WHO IS OTEPKA ?

Otto F. Otepka came to Washington in 1936 as a Government messenger. He occupied minor positions in the Farm Credit Administration and the Bureau of Internal Revenue until 1942. For 3 years during that period, he attended law school at night at Columbus University (now the law school at Catholic University).

In 1942 he was appointed an investigator and security officer with the U.S. Civil Service Commission. He served in that capacity until 1943, when he entered the U.S. Navy as an apprentice seaman. He served in the Navy from 1943 until 1946, when he was honorably discharged with the grade of petty officer first class.

Returning to the Civil Service Commission in 1946, he served there as an investigator and security officer until 1953, when he came to the Department of State as a security officer. In August of the same year he was installed as Chief of the Evaluations Division, Office of Security, where he remained until April 1957.1

At this time Mr. Otepka was appointed Deputy Director of the Office of Security and working head of the State Department's personnel security organization. In addition to fulfilling the duties pursuant to his position, he assumed other responsibilities under the instruction of his superior as explained in his testimony: 2

Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Otepka, in a letter to the vice chairman of this subcommittee, Senator Thomas J. Dodd, under date of November 22, 1961, Mr. Roger W. Jones, who was then Deputy Under Secretary of State for Administration, stated that you, as Deputy Director of the Office of Security, had not, and I quote: “in the past several years served as the alter ego to the Director."

Do you consider that statement to be entirely correct?

Mr. OTEPKA. I do not.

Mr. SOURWINE. In what respect was it incorrect?

Mr. OTEPKA. I feel that since I initially received my appointment as Deputy Director of the Office of Security on April 7, 1957, that I have fulfilled all the responsibilities attendant to that job. The question may have been raised, and I think this is what Mr. Jones may have had in mind, that I had spent a considerable amount of time, official time, personally evaluating certain highly controversial and very important cases for the Department of State.

I spent this time pursuant to the express instructions and wishes of my superior. Mr. SOURWINE. And you are telling us this did not detract from your ability to perform your duties as Deputy Director?

Mr. ОTEPKA. It did not.

Mr. SOURWINE. And that you continued to act as Deputy Director during all of that period?

Mr. ОTEPKA. I did, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. And to perform the duties of that job?

Mr. OTEPKA. Yes, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. Now, Mr. Jones, in the letter referred to, also stated that you had not "served in an across-the-board manner with respect to the management of the Office of Security."

Was that statement correct?

Mr. OTEPKA. I would not consider that statement to be correct.

Mr. SOURWINE. Had you in fact served in an across-the-board manner, and by that I mean had you maintained knowledge of the work of all of the divisions and supervised the work of all of the divisions as Deputy Director?

1 Letter of Oct. 14, 1963, to John Ordway from Otto Otepka.

State Department Security hearings, pt. 2, pp. 5, 6.

Mr. OTEPKA. Yes, sir. I was frequently consulted by the various Division Chiefs with respect to their respective operations.

Mr. SOURWINE. Had you acted as Acting Director during the absence of the Director?

Mr. ОTEPKA. I did so.

Mr. SOUR WINE. Was the Director absent at any time while you held the Office of Deputy Director that you did not become Acting Director and perform the functions of that position?

Mr. OTEPKA. To my knowledge, the Director of the Office of Security always designated me each time that he intended to be absent, for me to perform as Acting Director in his stead.

One of Mr. Otepka's responsibilities was the preparation of a comprehensive statistical study of a backlog of cases:

3

Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Otepka, the committee has been given the figure of 152 cases as the backlog of the Division of Evaluations at the end of February 1963. Do you know if that figure was correct?

Mr. OTEPKA. I find it very difficult to answer, because you did not identify the category of cases. Do you know if they are applicant cases or employees' cases? Mr. ŠOURWINE. No, I don't know.

Mr. ОTEPKA. Then I can't answer that.

Mr. SOURWINE. Well, can you furnish us with figures in this area, or are those figures now unavailable to you?

