Page images
PDF
EPUB

program. This is done to determine overall trends and patterns bearing on the effectiveness of agency security operations, rather than to superimpose our judgment in individual cases. These reviews have not disclosed any pattern of deficiencies that would indicate agencies are acting on homosexual cases to the detriment of the national security, nor have they uncovered tendencies to deny individual employees fair, impartial, and equitable treatment.

Other than the disqualification in CSR 731.201(b) and the criterion in section 8(a)(1) of Executive Order 10450, both cited above, the Commission has no knowledge of any agency order, rule, or regulation which makes "any homosexuality, of whatever kind, of whatever degree, and at whatever date" an absolute bar to employment or continuation in employment.

Sincerely yours,

KIMBELL JOHNSON, Director.

DEPARTMENT POLICY IS SPELLED OUT

The second, which nailed down an enlightened policy for control of the problem of sex deviates at the State Department, was expressed in a letter to Chairman Eastland (under the date of Sept. 17, 1965) carrying the signature of Douglas MacArthur II, Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations. It was State's response to questions posed by Chairman Eastland, on July 13, 1965, in a letter to Secretary of State Dean Rusk.

8

The MacArthur letter, reproduced here because it is regarded as a key document, is as follows:

Hon. JAMES O. EASTLAND,

SEPTEMBER 17, 1965.

Chairman, Internal Security Subcommittee, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your letter of July 13, 1965, and to our reply of July 27, 1965. We are now able to provide comprehensive answers to the questions proposed in your letter.

In order to facilitate your review, the paragraphs in your letter containing the questions are repeated with our reply to each:

I. In discharging its obligations under Executive Order 10450, approved April 27, 1953, to what extent, and under what conditions, does the Department of State regard homosexuality as a bar to employment or continuation in employment by a department or agency in the executive branch of the U.S. Government? The Department currently considers homosexuality as an absolute bar to employment or continued employment. In discharging its obligations under Executive Order 10450, the Department must (in homosexuality and sexual perversion cases) consider, along with standards of Executive Order 10450, the civil service regulations and the Foreign Service regulations. Executive Order 10450 did not abridge the Civil Service Act of 1883, as amended, or the Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended. The order merely extends some of the suitability factors mentioned in the Civil Service Commission Acts, rules, and regulations to security standards now used in effecting the removal of individuals in the interest of national security.

The standards of Executive Order 10450 apply equally to the employees of the Foreign Service of the United States, and to the civil service employees in the departmental service of the Department of State. After careful deliberation and consideration of all the regulations affecting employment, the Department decided that the standards of Executive Order 10450 would not be utilized as the basis for initiating removal action of an employee, except where specific security factors were involved. Therefore, all investigations prior to an individual's employment and all actions subsequent to an individual's employment in purely suitability (homosexual or perversed morals) cases, are handled under the existing civil service and Foreign Service regulations.

The Civil Service Regulations under rule II, section 2.104, disqualification of applicants: (a) An applicant may be denied examination and an eligible may be denied appointment for any of the following reasons:

1. Dismissal from employment for delinquency or misconduct.
2. Physical or mental unfitness for the position for which applied.

State Department Security hearings, pt. 13, pp. 1026-1028.

3. Criminal, infamous, dishonest, immoral, or notoriously disgraceful conduct.

4. Intentional false statements or deception or fraud in examination or appointment.

5. Refusal to furnish testimony as required by section 5.3 of rule V.

6. Habitual use of intoxicating beverages to excess.

7. On all the evidence, reasonable grounds exist for belief that the person involved is disloyal to the Government of the United States.

8. Any legal or other disqualification which makes the applicant unfit for the service. Prior to July 7, 1953, no recognition was taken by the Department of the occurrence of homosexual acts or perverted sex acts, standing alone, prior to an employee's or prospective employee's 21st birthday. Since that date on instructions received from the then Administrator of the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, the age of 18 years has been utilized as the breakoff point in evaluating homosexual acts concerning which cognizance is taken. It is, therefore, the general policy that admissions of homosexual or sexually perverted conduct subsequent to age 18, is a bar to employment under present standards of policy of the Department of State.

The development of evidence of homosexual conduct on the part of incumbents subsequent to their employment with the Department constitutes a bar to continued employment. Removal actions, based on homosexual conduct, are initiated under the pertinent sections of the Civil Service Commission Acts and Regulations insofar as departmental employees are concerned and under section 621 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946 and section 1922 of the Foreign Affairs Manual, as appropriate, this, depending upon the nature of offenses, and the surrounding circumstances.

