, From : Maietta, Frank S [ma ilto:Frank.Maietta2@dodii s. mil] Sent: Wednesday, July 11,2012 5:51 PM To: Pick, M ichael W.; Liard, Scott (GOY); Frederi ck, Ca lvi n (GOY) Cc: Moran, Mi chael G. ; Light, Gary CIY NCCA DIAID2X 7-C; Norri s, Will iam F. Subject: FW: NRO Press Artic le Sir, Please see the attached from Mr. Sulli van, US D (I) regarding the recent press art icl es about the N RO polygraph program. Addit ionally. I have attached a ON I draft Memorandum that perta ins to polygraph and the recent media leaks. Below is a br ief summary of these issues and the impact to DIAIDCHC: On July 11 ,201 2, McClatchy News published three articles attacking procedures used by the National Reconnaissance Office's (NRO) polygraph program. Two [onner NRO polygraph examiners are the primary source of infonnat ion for the articl es that made broad a llegations about RO polygraph management pressuring examiners to use inappropriate testing procedures in order to e li ci t persona l information. US D (I), under the directi on of Mr. Toby Sulli van, prov ided th e attached summ ary of the of the situati on (atlached ~ N RO Po lygraph). As noted in the summary, NCCA perso nnel completed the bienni al inspection of the NRO polygraph program in November 2011. In the repon , NCCA noted inappropriate questions being utili zed and recommended correcti ve action. N RO acknowledged this and ceased utili zing those questi ons. It is quite probable that these unauthorized questions, already discovered by this interna l review, were partially responsib le for allegations noted in these articles. The Director, DCHC, in accordance with 0 00 Directi ve 5210.48 and 0 00 Instruction (DoDI) 52 10.9 1, is responsible for the overs ight of DoD polygraph programs, it is there fore recommended that DCHCINCCA part icipate in the N RO review as recommended by US D (I). In June 201 2. D I Clapper, in hi s statement to the Senate, regarding the "hemorrhage of leaks in the med ia" pledged to mandate that all Federal agencies authorized to conduct Counterinte llige nce Scope Polygraph (CS P) examinations utili ze the C rA exp lan ation when pre~ les ting di scl osure of classified information. The CIA verbiage "Have you ever pro vided cl ass ifi ed infonnat ion or fac ilitated access to class ifi ed information to any unauthorized persons, to include the media, unauthorized U.S. persons, or fore ign nationa ls". is consistent with current 0 00 protocols. Thi s mandate should have litt le impact on the 0 00 polygraph programs as they a ll currently pre-test these issues in conjuncti on with a questi on regarding unauthori zed disclosure or mishandling of classified infonnation. Attached is the final draft of the memorandum to be sent to ONI for signature. DCHC has organized and is chairing a Federal Polygraph Executive Committee (EXCOM) meeting to discuss implementation of this mandate. This will be held on July 12, 2012 and will be hosted by the CIA in Tyson's Comer, VA. Regards, Frank -----Original Message---- From: Sullivan, Troy DISES OSD O USD I [mailto: troy.su lli van@osd.mi IJ Sent: Wednesday, July 11 , 20125:19 PM To: Hyde, Reginald D SES OSD OUSDI Cc: Smith, Heidi A DISL OSD OUSDI ; Lowery, Todd R CIV OSD OUSDI; McGee, Jenny Col OSD OUSDI; Gentile, Phili p D CO L OSD OUSDI; Gidwani , Toni crv OSD OUSDI ; Sullivan, David M. Co l, USAF OSD OUSD I; Dreuth, Lou ise Ms OSD OUS DI ; Gregory, James LTC OSD PA; Porco, Michael V Mr OSD OUS DI ; Stegner, James E DISL OSD O USD I; Dav is, Timothy A D1 SES OSD O USDI ; Mehal, Robert S CTR OSD OUSDI ; Davidson, Eliana, Ms, DoD OGC; Farr, El izabeth, Ms, DoD OGC; Sharp, Gary, Mr, DoD OG C; Delaney, Leo; Pi ck, Michael w.; Liard, Scott (GOV); Maietta, Frank S Subject: NRO Press Article Class ificati on: UNC LASSIFIED Sir, Attached is an infomlati on paper concerni ng the McClatchy articles of yesterday attack ing the NRO polygraph program. The articles are also attached. The document was prepared in collaboration with the Nati onal Cred ibi lity Assessment Center (NCCA) and DCHC. NRO was provided a copy but we did not receive any feedback, although we did rece ive information from them during the day that we used. There is a poss ibility that the two polygraph oversight initiatives conducted at NRO last year identi fi ed some number of the matters that were raised in the art icle regarding the exams. I recommended to the DCHC Deputy Director and several of hi s senior staff, the NCCA Director and Tim Davis that a team from NCCA and the CI and Securi ty Directorates vis it RO to talk about the press articl es, especially in view of the 20 II oversight initiati ves. All thought thi s would be of value, espec ially in view of LtCo l Gregory's infonnation today that McC latchy wanted a fo llow? up article on DoD's reaction to the articles. The visit would not be an inspection but a discuss ion about the articles, the prior oversight results and NRO's comments. The team