Mr. OTEPKA. I have been given information that Mr. Reilly had made various interpretations of workloads in the Office of Security and I had-I was in the process of preparing a comprehensive statistical report which, at the stage that I had reached before my detail, showed that there was a great discrepancy between the figures offered to you by Mr. Reilly and those that I myself had compiled with respect to the number of cases handled and the number of cases completed. Mr. SOURWINE. Where is this statistical study now?

Mr. OTEPKA. That material was impounded from me. I had asked to retain it in my possession, but I was told I could not have it.

Mr. SOURWINE. Who told you that?

Mr. ОTEPKA. Mr. Belisle.

Mr. SOURWINE. Do you know in how many cases there was serious derogatory information among the cases active in the Division of Evaluations at the end of February 1963?

Mr. OTEPKA. That figure that is, the number of derogatory cases-was reflected in the study that I was preparing.

Mr. SOURWINE. Did Mr. Reilly ever ask you specifically for this figure?

Mr. ОTEPKA. He did not.

Mr. SOURWINE. The number of derogatory cases?

Mr. OTEPKA. No, he did not.

Mr. SOURWINE. Did Mr. Belisle ask you for it?

Mr. OTEPKA. He did not.

Mr. SOURWINE. Did anybody in Mr. Reilly's office ask you for it?

Mr. ОTEPKA. No.

Mr. SOURWINE. Did you supply him with this figure?

Mr. OTEPKA. I was prepared to furnish him that figure on the basis of the study that I had made. There was no demand for it before.

Mr. SOURWINE. We asked Mr. Reilly for it. I wondered where he would get it if he didn't ask you for it.

Mr. ОTEPKA. He would have to get that figure from me. I maintain those records.

Mr. SOURWINE. Did Mr. Reilly or Mr. Belisle or anyone else in Mr. Reilly's office ask you in how many of those cases before the Division of Evaluations there was information respecting Communist connections?

Mr. ОTEPKA. No.

Mr. SOURWINE. Does your statistical study include that element also?

Mr. OTEPKA. Yes, and this can be backed up by the gentleman who made the study for me.

State Department Security hearings, pt. 8, pp. 494, 495.

Mr. Otepka's myriad duties were further expanded in October of 1960 when he was placed on special detail.

OFFICE MEMORANDUM, UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT 4

To: SY-Mr. Otto F. Otepka.
From: SY-William O. Boswell.
Subject: 90-Day Detail.

Date: October 26, 1960.

Confirming our conversation of today and our several conversations during the past five weeks, I would like you to complete as much as possible of your pending work prior to November 7, 1960, at which time you will be placed on special detail for ninety days.

This detail will be to establish an organization and methods and procedures to review the security files of all Foreign Service Officers and of all General Schedule employees of the Department above the GS-14 level.

Both the Administrator of SCA and I consider this review to be of outstanding importance to the Department and to require the full attention of the SY officer best qualified in the field of personnel security. Necessary supporting staff will be made available as rapidly as possible.

Essentially, your mission will be to institute a review of the security files of all officers mentioned above to assure that each contains an up-to-date summary which would provide all the information necessary for the prompt preparation of a memorandum to the Under Secretary incorporating the information now required in "Presidential appointment" type cases. A most important aspect of this mission will be the determination of whether the various files contain adequate information (exclusive of an FBI full field investigation) to permit a full evaluation of the file. Where such information is inadequate or unavailable you should direct the Division of Investigations or other appropriate elements of the Office of Security to obtain the information required.

