THE ORDEAL OF OTTO OTEPKA

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75-00149R000600040145-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: November 11, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 15, 1998
• Sequence Number: 145
• Publication Date: August 1, 1965
• Content Type: MAGAZINE

READER'S DIGEST
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RD
August 1965
CPYRGHT
The Ordeal
o Otto Otepka
Z1 ,y have Statd'"Department employes been
using the tactics of a police state to oust
dedicated security officer whose only sin
seems to be loyalty to his country? fl
By CHARLES STEVENSON, WITH. WILLIAM 1. GILL
FEW MINUTES before noon on
Friday, June 27, 1963, Otto
AF. Otepka, chief of the U.S.
State Department's security-evalua-
tions division, was summoned to the
office of his immediate superior;
John F. Reilly, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State for Security. Reilly
tossed him a one-page memoran-
dum. "Effective immediately," the
memo said, "you are detailed to a
special project updating the Office
of Security Handbook. You will re-
move forthwith to Room 38A05."
Within a half-hour of this ouster,
Otcpka's office safes and file cabi-
nets, which contained extensive
security information on State De-
partment personnel, were seized.
The same thing was happening to
two veteran security officers who
worked under Otepka.
These police-state tactics were
used not against men suspected of
subversion. They were used against
men who had been trying to fight
subversion-the professional "secu-
rity men" whose job it is to try to
keep the government service free of
communists and persons who might
fall under their influence.
The story of Otto Otepka, a tall,
quiet, darkly handsome man of 50,
is still without an ending, and on its
outcome hang two vitally important
issues. One is whether we shall,
without hysterics and false accusa-
tions, fight attempts to subvert our
government. The other is whether
Congress-the elected representa-
tives of the people-shall preserve
our right to oversee the behavior of
the officials in the executive branch.
Many kinds of subversion are
practiced today by the communists..
One of the most difficult to detect is
"policy sabotage," a device by which
seemingly innnr'n- r~s ri cinno ~nrr nr
FOIAb3b
Sanitized -.Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000600040145-5
 2
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R0006000401.45-5
CPYRGHT
0
AUG
THE READERS DIGEST August
up isrupnon 711 71 ay o crucial John Foster. Dulles, on June 15,1953,
activities..A classic example occurred brought him into the State Dcpart-
in" the aftermath of World War II: merit to carry out President Eisen-
Harry Dexter White, Assistant See- bower's Executive Order 10450,
rotary of the Treasury, withheld designed to set security standards
vitally needed shipments of gold or- for all federal agencies.
dered by Congress to bolster Chiang ~ By 1957 Otcpka was deputy di-
Kai-shek's currency, thus contribut- rector of the Office of Security-the
ing to the collapse-of the currency. Department's highest civil-service
The Nationalist armies were left un- 6ecurity job-and working head of
paid and starving, an easy prey to State's global personnel-security or-
Mao Tse-tung's communists. ganizatioii: In 1958 the State Dcpart.
This type of sabotage is doubly pent awarded him its Meritorious
dangerous because it creates suspi- Service Award. The citation, signed
cion and confusion. Many who sup- by Secretary of State Dulles, declared
ported the wild charges of the late that Otepka "has shown himself con-
Sen. Joseph McCarthy in the early sistently capable of sound judgment,
r95o's, for instance, failed to distin- creative work and the acceptance of
guish between 'policy sabotage and unusual responsibility. His 196o de-
errors of judgment, and they be- jartnicntal. efficiency report noted
smirched the reputation of innocent that to his knowledge of commu-
people. Otto Otepka was never such ' nism and its subversiv ff
h
a
y o Late role in U.S, support of the Cuban
n
security 0J.- Inc Senate Internal Security Sub-
ficcr to call him "the best evaluator cpmmittee, investigating Wieland's
in government"' secret
r f S
ten arl can desk officer dur. ,
It was, in part, his sense of perspcc- ing the early days of Fidel Castro.'
