THE OTEPKA CASE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75-00149R000600040013-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: November 11, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 15, 1998
• Sequence Number: 13
• Content Type: NSPR

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