In view of the very large number of files involved, it will be necessary to establish an order of priority which I would like you to submit for my approval within the first two weeks of your detail. I suggest that files be separated into two groups, one including FSO-3's and higher and GS-16's and higher and the other including FSO-4's and lower and the GS-15's and 14's. The files of the FSO-3-GS-16 and higher group should be reviewed first. Within this group a lower priority might be given to those officers who have received Presidential appointments during the present and the immediately preceding Administrations. Of the remainder, the order of priority might be by class (starting with FSO-CA and GS-18 and working down) and within class for the FSO's, by those rated in the upper 50 percent of their class by the last Selection Boards. Once the files of the first group have been reviewed and summaries prepared, the second group should be examined following the same general order of priority. As I have stated, the establishment of an effective organizational arrangement to accomplish this review is most important. There is, in my opinion, no other officer in the Office of Security better qualified in the field of personnel security than you are to undertake this mission. I would like you to keep me fully informed on a current basis of your progress and of your needs. You will have my full support in this respect and, I am sure, that of the Administrator.

Any of your pending work which you may not be able to complete prior to November 7th should be turned over to me.

Mr. Otepka's advice in the security area was highly regarded, as evidenced by the testimony of John Norpel, Jr.: 5

Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Norpel, are you aware that when a new Secretary came into the Department of State and the Department was substantially changed at the top with respect to staff, Mr. Otepka was the man who was called on to provide information and briefing to the new officers in the security area? Mr. NORPEL. Yes, sir.

State Department Security hearings, pt. 2, p. €9.
State Department Security hearings, pt. 17, p. 1382.

Mr. SOURWINE. Are you aware of the fact that a part of Mr. Otepka's troubles seemed to stem from the fact that he was frank in giving these high officials the information, and his judgment with respect to it, in the areas about which they inquired?

Mr. NORPEL. That is my understanding; yes, sir.

During 9 years in the State Department's Office of Security, Otepka received only highly favorable annual performance ratings. He was the recipient of a meritorious service award from the then Secretary of State Dulles for outstanding achievements in the administration of the Department's personnel security program.

WHAT KIND OF REPUTATION DID OTEPKA ACHIEVE?

WON WIDE PRAISE

Otto F. Otepka had established a nationwide reputation as a top security operator prior to the time he told the truth to the Internal Security Subcommittee in refutation of the contradictory testimony of his boss, John F. Reilly.

His efficiency ratings were good, he won unsolicited praise from various officials, and was expected to be named the next chief of the Office of Security.1

But in diligently pursuing his assigned tasks of reporting adversely on "security risks" that turned up in the investigation and evaluation procedures, he had apparently stepped on some tender toes. When there were pressures for action so that selected persons could be rushed in to fill new positions, or vacancies, Mr. Otepka had protested against the use of waivers on security checks and objected to other shortcuts in the security machinery.2

His State Department image changed dramatically after he had challenged his superior, Mr. Reilly.3

up.

As a first step, the record indicates, his efficiency rating was held

On August 12, 1963, Mr. Otepka testified that the Director of the Office of Security, William Boswell, departed for his new assignment in Cairo after ignoring his responsibility to submit an efficiency report for Mr. Otepka despite the many commendations he had received from various State Department officials.*

Mr. SOURWINE. Should he file reports for those 2 years?

Mr. OTEPKA. Yes, sir. According to the Department's regulations, I am entitled to those efficiency reports.

Mr. SOURWINE. What have you done to try to procure these reports?

Mr. OTEPKA. I have spoken with my present supervisor, Mr. John F. Reilly, indicating my concern, that I thought I was entitled to an evaluation of my performance during that time, and he promised that he would endeavor to seek those reports from Mr. Boswell.

Mr. SOURWINE. The committee has also spoken to Mr. Reilly about this matter on more than one occasion, but has no satisfactory answer yet.

A sampling of commendatory letters received by Mr. Otepka was placed in the record at the request of the subcommittee counsel. Some of them are printed here, following this introduction:

5

Mr. Otepka, I asked you to furnish for the record any commendations or communications of a commendatory nature which you have received as Deputy Director of the Office of Security or as Chief of the Division of Evaluations. Have you brought any documents in this category?

Mr. OTEPKA. Yes, sir. I have with me a number of commendations which I do not believe have been furnished for the record previously. Mr. SOURWINE. Would you offer them now, please.

65-860-67-pt. 1—3