and never lied, but the investigator skillfully got me talking and I probably blabbered on too much about my childhood and college days.

Yes, a prior unsuccessful polygraph can derail a new investigation with another agency. Federal agencies share adjudicatively significant information, including polygraph outcomes.

In addition, polygraph operators inevitably ask their subjects about any prior polygraphs, and you’ll have little choice but to mention your prior CIA polygraph experience. When you disclose that you didn’t pass, this will tend to prejudice the NGA polygraph operator against you, making a second failure more likely.

I’d be interested in hearing more about your poly process the first time.

I’ve wondered about how that works. What do you mean about blabbering about childhood?

I’ve wondered if their questions are strictly based off of the SF86 and the time restraints in that as well, or if they ask about childhood/teen years as well.

Depends on what they do with that prior unsuccessful poly.

The agency along 123 has a tendency to take an unsuccessful or a poly they don’t want to adjudicate (if they don’t necessarily consider you a risk, just a bad poly that day) and mark it as if you didn’t show. That may anger a few people who don’t know the context, but those who do will understand. They might think you’re not a risk, they just don’t want to adjudicate what they think to be an outlier from a bad day.

The problem with that is it will be unadjudicated, which means you’ll have to start all over from square one. Better than being unclearable, though.

That said, it won’t hurt your chances with another agency unless it’s one that shares info. The one along 123 and the one in Maryland pretty much do whatever they want. Having a successful poly and adjudication with another agency won’t necessarily look good to them, though, and they’ll make you do an initial.

I think that’s what happened to a friend of mine, a contractor… he got called in for a poly, sort of a semi-random periodic event, went in, took it, everything was fine… or so he thought.

Some months later he was slated to work some project, but then his manager pulled him aside and said, you didn’t pass that poly last year, so you can’t work this job. He kept working the job he was on, kept his clearance, never knew there was anything wrong until that happened…

So maybe there is some kind of polygraph limbo… maybe you have hit the nail on the head.

Agree. In limbo right now with an LOJ (while on active duty, not as a contractor) based on “significant responses”, after being in access for 15+ years and 4 prior polygraphs.

I know someone that did happen to, only to be verified later. I had heard urban RUMINT about stuff like that happened, but thought it was just legend.

He had worked for a certain agency along 123 for several years, left for a few, then had the opportunity to return. They wanted him to sit for an poly, since it had been so long since he had. I don’t know the exact details, but apparently it didn’t go well. I don’t think he was accused of necessarily being evasive, but there must have been some weird stuff happening in the interview portion.

He was told by the employer they were just going to leave in unajudicated, but could sit again in the future. They had no other work for him in the meantime.

Fast-forward about five years later, he had the opportunity to work for them again. Looked up his AIN and they wanted him to sit for an initial. The government boss for his gig told him he must have angered someone because there was a mark on his record saying he didn’t show for a scheduled polygraph on a particular day. I mean… he knew he showed… he was there for several hours… and he knew he never received notice to reschedule. He was just told it wasn’t going to be adjudicated.

What was never made clear was whether they took the poly that went awry and just said he never showed or whether they “scheduled” him for a future poly and intentionally failed to tell him to avoid giving him a bad test result.

Either way, it’s a “wink wink” thing internally and most government FSO’s understand that.

What it’s worth, they did agree to clear him, only they treated it as an initial (even though he was active in SC with one of the agencies with which this one shares loose one-way reciprocity) and it took like two years to clean it all up.

Many years ago I worked at a place that did work for almost all the various agencies. The big boss said that there were some customers that were easier to deal with regarding clearances and others that they only dealt with if they absolutely had to.

I think I know who may have been in that second category.

1 Like

My biggest problem is the lack of an answer or any closure. I am totally fine with a negative answer , as long as its definitive.

My first day of poly went fine . The second was a fishing expedition about my childhood , college days and anything at all that i feel i done wrong. I have a feeling the investigator could not get a good reading out of their woodoo machine and kept fishing for things to wash me out.

At that time I was glad that the process was over. What i cant accept is that they ( CIA or the contract firm) didn’t bother to notify me of the adjudication status which is disrespectful and puts me in a limbo with regards to future gov jobs.