Two inconclusive polygraphs describe unresolved examination outcomes, not an automatic government-wide hiring decision. Your sponsoring agency must determine what those results mean for its process. The next step could involve review, more testing, an interview, or discontinued processing; the count alone does not establish which path applies to your application.

• Two inconclusive polygraphs are a case history, not a universal disqualification threshold.
• Confirm the official terminology and whether required quality review is complete.
• Ask whether your application is active, closed, or subject to a stated adverse determination.
• Use the agency’s instructions for reapplication and requests for your own records.

What should you do after two inconclusive polygraphs?

Ask the authorized testing or security contact for the reviewed status of each examination and the current status of the application. Keep the technical result separate from the agency’s eligibility, suitability, access, or hiring decision.

SEAD 2, revised in September 2020, assigns responsibilities for agency personnel-security polygraph programs. It does not establish a universal rule that a second inconclusive result ends every application. Its scope also excludes examinations for criminal investigations and suitability determinations.

That scope limitation matters when comparing experiences. A law-enforcement applicant’s pre-employment process and a national-security eligibility process may involve different authorities. An account from another agency cannot establish your retest options or the effect on a separate existing clearance.

Start with what you were actually told. If the examiner used a technical term, preserve it in your notes. If you only understood the conversation as inconclusive, ask whether that is the agency’s recorded result rather than presenting your interpretation as an official finding.

Have both results completed quality review?

Confirm that the outcomes you are comparing are reviewed results, rather than initial comments at the end of an appointment. Ask who communicates the official result and whether anything remains pending.

For covered security programs, SEAD 2 requires agency supervision and quality control consistent with federal standards. GAO’s September 2024 report on CBP hiring provides a concrete historical example: an independent examiner reviewed examination materials and judged whether the result should be pass, fail, or further testing needed.

That example does not make CBP’s reviewed outcomes or procedures universal. It explains why the end of a session and the end of result review can be different milestones. Your contact must confirm which milestone you have reached.

A focused question is more useful than asking whether you are “done.” For example: “Has the reviewed result been issued for each appointment, and is my application still active?” Record the answer, the office providing it, and any requested action.

Which possible paths should you clarify?

Use the agency’s communication to identify the next dependency. The paths below organize follow-up questions; they are not a menu of options every applicant can demand.

Before making a costly employment decision, get the outstanding requirement stated clearly enough to plan around it. A possible future appointment is different from an appointment the agency has authorized and scheduled. An active application also should not be treated as a guaranteed start date.

Could the agency request more charts or another examination?

Further examination work is possible under some agency processes, but an unresolved result does not guarantee another opportunity. Ask the sponsor whether it has authorized additional testing and what kind.

SEAD 2 permits specific-issue examinations to help resolve known or developed information of adjudicative significance. That authority is not a promise of unlimited testing. The explanation of counterintelligence and full-scope examinations can help you understand a request, while the agency identifies the required scope.

If another appointment is offered, use its official instructions. Confirm the location, required documents, and appropriate contact for questions. Explain any relevant concern through that contact rather than trying to alter your responses or physiology based on advice from other applicants.

For covered security vetting, SEAD 2 separately addresses refusal without reasonable cause, purposeful noncooperation, and confirmed countermeasures as potentially leading to additional review and an adverse security determination. Those are different issues from an inconclusive technical result.

Could an interview or supplemental investigation come next?

Yes, where the agency’s process calls for resolving underlying information. The point of follow-up may be a factual question in the record, rather than another attempt to obtain a conclusive chart.

For example, DOE’s counterintelligence program allows more extensive evaluation when unresolved foreign-nexus issues raise significant questions. Its rule at 10 CFR 709.15 permits an in-depth interview, requests for relevant information, and an additional polygraph. This is a DOE example with defined conditions, not a government-wide sequence after repeated inconclusives.

