POLYGRAPH

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP88G01332R000200140013-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 28, 2011
• Sequence Number: 13
• Publication Date: July 16, 1986
• Content Type: MEMO

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/28: CIA-RDP88GO1332R000200140013-1
ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET
SUBJECT: (Optional)
Polygraph
p
K'. " "
Fgrn&A EXTENSION NO. *
Director of Security
i6 JUL 1986
IIIiiiiIIIIi
TO
er.and DATE
building) OFFICER'S COMMENTS (Number each comment to show from whom
RECEIVED FORWARDED INITIALS to whom. Draw a line across column after each comment.)
DDA
7D-24 Headquarters
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
x
13.
rr
II
14
.
15.
Regraded Unclassified when separated
from Classified Attachment(s)
FORM 61 fl USE PREVIOUS
1-79 EDITIONS
CONFIDENTIAL e~ s 6-C 7sllxll
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/28: CIA-RDP88GO1332R000200140013-1
I T1,
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/28: CIA-RDP88G01332R000200140013-1
V V..L ? 1/ LA. . -.-
16 JUL 1986
MEMORANDUM FOR: Special Support Assistant to the DDA
VIA: Deputy Director for Administration
FROM:
Director o Security
SUBJECT: Polygraph
Memo to D/Security via DDA dtd 10 June 86,
subject: Polygraph Part I/Polygraph Part II
1. As you are probably aware, we are currently ingesting
the results of an IG inspection of the polygraph program and we
as well as others are looking carefully at where adjustments
might be appropriate. So your memorandum on this topic is
certainly timely. however, your proposal has some serious fault
lines:
Putting prospective employees through two
separate and distinct polygraph examinations would be
overbearing and would add significantly to the processing
time for successful candidates--those that we care most
about.
0 Part I of your proposed polygraph program is
basically technical lie detection, i.e., a blip equals a
lie and if you lie you die. I find this objectionable
for several reasons. First, using the polygraph as a lie
detector is not valid nor reliable and is therefore
unprofessional. Secondly, professionals in the Agency
would rightly object to submitting their candidates to
such a process. Thirdly, it would be devastating to the
professional image of this Agency.
Implementing a program such as you suggest would
seriously erode the political, public and professional
underpinnings of our current program. The ethics and
professionalism of our polygraph program is extremely
important to us, the Congress and to the public at large;
and it is fragile.
ALL PORTIONS CONFIDLNTIAL
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/28: CIA-RDP88G01332R000200140013-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/28: CIA-RDP88G01332R000200140013-1
%,V LIL 1LLLl\ L iLIL
SUBJECT: Polygraph
D/Sec (16 Jul 86)
Distri ution:
Ori Adse
IY= DDA
1 - D/OP
1 - D/OHS
1 - OS Registry via EO
I - DD/PS; C/CISG; C/PD
1 - D/Security
2
CONFIDENTIAL
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/28: CIA-RDP88G01332R000200140013-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/28: CIA-RDP88GO1332R000200140013-1 --
MEMORANDUM FOR: Director, Office of Security.
VIA: Deputy Director for Administration
FROM:
SUBJECT: -Polygraph Part I/Polygraph Part II
7S9
1. Proposal: To assist the recruitment and applicant processing program
for new hires, I am proposing a major modification to the polygraph program,
which some will argue may lengthen the process, but frankly might actually
save considerable time and money. This proposal will aid considerably in
identifjng immediately those candidates with a high probabilit of washing out
before EOD.