Live that led one vetera
g. to son a ante and good Judgment. '?.4
of an immigrant Czech blacksmith, Yet, as he was receiving these
he had come to Washington in 1936 plaudits from his superiors, Otepka
as a government messenger. In 1942, was incurring the enmity of an in..
after earning a law degree at night flucntial clique in the Department
at Columbus University (now the' who chafed at security procedures.
law school of Catholic University)," Soon after the Kennedy administra-
he became an investigator for the tion took over in 1961, these persons
Civil Service Commission. Follow- began to act. Otepka found his rec-
ing Navy service in World -War II,' ommendations were being ignored
he returned to the commission, be- or overruled.
came an expert on communist sub- Then there occurred the strange
version and supervised a large staff case of William Wieland, a contro
analyzing cases under the Federal versial foreign-service officer who
Employes Loyalty Program. hid b C ?bb
c e opts u1 t
e
a zealot. His very background made United States "he adds persjective,.:~;
him respect the undcrdo 'I"1 , b 1
1965
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000600040145-5
 3
Sanitized - Approved-For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000600040145-5
revolution, declared that e cou
not "escape a share of the responsi-
bility" for Castro's takeover. Among
other things, the'subcommittee un-
covered evidence that Wieland had
withheld crucial intelligence reports
warning of Castro's communist'.,
tics.
Conducting an investigation un-
der specific Department orders,
Otepka in 1961 reported he found
no proof Wieland was a communist,
but he amassed evidence that he was
responsible for "policy impedance"
and had "lied" both to the Senate
subcommittee and to State's own in-
vestigators. Otcpka recommended
that higher authorities consider dis-
missing him as unsuitable.
For an answer, on September 18,
1961, William Boswell, an old-line
foreign-service officer and at the
time Otepka's immediate superior,
ordered Otepka to clear Wieland im-
mediately without the required writ-
ten findings from the Deputy
Under Secretary for Administration.
Otcpka refused.
The Department made its first
formal move to get rid of Otepka
less than six weeks later. On No-
vember i, 1961, Boswell called
Otepka into his office and an-
nounced that 25 Security Office jobs
were being eliminated. Otepka was
being demoted to chief of a 32-man
evaluation staff.
Many men would have quit in dis-
gust. Otepka stayed on, even though
his old job, supposedly abolished for
economy reasons, was later restored
with someone else filling it.
o' AU G 1965
CPYRGHT
THE ORDEAL OF OTTO OTEPKA
en John Reilly arrived as the
new director of the Office of Secu-
rity. Now Otepka's recommenda-
tions and memorandums were
bounced back with critical notations.
And weird, things began to happen.
At 10:30 p.m. on March 24 Otepka
returned to his office after an eve-
ning of bowling and startled two of
Reilly's aides there. Later, an elec-
tronic&technician- told him, "Your
phone" is bugged:" Another reported
that there were concealed listening
devices planted in his office. One
weekend his office safe was drilled
open. And a mystery man with bin-
oculars sat outside Otepka's home
night after night.
By early 1963 the situation epito-
mized by the harassment of Otepka
had become so critical that the State
Department's entire personnel secu-
rity apparatus was on the verge of
collapse. The Atomic Energy Com-
mission, in granting access to atomic
secrets, refused to accept State De,
partment investigations, and the
Civil Service Commission reported
to the National Security Council
deficiencies and shortcomings in
State's security operations.
At this point, the Senate Internal
Security Subcommittee resumed its
hearings. During February and
March 1963 it asked Otepka whether
the Department was clearing possi-
ble security risks despite, warnings
from the Evaluations Division. Otep-
ka declared it was. Reilly denied
this. As the hearings progressed,
more and more discrepancies de-,
veloped between Otepka's testimony
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-ROP75-00149R000600040145-5
 4
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000600040145-5
CPYRGHT
THE READER'S DIGEST
and Reilly's rejoinders. The contra- actions "unbecoming- an officer of
dictions were so serious that on May the Department of State" (specifcal-
23 subcommittee counsel J. G. Sour- ly, supplying legitimate information
wine called Otepka to his Capitol to U.S. Senators). Otepka appealed
Hill office. "One of you is lying un- he case, under State Department
der oath," he said. "If you have regulations. Sen. Thomas Dodd,
evidence to prove you're right, you'd vice chairman of the Internal Secu-
better produce it." rity Subcommittee, protested to Sec-
That light Otepka paced his base= ctary of State Rusk, but Rusk
mcnt study at home. "The Code of reconfirmed the proposed dismissal.
