ANNUAL REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT FY 1985

Document Type: 
Collection: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7
Release Decision: 
RIFPUB
Original Classification: 
K
Document Page Count: 
39
Document Creation Date: 
December 27, 2016
Document Release Date: 
December 11, 2012
Sequence Number: 
7
Case Number: 
Content Type: 
REPORT
File: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7.pdf2.95 MB
Body: 
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Information Security Oversight Office Annual Report to the President FY 1985 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 April 11, 1986 Dear Mr. Garfinkel: Thank you for your 1985 Annual Report on the status of the system we have established under Executive Order 12356 to protect national security information. I am pleased to note that the system continues to work well. Your report noted the current efforts to improve the information security program which the National Security Council has since approved in principle. Your interagency committee is to be commended for these efforts. These initiatives, in conjunction with other security and counterintelligence initiatives, should assist in further strengthening the information security program. Please accept my thanks for the outstanding work of your organization and the other dedicated personnel throughout the government who are working so hard on behalf of protecting our national security. Mr. Steven Garfinkel Director Information Security Oversight Office 18th and F Streets, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20405 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88GO1332R001001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Information Security Oversight Office Washington, DC 20405 March 24, 1986 I am pleased to submit the Information Security Oversight Office's (ISOO) 1985 Annual Report to the President. Since you issued Executive Order 12356, "National Security Information," in 1982, the ISOO has regularly reported that the information security system established under it has functioned very well. That success continues. Nevertheless, you have also recognized the need for ongoing efforts to improve the security classification program, seeking better protection for national security information without excessive classification. In 1985, the ISOO commenced an interagency effort to seek even further improvement in the information security program. The ISOO is now working to implement the proposed initiatives that resulted. These are discussed in greater detail in the Report. Your support of the information security system has been constant and remains vital to its continued success. As we seek further improvement, we proceed with the knowledge of your continued interest. Respectfully, Steven Garfinkel Director The President The White House Washington, DC 20500 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Table of Contents Letter to the President ......................... 1 Agency Acronyms or Abbreviations ........... 4 Summary of FY 1985 Program Activity ........ 5 The Information Security Program FY 1985 ... 6 Program Reviews and Inspections ....... 6 Statistical Reporting ...................... 7 Original Classification Authorities ....... 8 Original Classification .................... 9 Derivative Classification .................. 12 Total Classification Activity .............. 13 Mandatory Review for Declassification ........................ 14 Systematic Declassification Review ..... 16 Agency Self-Inspections .................. 18 Exhibits 1. Original Classifiers, FY 1971-FY 1985 ....................... 8 2. Number of Original Classifiers ........... 9 3. Comparison of Original Classification Activity .................. 9 4. Original Classification Decisions ......... 10 5. Original Classification Decisions by Agency, FY 1982-FY 1985 .............. 11 6. Original Classification Decisions Scheduled for Automatic Declassification ........................ 11 7. Original Classification/ Declassification Assignments ......... 12 8. Comparison of Derivative Classification Activity .................. 12 9. Derivative Classification Decisions by Agency, FY 1982-FY 1985 ..........13 10. Comparison of Combined Classification Activity ..................13 11. Mandatory Review Requests Received ............................... 14 12. Mandatory Review Workload, FY 1983-FY 1985 .......................1 4 Improving the Information Security System ... 19 Appendix A: DoD Sampling Systems ......... 24 B: Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement .... 27 C: Highlights of ISOO Symposium ...................28 D: ISOO Inspections: FY 1983- FY 1985 ........................ 30 13. 14. 19. 20. Mandatory Review Actions ............... 15 FY 1985 Mandatory Review Actions by Agency .............................. 15 Mandatory Review Appeals Workload, FY 1983-FY 1985............ 16 Pages Reviewed for Declassification ........................ 16 Percentage of Reviewed Pages Declassified ............................ 17 FY 1985 Systematic Review Actions by Agency ............................. 17 Agency Self-Inspections ................. 18 Infractions ................................ 