In any event, if there are specific security factors involved in any case of homosexuality or perverse morals, the Department would then utilize Executive Order 10450 as the means for appropriately handling the offending individual. II. Instructions of the State Department's Office of Security with respect to investigations appear to indicate that the degree to which homosexuality militates against employment or continuation in employment differs inversely with the importance of the position involved. Does the Department take this view of

the matter?

No. The Department does not take this view of the matter. Homosexuality is an absolute bar to employment with the Department regardless of the nature of the position. Virtually all the positions in the Department of State are sensitive and involve the handling of classified materials. The security criteria for all sensitive positions are the same. The Department is not aware of any instructions which would give the indication outlined in the question.

III. The Suitability Rating Examiner's Handbook, Civil Service Commission Handbook IN-204, in discussing homosexuality under the general heading of "Immoral Conduct," states that "persons about whom there is evidence that they are homosexuals or sexual perverts *** are not suitable for Federal employment." In interpreting and applying this standard, how is the word "evidence" construed? The language following that quoted above states that in acting on such cases, the Commission will consider (1) arrest records, etc., (2) the person's statement or reliable medical evidence that he is a homosexual, or (3) creditable information from reliable sources concerning an individual's reputation and conduct. This would appear to allow room for discretion in determining whether homosexuality is a bar to employment or continuation in employment in any particular case. Is this your Department's interpretation?

No. If any individual is known to be a homosexual, he is barred from em. ployment or continuation in employment. While the Department is convinced that it should not hire or employ homosexuals, or sexual deviates, this program is carried out in a manner consistent with the traditional American concepts of justice and fair play. In cases involving incumbents, inasmuch as all actions of the Department are dependent upon the availability to the accused of some form of quasi-judicial processing and/or review, and are subject to postaudit review by the Civil Service Commission, the Department must stand ready with a weight of legal evidence sufficient to warrant action by the appropriate hearing boards. The Department relies on the regulations set forth under Executive Order 10450, the Foreign Service Act of 1946, and pertinent Civil Service Acts and Regulations in the handling of these cases.

IV. Does the Department operate under any order, rule, or regulation which makes any homosexuality, of whatever kind, of whatever degree, and at what

ever date, an absolute bar to employment or continuation in employment? If the answer is affirmative, please cite the rule, order, or regulation (or combination thereof) which is controlling in this respect.

As stated above, the Department currently operates under the principle that any known homosexual is barred from employment or continuation in employ. ment and relies on the regulations set forth under Executive Order 10450, the Foreign Service Act of 1946, and pertinent Civil Service Act and Regulations in the handling of these cases.

V. It would appear that homosexuality is regarded by the Department as primarily a suitability factor, rather than a security factor. Is this correct?

This is correct, the exception being where there are overriding security questions which would place the individual case within the framework of Executive Order 10450. Homosexuality is also a security matter, because of blackmail, coercion, and entrapment.

VI. Does the State Department, in security evaluations or actions, take cogni. zance of such terms as "latent homosexual," "reformed homosexual," "former homosexual," "homosexual tendencies," and "homosexual experience" (as distinguished from homosexuality or homosexualism)? If so, please furnish the definition of each of these terms as used in employment, by the Department. Yes.

1. Latent homosexual.-A latent homosexual is one who primarily by competent knowledge or opinion, secondarily by self-admission, or through positive evidentiary facts is known to have homosexual tendencies or desires which may or may not have been actually accomplished by a homosexual act.

(a) A person known to be a latent homosexual is not employable in the Department of State.

(b) If an incumbent is involved, with the advice and counsel of the Department's Medical Division and following a complete investigation, latent homosexuals will not continue in employment in the Department of State.

2. Reformed homosexual. Neither the Department nor the Medical Division is aware of the implication meant by this term and is therefore unable to reply in a meaningful manner.

3. Former homosexual.-The Department is not aware of the implication meant by this term and is therefore unable to reply in a meaningful manner. However, as to Nos. 2 and 3 above, if the individual has admitted adult homosexual activities, he is not employable in the Department of State.

4. Homosexual tendencies.—An adult person (over age 18) who is known to have homosexual tendencies, is not employable by the Department of State. 5. Homosexual experience.—It is the policy of the Department of State generally that a person who is known to have engaged in a homosexual experience subsequent to his 18th birthday, is not employable by the State Department. The basis for the policy of the Department of State is, of course, the pertinent sections of the basic acts, rules, and regulations of the Civil Service Commission, stemming from the act of 1883, as amended, plus Executive Order 10450, in addition to the Foreign Service Act.

If the Department can be of any further assistance, please let me know.

DOUGLAS MACARTHUR II, Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations.