2. Proposal: Two polygraph investigations (Parts I and II) be CONDUCTED
BY TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF POLYGRAPHERS at two distinct stages of the applicant
process. The first polygraph examination (Part I) is given once there is the
firm indication that the applicant is someone we want to hire. Part I is
given by a lie detector operator, i.e. a person trained only in the use of the
instrument to detect gross deception. These operators might independent
contractors or employees of commercial firms under contract with the Agency to
provide this service. To illustrate: when an applicant applies for a job
with a company like Hechingers, he undergoes a lie detector exam which deals
primarily with his integrity in his last job, and perhaps any crime
(misdemeanors/felonies) in his past. The questions are simple; e.g. did you
steal in your last job, do you steal now, have you ever been convicted of a
crime etc. A lie dector operator handles this examination. In my proposal
the Agency should have several (perhaps 12-20) of these lie-dectector
operators, either as employees, IC's, or contracted out, who will not repeat
not be given the sophisticated polygraph training that our permanent OS career
polygrapher cadre receives. Our lie detector examiners would be given
interpersonal skills training to maximize the chances for an agreeable session
between examiners and examinee during the first (and only) "lie dectector"
exam of the applicant (Part I). The operator's task is to ask a few basic
questions, to offer no feedback on the results and to deflect any discussions
with the applicant of the findings of the part I exam. The questioning might
go something like this: a. "Homosexuality is defined as sexual activity
between members of the same sex. Have you had homosexual experiences in your
adult life? When was the most recent homosexual experience?"
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/28: CIA-RDP88GO1332R000200140013-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/28: CIA-RDP88GO1332R000200140013-1
b. "Drugs are defined as marijuana, cocaine, hallucinogens,
amphetamines, uppers-downers etc. for non-medical purposes. Have you used
drugs in the last 5 years?" What has your drug use pattern been over the
past year? When was your last use of drugs?"
c. "Do you have any ongoing relationships with foreigners? Do you
have foreign relatives? Are you discussing national security-related
information with any Americans? With any foreigners? Are you in
coordination with any foreigners in seeking employment with our
organization?"
d. "Have you committed any crimes for which you have been convicted?
Have you committed any crimes for which you have not been convicted?"
3. The above questioning would have as its objective the ability to
screen immediately from the many applicants those considered to be a low
probability for sucessful EOD. Certain admissions or extreme reaction on the
lie detector would disqualify the applicant flat out; no "re-do's", no
repeats no discussions. We many lose some good people unfortunately this way,
but probably not too many. Remember, the lie detector exam does not dig into
the facts behind the examinee's answers. It is simply to elicit admission and
identify gross deception. For those that survive this Part I interview, the
process for employment continues, as presently devised. For those who fail
this Part I test, we thus determine that they have a low probability for
acceptance, and the process stops. We then move along with the search for
high-probability cases.
4. Part II of the polygraph program remains exactly what our polygraph
program is today and comes into play at a time in the processing that is
determined to be best. It is done by the professional, sophisticated
polygraphers that we have "in-house" who will continue to use the
sophisticated techniques presently in place.
5. Historically, the polygraph exam is used to partially determine
applicant suitablity or unsuitability, but now Part I will be done by
"operators" and be done quickly. Applicants can come to Washington or one of
our "operators" can go to locations in the states. What results from this
change is a saving of precious time and funds and will eliminate and reduce,
at least to some degree, our "chasing after the wrong people" only to find
that they bomb out late in the processing because of information we can likely
determine by the unrefined techniques of Part I; the simple lie dectector.
6. I'd be very interested in the reactions your staff has to this idea
when you can.
cc: D/OP
D/OMS
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/28: CIA-RDP88GO1332R000200140013-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/28: CIA-RDP88GO1332R000200140013-1
` - ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SUP
1 ((Nine. ollles symbols room number,
buildim AaenewPost)
Dab
17 July 86
Ate,
Initials
Dots
10-
:
DDA
L
File
Nob and Return
(
For Clearance
Per Conwreation
R nested
For Correction
Prepare
Re*
rculate
For Your Information
Sss Me
"rent
Invests
nature
jP
pordination I
- I Justify
DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposals,
clearances, and similar actions
FROM (Name, orb. symbol, Agency/post)
SO'
OrnONA_I1.,,. FORM 41 (Rev., 7 76)
USGPG 1983 0-381-529 (316) FR?K41 Wq 10 -1
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/28: CIA-RDP88GO1332R000200140013-1