18 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Agency Acronyms or Abbreviations Used in this Report ACDA Arms Control and Disarmament NARA National Archives and Records Agency Administration AID Agency for International NASA National Aeronautics and Space Development Administration AIR FORCE Department of the Air Force NAVY Department of the Navy ARMY Department of the Army NLRB National Labor Relations Board BIB Board for International NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission Broadcasting NSA National Security Agency CEA Council of Economic Advisers NSC National Security Council CIA Central Intelligence Agency NSF National Science Foundation COMMERCE Department of Commerce OA, EOP Office of Administration, DARPA Defense Advanced Research Executive Office of the President Projects Agency OJCS Organization of the Joint Chiefs DCA Defense Communications of Staff Agency OMB Office of Management and Budget DCAA Defense Contract Audit Agency OMSN Office for Micronesian Status DIA Defense Intelligence Agency Negotiations DIS Defense Investigative Service OPIC Overseas Private Investment DLA Defense Logistics Agency Corporation DMA Defense Mapping Agency OPM Office of Personnel Management DNA Defense Nuclear Agency OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense DoD Department of Defense OSTP Office of Science and Technology DoE Department of Energy Policy DoT Department of Transportation OVP Office of the Vice President ED Department of Education PC Peace Corps EPA Environmental Protection Agency PFIAB President's Foreign Intelligence EXIMBANK Export-Import Bank Advisory Board FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation PIOB President's Intelligence Oversight FCA Farm Credit Administration Board FCC Federal Communications SBA Small Business Administration Commission SEC Securities and Exchange FEMA Federal Emergency Management Commission Agency SSS Selective Service System FHLBB Federal Home Loan Bank Board STATE Department of State FMC Federal Maritime Commission TREASURY Department of the Treasury FRS Federal Reserve System TVA Tennessee Valley Authority GSA General Services Administration USDA Department of Agriculture HHS Department of Health and USIA United States Information Agency Human Services USPS United States Postal Service HUD Department of Housing and USTR Office of the United States Trade Urban Development Representative ICC Interstate Commerce VA Veterans Administration Commission ISOO Information Security Oversight Office INTERIOR Department of the Interior ITC International Trade Commission JUSTICE Department of Justice LABOR Department of Labor MMC Marine Mammal Commission Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Summary of FY 1985 Program Activity The FY 1985 Report to the President is the third to examine the information security program under E.O. 12356. The following data highlight ISOO's findings: Classification Activities ? The number of original classification authorities rose slightly to 7,014. ? Original classification decisions decreased to a record low level of 830,641. ? By classification level, 3.9% of original classification decisions were "Top Secret," 35.6% were "Secret," and 60.5% were "Confidential." ? Under E.O. 12356, originally classified information has been marked for automatic declassification 34% of the time, in contrast to the estimated 10% rate under E.O. 12065. ? Derivative classification decisions rose 15% over FY '84, to 21,492,254. ? The total of all classification actions, 22,322,895, was a 14% increase over FY '84. Declassification Activities ? Agencies received 4,037 new mandatory review requests. ? Agencies processed 3,621 cases, 18% fewer than in FY '84, but declassified in full 265,197 pages, 101,632 more than in FY '84, and declassified in part 47,920 additional pages. ? Agencies received 282 new mandatory review appeals. ? Agencies acted on 522 appeals, 23% more than in FY '84, and declassified additional information in whole or in part in 87% of the cases. ? Under the systematic review program, agencies declassified 8,107,047 pages of historically valuable records, 2.4 million pages fewer than in FY '84. Inspections ? Agencies conducted 28,319 self-inspections, a slight increase over FY '84. ? Agencies reported 15,154 infractions, 21 % fewer than in FY '84. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Information Security Oversight Office The Information Security Program - FY 1985 Under Executive Order 12356, the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) is responsible for monitoring the information security programs of those executive branch activities that generate or handle national security information. Originally established by Executive Order 12065, ISOO continues to be the primary oversight organization in the system prescribed by President Reagan's Order of April 2, 1982. In this role, ISOO oversees the information security programs of approximately 65 departments, independent agencies and offices of the executive branch. E.O.12356 also requires the Director of ISOO to report annually to the President about the ongoing implementation of the Order's provisions. This Report summarizes Government-wide performance during FY 1985, the system's third year. ISOO is located administratively in the General Services Administration but receives its policy direction from the National Security Council. The Administrator of General Services appoints the ISOO Director