Ethics for Government Employes,,'?? bodd then stormed onto the Senate
adopted by Congress in 1958, re- ' ' floor on November 5, castigating the
quires all civil servants to put loyalty
to country above loyalty to govern-
ment departments. Federal statutes
specifically guarantee their right "to
furnish information to Congress
shall not be interfered with." phone,, the subcommittee has proof ?
Shortly thereafter Otepka sent the that fhe- tap was installed'.'-a clear
subcommittee 25 unclassified, two 'diolation of State's' own regula '.
"confidential," six "official use only,"' Lions. ti?;`
and three "limited official use" docu-
ments and memos. Point by point
these papers upheld the truth of
Otcpka's testimony.
Four weeks later, on June 27,
Otepka was given the meaningless
assignment of updating the Security
Office Handbook.
On August 14, 1963, Otepka suf-
fered the next step in his deg-
radation-he was accused by his
superiors at State of violating the
World War I Espionage Act. He was
charged with spying for the U.S.
Department for "chasing the police-
man instead of the culprit," and he
exploded a bombshell: "Although a
State Department official has denied
under' oath a tap on Otepka's tele-
That night the Department's top..,
legal advisers called in Reilly ands'-4''..
Elmer D. Hill, an electronics techni-
cian, and had them sign letters ask-
ing the subcommittee for the right
to "clarify" and "amplify" their
earlier sworn testimony that they
had not tapped Otepka's telephone.
Reilly's story now changed to:
"On March 18 I asked Mr. Elmer
D. Hill to undertake a survey of the
feasibility of intercepting conversa-
tions in Mr. Otepka's office. I made
it clear to Mr. Hill that I did not
Senate by turning over "confiden- wish any conversations to be inter-
tial documents (the papers which cepted at that time." But days later
cleared him of perjury). After three
days of questioning, the FBI threw
out the case against him.
Then, on September 23, 1963, the
State Department fired Otepka for
Hill confessed to the subcommittee
that he had tapped."a dozen, perhaps
more" of Otepka's telephone con-
versations under Reilly's orders.
Even ,after that, despite a written
AUG 1965
Sanitized - Approved For Release.: CIA-RDP75-00149R000600040145-5
 5
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000600040145-5
CPYRGHT
protest approved by the entire en-
ate Judiciary Committee, Secretary
Rusk declared that prosecution of
the Otcpka case would be "vigor-
ously pursued." Security.Office divi-
sion chiefs were officially notified
that all who "are disloyal" to the
Secretary will be "identified and
ousted. We have lost face, and it's up
to us to regain it."
Since then the State Department
has allowed little to leak out. Otcp-
ka, waiting for the chance to fight
for reinstatement, still goes to the
State Department every Monday
through Friday. In accordance with
Civil Service rules, he still draws his
$19,310 annual salary, but he is not
given any useful tasks. He is, in
effect, in exile within the Depart-
ment, and many of his associates are
afraid even to say hello to him.
Seldom has an issue reached so
deep into the roots of our govern-
mental system. For if Otepka loses
his appeal, now, set for October
ii, it will set new precedents for
conduct of government. Men like
William Wieland, who withheld in-
formation about Castro, will know'
that they are safe from accountabil-
ity. He is still in the State Depart-
ment and has since been promoted.
Men like Reilly, who deceived a
Senate subcommittee, will know
that playing the bureaucracy's game
pays oa-he presently holds a high-
paying;'job with, the Federal Com-
munications Commission. And the
thousands of dedicated public of-
ficials-the Otepkas and those in
.other government agencies-will
have learned their lesson : In govern-
ment, if you see something going
wrong, forget it. Says Senator Dodd:
"If those forces bent on destroying
Otepka and the no-nonsense security
approach lie represents are success-
ful, who knows how many more
Chinas or Cubas we may lose?"
The American people can offer
only one answer: Loud, sustained
protest to President Johnson and
their representatives in Congress.
Until the men of Otto Otepka's
stamp are safe in their jobs, with,
full authority to enforce a wise se-
curity program, the nation can have
no reasonable assurance it is safe
from enemies within.
AUG 1965
Sanitized - Approved. For Release CIA-RDP75-00149R000600040145-5