Prepare the underlying facts before a follow-up conversation. Compare the request with your questionnaire and supporting records, distinguish exact dates from estimates, and identify any correction you need to make. Ask how to provide the correction through the designated process.

The discussion of polygraph difficulties and possible responses may help frame your questions. It cannot diagnose the cause of an unresolved result or establish that a further examination is required.

How is discontinued processing different from an adverse determination?

A communication ending processing must be read for what it actually decides. Ask whether it concerns the hiring application, suitability, national-security eligibility, or a particular access requirement. Avoid treating those descriptions as interchangeable.

DOE’s rule at 709.25 prohibits DOE and its contractors from taking adverse personnel action or making an adverse access recommendation solely on a significant-response or no-opinion result. It also prohibits substituting such a result for another required investigation. That protection is specific to the covered DOE program.

The word solely matters. The rule does not say that separate information developed during an examination must be ignored. It also does not establish how another agency must dispose of your application.

Keep any closure letter or adverse notice intact. If it supplies response or review instructions, follow the stated process rather than replacing it with a generic retest request. The relationship between polygraph outcomes and continued employment depends on which determination and employment relationship are involved.

If the scope is unclear, ask the issuing office to explain it. For a formal adverse determination affecting your rights or existing eligibility, qualified counsel can assess the actual notice and available response process.

When can you reapply?

Use the hiring agency’s current instructions and your case-specific notice. Permission to submit another application does not establish that earlier concerns are resolved or that the agency will resume processing immediately.

NSA’s current careers FAQ says applicants whose processing was discontinued can reapply at any time, while warning that some underlying eligibility or assessment decisions may prevent immediate consideration. Treat that as NSA’s published guidance, with its qualification, rather than a rule for every agency or every adverse determination.

Before reapplying, ask which prior decision remains relevant and whether the notice describes a review, reconsideration, or reapplication route. Keep those requests distinct. A new vacancy application is not necessarily the mechanism for contesting an existing determination.

How can you request records and keep the chronology clear?

Follow the record-holding agency’s first-party records process and maintain a factual processing timeline. A records request and a request to continue hiring processing serve different purposes.

NSA directs former applicants seeking processing documents to its Privacy Act request instructions. Those instructions require a detailed written request, a signature, and identity verification, with submission requirements that depend on the method used. Use the current official instructions rather than copying another applicant’s request.

The Justice Department’s 2020 Privacy Act overview explains the distinction between access to your own records and public access under FOIA. Access remains subject to applicable exemptions. Requesting a file does not guarantee release of every item or suspend any separate response requirement in a decision notice.

For your private chronology, list appointment dates, the exact result language you received, the source of that information, requests for documents, your submissions, and subsequent notices. Mark recollections as recollections. This makes later questions about your history easier to answer accurately without inventing an explanation for the test result.

If a prospective employer asks about this history, describe the examinations and any later decision separately. An accurate account might explain that the testing office reported unresolved results and that you are awaiting clarification of application status, if that is what happened. If a notice later changes the status, update your private record. For a question on a new form, read its exact wording and ask the providing office about any ambiguity. Avoid allowing a shorthand phrase such as “failed processing” to replace the actual sequence of events or imply a determination you have never received.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does a second inconclusive result automatically disqualify me?

The count alone does not establish a universal outcome. Confirm the reviewed technical results and ask the sponsoring office what determination, if any, has been made about your application.

Am I entitled to another examination?

Do not assume an entitlement. Further testing depends on the applicable agency process and case posture. Ask whether additional testing has been authorized and whether there is any action required from you.

Can I describe an inconclusive result as passing?

Use the result the agency communicated. An unresolved result should not be upgraded to a pass or recast as a deception finding. If you are unsure of the official wording, ask the responsible office to clarify it.

What is the most useful immediate step?

Prepare your chronology and a concise status request asking whether review is complete, whether processing remains active, and what action is expected from you. Direct that request to the authorized contact named in your agency’s communications.