upon approval of the President. The ISOO Director appoints the staff, which numbers between 13-15 persons. For FY 1985, ISOO's budget was $660,000. ISOO fulfills its assigned responsibilities under E.O.12356 in a variety of ways. First, it develops and issues implementing directives and instructions regarding the Order. Second, ISOO conducts on-site inspections or program reviews of agencies that generate or handle national security information. During FY 1985, ISOO also monitored agency implementation of the signing by all cleared employees of the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement, Standard Form 189, prescribed by National Security Decision Directive 84 (NSDD 84), as a condition of access to classified information. Appendix B, p. 27, reports on the status of implementation of this requirement by each agency. Third, ISOO gathers, analyzes and reports statistical data on agencies' programs. Fourth, it evaluates, develops or disseminates security education materials and programs. During FY 1985, ISOO held a symposium entitled "National Security Information: Different Perspectives," at which time Government and contractor employees, scholars and journalists heard varying views on the topic from a panel of experts assembled from the public and private sectors. Appendix C, p. 28, contains quotes highlighting the meeting. Fifth, ISOO receives and takes action on suggestions, complaints, disputes and appeals from persons inside or outside the Government on any aspect of the administration of the Order. In this area, ISOO serves as the final appellate authority for the mandatory declassification review of presidential materials. Sixth, it conducts special studies on identified or potential problem areas and on programs to improve the system. During FY 1985, the ISOO Director chaired an interagency effort to develop initiatives to improve the Government-wide information security system in five perceived problem areas: overclassification or unnecessary classification; the overdistribution of classified information; classification management; revitalization of the "need-to-know" principle; and unauthorized disclosures. These initiatives are discussed in greater detail in the narrative section, p. 19. Seventh, ISOO maintains continuous liaison with monitored agencies on all matters relating to the information security system. This Report is based upon program reviews and inspections conducted by the ISOO staff and the compilation and analysis of statistical data regarding each agency's program activity. Program Reviews and Inspections ISOO's program analysts serve as liaison to specific agencies to facilitate coordination and to provide for continuity of oversight operations. The analysts must stay abreast of relevant activities within each agency's information security program; coordinate with assigned agency counterparts on a continuing basis; and conduct formal inspections of the agency's program in accordance with a planned annual inspection schedule, which includes visits to selected field activities as well as offices in the Washington metropolitan area. ISOO also undertakes compliance reviews of selected contractor facilities as part of its inspection Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88GO1332R001001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 program. Appendix D to this Report p. 30, lists those activities that ISOO has inspected during the period FY 1983-1985. These on-site surveys encompass all aspects of the information security program, including classification, declassification, safeguarding, security education, and administration. The inspections always include detailed interviews with agency security personnel, classifiers, and handlers of national security information. To the extent possible, ISOO analysts review a sampling of classified information in the agency's inventory to examine the propriety of classification, the existence of necessary security markings and declassification instructions, and compliance with safeguarding procedures. ISOO analysts also monitor security training programs to determine if the agencies adequately inform personnel about classifying, declassifying, marking and safeguarding national security information. When weaknesses in an agency's program are identified, ISOO analysts recommend corrections, either on-the- spot or as part of a formal inspection report. Critical reports require immediate remedial attention by the agency prior to a follow-up inspection by ISOO. These inspections are a necessary means of identifying and resolving problem areas. They provide specific indicators of agency compliance or noncompliance with E.O. 12356 that are not apparent simply from the analysis of statistical data. Statistical Reporting To gather relevant statistical data regarding each agency's information security program, ISOO developed the Standard Form 311, which requires each agency to report annually the following information: 1. The number of original classification authorities; 2. the number of declassification authorities; 3. the number of original classification decisions, including the classification level of those decisions and the duration of classification; 4. the number of derivative classification decisions by classification level; 5. the number of requests received for mandatory review for