This is weirdly true, in a technical sense. The report on Joan Mae Fogltanz was included only as an example of the short form investigation report as against the traditional long form. And this report-used with names to document that it was factual, not theoretical-showed that the subject-Miss Fogltanz-passed all tests— was clear, clear, clear. But as it appears in solemn charge No. 3 it was a serious offense by Mr. Otepka.34

Mr. Reilly had lied about the short form in various ways, once taking credit for it, then saying that Mr. Otepka had criticized it, after having suggested it, when it was put into practice. Mr. Otepka showed this to be a combination of half truths, at best, as the excerpt infra illustrates.

In its zealous drive to get Otto Otepka out of the way, the State Department said, solemnly, in charge 3 of the formal accusations against its security officer, that in violation of the Presidential directive of March 13, 1948, he furnished to Mr. J. G. Sourwine (SISS general counsel) a copy of an investigative report dated May 27, 1960, concerning Joan Mae Fogltanz: 35

(3) You have conducted yourself in a manner unbecoming an officer of the Department of State.

Specifically: You furnished a copy of an investigative report concerning a prospective employee of the Department to a person outside of the Department without authority and in violation of the Presidential Directive of March 13, 1948 (13 Fed. Reg. 1359).

This Directive provides:

"***all reports, records, files relative to the loyalty of employees or prospective employees (including reports of such investigative agencies) shall be maintained in confidence, and shall not be transmitted or disclosed except where required in the efficient conduct of business."

PROMOTION TO OBSCURITY

The Otepka analysis of the Reilly testimony and the pertinent documents he supplied laid bare the reason why, in 1962, he suddenly had been chosen for an assignment to the National War College. The only possible conclusion that could be reached after reading the pertinent documents is that he was to be kicked upstairs in order to get him out of the way in the Office of Security.

There were words of praise about Mr. Otepka, about what a sacrifice it would be to the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs for him to be taken away for the War College assignment, and so on.

But these words, perhaps made in sincerity by those who wrote the letters, became a matter of mockery by the casual, cool comment by Mr. Reilly that when Mr. Otepka finished his course at the War College that there would be no place for him in the security field in the State Department.

36

So that was why Mr. Otepka declined the honor of the War College assignment. He saw through the deceptive words, the camouflage, the crafty ploy that didn't trap him.

Mr. Otepka wanted to stay in his chosen field, personnel security, so he said: "No, thanks.'

Rougher tactics followed, as the printed record will show: Reorganizations, shifts in assignments, the bugging of his office, his exclusion from his own files and, at last, when he challenged testimony by his

34 See pt. 7, pp. 457-458.

35 See pt. 7, p. 426.

30 See pt. 20, pp. 1716-1717.

superior, Mr. Reilly, and supplied documents to prove his points, he was faced with ouster proceedings. All these are described in other chapters of this report.

Mr. Otepka's outline of the War College assignment ploy is neatly described by him in these paragraphs in his "Comments on Reilly":

(g) On May 3, 1962, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Personnel, Herman Pollack, asked the Acting Administrator, Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, for the release of Otepka for the purpose of permitting Otepka to attend the National War College. Pollack said:

"I know that the release of officers of such high caliber will require real sacrifice on the part of your bureau, but I am sure that temporary sacrifices must be made if we are to develop the kind of officers we need to meet the challenge ahead. By definition, the advanced career program exists only for those officers whom we can ill afford to spare, even temporarily.” 13

(h) By letter dated May 16, 1962, from John Ordway, Director of the Division of Personnel Operations, Otepka was advised of his selection for the National War College. The letter said:

'All selections were reviewed and approved by the Deputy Under Secretary for Administration. Selections were made on the basis of the relative superiority of the officer's performance and his estimated potential to assume the highest responsibilities for formulating, negotiating and otherwise executing U.S. foreign policy and for the management of our foreign affairs programs at home and abroad." 14

(i) On June 1, 1962, Lt. Gen. Francis H. Griswold, Commandant of the National War College, wrote to Otepka, saying in part:

"Your selection testifies to your outstanding record and to your potential for increasingly important service within the Department of State.

"You are fortunate to have the opportunity, at this stage of your career, to set aside your normal duties for a ten month period and to use that time in exchanging your knowledge and ideas with equally capable members of the Armed Forces, several civilian agencies of our government, and our faculty." 15

After receiving Ordway's and Griswold's communications (and especially after Griswold's) Otepka expressed to Reilly the desire to return to the security program upon completing the War College study. Reilly told Otepka there would be no place for him in the Office of Security. Evidently Reilly, looking ahead, and also looking back upon Otepka's established reputation in security administration, viewed Otepka, with his National War College training, as a contender for a higher ranking job in security and thus an individual to be reckoned with against any other person (perhaps Reilly himself) who Reilly had in mind as his deputy or senior adviser. With this rejection of Otepka by Reilly, Otepka declined the honor of attending the War College, knowing that, upon his return, he would have to cast about for a job outside his chosen field, which Otepka did not care to do.