(EDITOR'S NOTE.-That this problem still exists and is still important was indicated by testimony given this year before the subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations considering fund requests for the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, the judiciary, and related agencies. The following is found on pages 297 and 298:)

SECURITY RISKS

Mr. ROONEY. What is your report this year with regard to security risks?
Mr. GENTILE. This year we had a total of 19, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROONEY. Made up of what sort of risks?

Mr. GENTILE. Seventeen were for homosexual activities and two were in the area of immoral conduct.

Mr. ROONEY. What was the highest grade in the Foreign Service of those among those 19?

Mr. GENTILE. The highest grade in the Foreign Service among those 19 was a Foreign Service officer class 3.

Mr. ROONEY. How long had he or she been in the Foreign Service?

Mr. GENTILE. Twenty years.

Mr. ROONEY. And when he was confronted he resigned, did he?

Mr. GENTILE. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROONEY. Married?

Mr. GENTILE. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROONEY. Please insert at this point in the record a statement indicating the annual pay and include therein all allowances of an FSO-3.

(The information follows:)

"In connection with this FSO-3, his annual salary was $17,531 and his allowances were $1,700."

Mr. ROONEY. What was the next highest in grade?

Mr. GENTILE. On the Foreign Service side?

Mr. ROONEY. Either side.

Mr. GENTILE. GS-15.

Mr. ROONEY. A GS-15 gets how much?

Mr. GENTILE. This man was getting $18,825.

Mr. ROONEY. And this homosexual had been in the Department how long? Mr. GENTILE. Three years and one month.

Mr. ROONEY. What was the next highest on the Foreign Service side?

Mr. GENTILE. On the Foreign Service side, a Foreign Service officer class 4. This is for homosexuals.

Mr. ROONEY. And he resigned when confronted, did he?

Mr. GENTILE. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROONEY. You will please insert at this point in the record a statement indicating the salary and all allowances of a class 4 Foreign Service officer. (The information follows:)

"In connection with this class 4 Foreign Service officer, his annual salary was $13,815 and his allowances were $2,100."

Mr. ROONEY. If there are no further questions, we thank you, Mr. Gentile and gentlemen.

Mr. GENTILE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

PERSONNEL SECURITY INVESTIGATIONS

The subcommittee explored extensively a suggestion that all State Department personnel security investigations (other than those conducted by the FBI) be transferred to the Civil Service Commission. Such a transfer is authorized by existing law. The proposal had been advanced with the thought that it might provide the service cheaper and faster.

Also in the background was the question of whether investigations are best performed by an independent agency, as opposed to one policing its own problems.

But the proposal became involved in unsubstantiated claims by a State Department witness that its system was cheaper, was faster, was needed for other reasons and anyway, was preferred.

The General Accounting Office, at the request of the subcommittee, made an appraisal of the problem, but found a lack of data comparability in the Civil Service Commission and State Department accounting systems. The subcommittee must admit frustration in the effort to make a definitive record on this question, but feels that even though the result was somewhat inconclusive, the effort should be reported. It started this way:

Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Reilly, would you oppose turning over the investigatory functions in personnel cases to the Civil Service Commission? 1

Mr. REILLY. Yes, sir; I would.

Mr. SOURWINE. You would. It is authorized by law but you would oppose it. Why?

Mr. REILLY. This is a question that has been raised, Mr. Sourwine, many, many times, long prior to my being with the Department of State, and consistently it has been our view that we can be more flexible in meeting time schedules of the Department. We feel that our investigations are every bit as good as anyone else's, without decrying anyone else's, but that they are every bit as good, and we feel that we can do it a little more economically.

Mr. SOURWINE. Why is that?

Mr. REILLY. Because we have a staff of investigators the bulk of whom we would need anyway for other investigative functions we perform for various other elements in the Department of State. We would still have to keep these people on our payroll and pay the Civil Service Commission or the FBI or anyone else. We would have to pay them their flat investigative rate.

Mr. SOURWINE. Well, the Civil Service Commission has a great many more investigators than you do, do they not?

Mr. REILLY. Yes.

Mr. SOURWINE. And they have them in more places?

Mr. REILLY. That is correct.

Mr. SOURWINE. So that presumably, if you gave your investigative load to the Civil Service Commission, they could handle it by apportioning it among their investigators, and the distance their investigators would have to travel would be on an average less and the number of cases an investigator would have in a particular area would be greater, which would be a saving. Aren't those things true?

Mr. REILLY. They are going to charge me $350 a case or charge the Department of State $350 a case.

Mr. SOURWINE. They are?

Mr. REILLY. Yes. That's their flat rate.

1 State Department Security hearings, pt. 4, pp. 180-181.

Additionally

« PreviousContinue »