would make an assessment as to the need for any other recommended acti on and brief our leadership. We will have done appropriate due diligence. I also mentioned to the DCHC Deputy Director that I thought two actions would be required , if such a team is approved by the DIA or DCHC leadership (as the funct iona l managers fo r DoD cred ibility assessment) and OUSD(I): -F irst somebody senior would need to notify the NRO Di rector or Deputy Director to explain what thi s visit is and is not and to decontli ct with the NRO IG if required. -Second g iven the press comment that the DoD IG is looking into some aspect of this, it would be prudent to decontli ct the visi t with that organ ization. Request your approval for Cl and Security to parti cipate contingen t upon DIAlDCHC's similar approva l. Happy to answer any quest ions. VR Toby Toby Sullivan Director, Counteri ntel li gence 703-697-52 16 DSN: 227-5216 UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY NRO Polygraph Progr a m Background o NRO conducts over 8,000 Counte ri nte ll igence Scope Polygraphs (CSP) annua lly and employs approximately 47 DoD certified exam iners. o o The polygraph examiners who conduct CSPs work for the NRO Security element. NRO's "Quality Assurance Program Agency Policies & Procedures" has undergone two rev iews during the last year to asses comp li ance with DoD Instruction (0001 ) 5210.91, "Polygraph and Credib ili ty Assessment (PCA) Procedures," August 12, 2012 (See "Oversight" below) Press Reporting o On July 11, 2012, McClatchy News published three articles attacking the NRO polygraph program: "NRO Accused of Illega ll y Collecting Personal Data"; "NRO View: Whistleb lower is Merely a Malcontent; and "N RO Hasn 't Told Pol ice of Crime Confessions" (Tabs A-C) The articles made broad all egations concerning the NRO polygraph program o o o o o o o o o Examiners are pressured to conform to inappropriate testing techniq ues Exami ners are pressured to obtai n inappropriate examinee personal information Examiners are paid cash rewards based on this conduct Examiners are required to summon employees and j ob applicants for multiple polygraph tests to ask a wide array of personal behavior Examiners are pressured to use testing techniques that NRO is not authori zed to use NRO reta ins personal information in a data base NRO does not report criminal activity to appropriate autho ri ties Although in DoD, NRO uses CIA authori zations for po lygraph exams NRO Comments (to datc) o All admission obtai ned duri ng po lygraph exams are given to NRO security and adjudicators for processing. The adjudicators and NRO OGe determine from that point who is notified . That information is not fe d back to the polygraph office. Ovcrsight o The NRO polygraph program underwent two independent reviews in 20 II by experienced Prepared by Mike Porco, 697-436 1 1 UNCLASSIFIEDIIFO R OFFICIAL USE ONLY po lygraph examiners, qua li ty control experts, senior po lygraph poli cy subject matter experts, and seni or law enforcement and security management professionals. o During the period November 15-17. 2011, National Center for Credibility Assessment (NCCA) Qual ity Assurance Program personnel reviewed the program's act ivities for the previous two years pursuant to DoD policy. The only discrepancy noted was the improper use of comparison questions. o o o o o o Have you engaged in any consistent personal behavior unsuitable for access? Have you engaged in any personal behav ior unsuitab le for access? Have you hidden any personal behavior unsuitable for access? Outside the class ified environment, have you eve r done anything for whi ch you cou ld be fired ? Regarding your personal life, are there any reasons why you should not be considered for a security clearance? In matters not related to security, have you ever done anything for which yOll cou ld lose your job? o Comparison questions arc a necessary component of polygraph testing. They are a technical aspect of the test and are utilized only for diagnostic purposes; they are not evaluated to determine truth or deception nor are they included in formal agency reports o The ask ing of these questions and their discussion with the examinee could e licit responses from an exami nee that would not be co nsistent with establi shed 000 protoco ls. therefore thei r use was directed to be discont inued. These questions were used during the time period of October 20 10 - December 20 11 . NRO subsequentl y concurred and terminated the use of these questions. There was no indication that thi s practice continued outside the time frame stated above. o Although not a di screpa ncy, the rev iew noted the NRO polygraph program had a signi ficant decrease in admissio ns rate between 2009 (47%) and 20 11 (23%). NRO explained the decline was due to management redefining "admission", as the program prev ious ly was allowing many minor security vio lat ions to be considered an <