It was a booby trap that failed to work. Why anyone thought that an evaluation expert would fall into it is beyond understanding.

13 See Exhibit No. VI at p. 1741. 14 See Exhibit No. VII at p. 1741. 15 See Exhibit No. VIII at p. 1742.

JOHN PATON DAVIES

The case of John Paton Davies was referred to during the testimony of John F. Reilly, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Security, Department of State on May 21, 1963. Mr. Davies had been dismissed from the Department by then Secretary of State John Foster Dulles (under Executive Order 10450, on Nov. 5, 1954) on the ground of "lack of judgment, discretion, and reliability."2

After extensive hearings on the Institute of Pacific Relations, during 1951 and 1952, the subcommittee found that "John Paton Davies, Jr., testified falsely before the subcommittee in denying that he recommended the Central Intelligence Agency employ, utilize, and rely upon certain individuals having Communist associations and connections." 3

Inquiry was made of Mr. Reilly as to whether efforts were being made to rehabilitate, or work toward the reinstatement of John Paton Davies. Mr. Reilly testified he had attended discussions about the possibility "such an individual" might be desired for employment by a consultant firm contracted by the State Department. Mr. Reilly also testified that a procedure is under consideration "whereby such a case would be processed through the Office of Security." Mr. Reilly said work "is being done" on this matter in the Legal Adviser's office under Mr. Chayes. Subsequently, Mr. Reilly admitted "There is no one else in similar case with Jonn Paton Davies with respect to dismissal from the State Department." Mr. Reilly then admitted that the regulations were being rewritten in his case so as to remove the prohibition against reinstatement of a Foreign Service Officer who has been dismissed under security procedures "so as to permit an examination of this and an adjudication of this without prejudgment of what the outcome of such will be." 6

5

In a letter to Senator Eastland, dated January 19, 1962, Secretary of State Dean Rusk had stated that "Mr. Davies' attorney had requested review of Mr. Davies' case in order to determine whether it would be possible under the provisions of Executive Order 10450 to effect such clearance of Mr. Davies on security grounds as would permit him to be employed by a contractor of the Federal Government whose employees might have access to security information." Mr. Rusk stated in this letter that "John Paton Davies has made no request for reinstatement in the Department and his reemployment is not under consideration."8

As former Chief, Division of Evaluations, Department of State, Mr. Otto F. Otepka was asked [by Senator Scott] whether he knows

1 State Department Security hearings, pt. 6, p. 333.

New York Times, Nov. 6, 1954, pp. 1 and 8.

3 Internal Security Subcommittee Report on the Institute of Pacific Relations, p. 224.

State Department Security hearings, pt. 6, p. 334.

Abram Chayes, former Legal Adviser to the Security of State, who resigned that position and accepted employment as a consultant to the Department.

State Department Security hearings, pt. 6, p. 335.

7 Ibid., p. 355.

Ibid., p. 354.

"any other persons who were dismissed from the Department or resigned under a cloud whose reinstatement was now being sought." He answered, "Yes, sir," but the discussion of individual names was off the record except for the names of Raymond Ludden and "Mr. Clubb, former consul of Peiping," mentioned by Senator Scott.9

When Mr. Otepka's testimony was resumed on the record, it went like this:

Mr. SOURWINE. What can you tell us, Mr. Otepka, about moves to reinstate, or the reinstatement of John Paton Davies?

Mr. OTEPKA. Several months ago I had a reason for having a consultation in the office of the Legal Adviser. This discussion took place specifically in regard to an individual who had been removed as a security risk by the Department of State in 1952 and who was seeking restoration or vindication. It was found by the legal people that the Department of State security regulations prohibit the reemployment of any person who had been removed as a security risk, and I was informed by an individual in the legal office that consideration is being given to the revision of these regulations so that any person removed by the State Depart ment as a security risk at any time may have recourse to reemployment or reinstatement.

In the course of that discussion, I was informed that one of the reasons for giving consideration to the revision of the regulations was to permit reconsidera. tion to be given to the case of John Paton Davies.

Senator SCOTT. Now, is there any way by which this committee can ascertain the extent to which this change of procedure has progressed?

Mr. OTEPKA. I believe an inquiry could be sent to the Department, to the Office of Legal Adviser.

Senator SCOTT. Is there any individual who is engaged in the preparation of such a change of regulations, to your knowledge?

Mr. OTEPKA. Yes, sir.

Senator SCOTT. Who is that?

Mr. OTEPKA. Well, these were persons in subordinate jobs, and of course, I assume that they were doing as they were told.

Senator ScOTT. No. Well, then, never mind their names.

But who were

they working under? Who is their responsible superior? Mr. OTEPKA. Mr. Abram Chayes, the Legal Adviser.10

Ibid., p. 356. The "Mr. Clubb" referred to apparently is Edmund Oliver Clubb, who retired from the Foreign Service while under security investigation in February 1952.

10 Ibid., pp. 356 and 357.