Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 14, 2016
Document Release Date: 
March 18, 2003
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
September 26, 1947
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP78-04718A000500130057-2.pdf170.6 KB
Approved FqRelease 2003/0 D-69416 'U A- a -LP September 26, 1917 Director of Central Intelligence Group, 2430 E Street, N.W., shin ton, D. C. Dear Admiral Hillenkoetter= Reference is made to your letter of September 8, 1947, as follows= "This office has for consideration the payment of terminal leave to a former employee separated from the service because of questionable loyalty to the United States Government. The propriety of making refund of retirement deductions is a related problem and a copy of your decision will be forwarded to the Civil Service Coinnissi.on with the employee's application for refund of retirement. The name of the employee is omitted from this letter and attachment, not only for the protection of the individual, but also because the issue here raised is expected to be of general and continuin ; interest in actual or con- teriplated similar cases* it would be appreciated if an early confi- dential decision could be rendered since the individual has repeatedly requested prompt action with respect to payment of Lump Sum Leave to her credit. "Under date of Februa;;,r 27, 1947, the Director c6f Civilian Personnel, CIG, was instructed by the Civil Service Commission to separate the subject employee on the basis of an investigation con- ducted by that office. A true copy of letter dated February 27, with employeets name omitted, is attached for your consideration. This office notified the 3mrloyee of the Commission's action, informed hee of her right to appeal, and suspended her effective close of business 31 March 1947, for a period not to exceed ninety days pendinc final action by the CoQmiission. The employee appealed her case and the Commission sustained its original decision. The employee was separated from the rolls of the Central Intelligence Group effective close of business 30 June 1947. "chile it would appear that the subject employee may be pro- conrmnist, and that her loyalty is subject to reasonable doubt, her views and such reasonable doubt do not seem to, constitute proof of any illegal act or of any act in contravention of the laws and reg- ulations controlling payment of salaries and retirement refunds. If charges of this nature had been certified against the employee there Approved For Release 2003/05/28 CIA-RDP78 -04718A0500130057-2 tDP73 0474000500130057-2. CRC, 3/13/20031 U 1.3 3 Approved FiQp Release 200 05128 : CIA-RDP78- WA000500130057-2 .. 4 4.l 10133 B-69416 would be no doubt as to the withholding of monies normally due her action in this regard being clearly set out in Chapter C2 (page 173, Federal Personnel Manual. In the case at hand, however, the employee is suspected of being pro-communist and it is doubted that a person falling within the category of a suspect only is to be considered as personally advocating the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force or violence when no positive showing has been made that such person belongs to an organization advocating such action. In this connection reference is made to Section 10, Military Appro- priation Act, 1947 (an appropriation established therein having been made available to the vrorldng fund under which this Agency operated), which provides, in part, as followss " 'No part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall be used to pay the salary or wages of any person * * t* x * * who advocates, or is the member of an organization that advocates, the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force or. violencet * * * * * * * *1 "Reference is also made to Standard Form No. 61a, Oath of Office.. Affidavit, and Declaration of Appointee, which contains provisions sworn to by the subject employee with respect to the bearing of true faith and allegiance'to the United States and nonadvocacy of the over- throw of the Government of the United States. "Your decision as to complete action to be taken in this and similar cases will be greatly appreciated." The employee referred to in your letter has been separated from the service "because of giestionable loyalty to the United States Government." There now is for determination the question whether that employee "advocates or is a member of an organization that advo- cates the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force or violence" within the meaning of those words as used in section 10 of the 1.1ilitary Appropriation Act of 1947, 60 Stat. 61,. If so, then the use of the funds provided by said act would, by virture of the statu- tory provisions quoted in your letter, be precluded in respect of the lump-sum payment of annual leave otherwise due the subject employee at the time of separation. The existence of a reasonable doubt as to Approved For Release 2003/05"28': CIA--RDP78-041 A000500130057-2 i1g IL I Approved FRelease 2003/051uutj 14A000500130057-2 10133 B-69416 the loyalty of an employee to the United States such as would form a proper basis for separating the employee from the service would not be conclusive per se of advocacy to overthrow the Government by force for the purpose of applying the prohibitory provisions against the use of the funds in that connection. The question of tether an employee "advocates, or is a member of an organization that advocates, the overthrow of the Government by force or violence" within the meaning' of the statutory provisions quoted in your letter is one pri- marily for administrative determination and such determination, when made, will not ordinarily be questioned by the General Accounting Office, unless the record upon which it is made clearly shows it to be erroneous. Cf. decision of February 26, 1947, B-63079. In that connection it may be stated that the record transmitted with your letter has, been examined and no such determination has been found, but upon the basis of the facts presented here no reason-is perceived why there should be questioned an administrative determination that the subject employee is not 1thin the statutory inhibition referred In regard to the propriety of making refund of retirement de- ductions to the individual in qi estion, that matter is, of course, primarily within the jurisdiction of the United States Civil Service Commission and is not one properly before this office for consideration at this time. Compt roller General of the United States. Approved For Release 2003/ l23 -:--CIA-RDP78-04718A000500130057-2