Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
November 11, 2016
Document Release Date: 
December 15, 1998
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP75-00149R000600040013-1.pdf100.17 KB
AND 7Ii~'II S NEI;ISLD Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP CPYRGH1The Diepka Ouse The story of Oct. 2, discuss- brought all of these matters ing the contents of the final to the attention of my im- volume of the hearings on the mediate superior, John F. Otepka case released by the Reilly, and recommended that Senate Internal Security Sub- waivers of investigation not be committee, contains a, number granted. In making this rec- iof misstatements, distortions ommendation I was conform- and omissions. ing to the policy of my supe- You say that "secret" loyalty riors that waivers would be reports on ten prominent, granted with reluctance, in the 'Americans, which I gave to absence of a genuine emer- ,the Subcommittee, were made gency and ample justification, public by the Subcommittee. The facts are that the one document relating to the ten individuals, which I gave to 'the Subcommittee, was not secret nor was it a loyalty re- port. It was a memorandum ,which I myself had classified as "confidential" and which merely called attention to mat- ters of record which, in my opinion, required that normal 'security procedures be fol- lowed before some of these , memorandum contained only memorandum proved '"''' that it. the substance of unresolved ,was incorrect.. allegations found in unclassi- fied publications. Such allega- of the "reports" was "in viola- tions required firm resolution under tion of a Presidential Order the Department's se- by Harry S. Truman in purity standards and principles issued 1952." Whether I violated the prior to the entrance on duty Presidential Order or not is of the individuals involved. an issue which will be res lved Because there was no avail- in my forthcoming hearing or able information on one pros- pective appointee it was my, in subsequent proceedings in recommendation that the re- court. It is surprising that you suits of a pending check be have prejudged the matter, obtained before any clearance Y finding me guilty " beforeo n was, ranted. My meniorandu ou say that I produced d no eviden f di l ce o s oyalty on the' part of any of the men In.; volved." The fact is that I did not charge any of the men in volved with disloyalty, but.} merely cited matters of record which, under State Depart- ment regulations, required further Investigation and reso- lution.., j. You say that I have been complaining to the Subcom mittee for five .years about State Department security; practices, resulting in 20 vol- mes of testimony dealing with my frustrations and disagree ments with superiors. The im-' ression you apparently are. attempting to create is that I' was a disgruntled employe,, chronic malcontent who was sing the Subcommittee to ent his spleen on his supe-' ?iors. The fact is that I ap. cared before the Subcom- ittee, as did many other. fate Department employes,; is 'a witness called by the. ubcommittce. I testified on number of occasions, and in very instance I appeared with. he knowledge and consent of y superiors. In briefing with y superiors, prior to my ap-a earances, I was instructed to. ooperate with the Subcom-' ittee, to tell the truth, and, of to invoke executive privi- ege. I did tell the truth. In esponse to the Subcommit-, ee's inquiries, I recounted"" acts, relating: to security and dministrative practices in ., he Department, and not my' omplaints or frustrations, if i ny. If any spleen was vented, t t was done 'by certain of my uperiors In attempts, to disr., redit m .. .' OTTO F. OTEPKA. ,FOIAb3b Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-001498000600040013-1. You say that I gave the "re- ports to the subcommittee to demonstrate 'laxity' in the De- partment's security operation." The fact is that I gave my memorandum to the Subcom- mittee after my. immediate su- perior, Mr. Reilly, to whom my memorandum was addressed, had testified that the case of only one prospective em- ploye had been brought to, his attention prior to their appointment This testimony