declassification and agency actions in response to these requests in terms of cases, documents, and pages; 6. the number of pages of national security information reviewed during the year under systematic declassification procedures and the number declassified; 7. the number of formal self-inspections conducted by the agency; and 8. the number of security infractions detected by the agency within its own program. The statistics reflected in this Report cover the period October 1, 1984, through September 30, 1985. Some of the larger agency programs, including CIA and DoD, calculate their classification actions on the basis of sampling systems approved by ISOO. For FY 1985, DoD utilized two sampling methods in reporting its statistics to ISOO. The first is based on electronic message traffic only, and has been in use since ISOO began collecting these statistics. The second, which was begun this year, includes a wider range of document types, including memoranda and reports. For FY 1985, ISOO is using the data provided by the message traffic system in the body of the Report to allow for more accurate comparisons with previous years. In future reports ISOO intends to use the statistics provided by the new sampling method, because it is likely to produce more reliable figures. Appendix A, p. 24, describes the two sampling systems in greater detail, and contains the statistics reported by DoD using the new method. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Original Classification Authorities Up Slightly (Exhibits 1 and 2) Original classification authorities are those individuals specifically authorized in the first instance to classify information in the interest of national security. These classifiers are designated in writing, either by the President or by other officials, primarily agency heads, named by the President. Limiting the number of original classifiers to the minimum necessary for efficient management is one way to control the volume of overall classification activity. ISOO encourages agencies to conduct regular surveys to ensure that the number of original authorities is in line with operational requirements. ORIGINAL CLASSIFIERS 1971 - 1985 E.0 10501 E.O. 11652 E.O. 12065 E.O. 12356 I 1971 1972 1976 1982 1983 1984 1985 9,316 OWNW. Totals Reported in FY 1984 ISOO Report Changed to Reflect Addition of 87 Secret Classifiers in DoD Not Previously Reported to ISOO Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88GO1332R001001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 The number of executive branch employees authorized to classify originally has decreased significantly since 1972, when the figure was 59,316. In FY 1985, there were 7,014 individuals with original classification authority. This is slightly higher than the revised total of 6,987 reported in FY 1984, and approximates the 7,010 original classifiers registered in FY 1983. Responsibility for the higher figure during FY 1985, rests with three agencies that reported substantial increases. They are FEMA, up 13 (+325%), Treasury, up 26 (+30%) and State, up 136 (+8%). These numbers more than offset decreases at CIA, DoD and OSTP. The number of "Top Secret" authorities rose at the greatest rate (+3%), although "Confidential" authorities also increased by 1 %. "Secret" authorities declined by 1 %. During FY 1986, ISOO will press each agency that accounted for this year's increase, and others, to make a concerted effort to reduce the number of original classifiers, especially at the "Top Secret" level. ISOO is convinced that some designations of original classification authority continue to be based solely on the purported prestige that attaches to it. This is unacceptable because the only valid justification is the need of the official to exercise such authority in the performance of his or her employment responsibilities. Original Classification Declines to Record Low Level (Exhibits 3 through 7) An original classification decision is an initial determination by an authorized official that information requires protection from unauthorized disclosure in the interest of national security. The determination is accompanied by the placement of required classification markings on the medium that contains the information. The number of original classification decisions is probably the most important statistic reported by ISOO each year because of its wide ranging impact on all aspects of the information security program. In FY 1985, the number of original classification decisions decreased by 51,302 (-5.8%) to 830,641. This figure represents the lowest number of original actions reported since ISOO began collecting such statistics in FY 1979. The total is 21 % lower than the 1,055,152 decisions reported in FY 1982, the last year under the previous Executive order. NUMBER OF COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL ORIGINAL CLASSIFIERS Exhibit 2 CLASSIFICATION ACTIVITY "Top Secret" Authorities: (1 559) , "Secret" Authorities: (4 293) , "Confidential" Authorities: (1 161) , j s 1111 Total: (7,014) 4' = 500 Authorities E.O. 12065 E.O. 12356 1,069,058 11055,152 11 864,099 881,943 830,641 11 9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332RO01001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Despite the positive overall figure for FY 1985, ISOO notes that the number of original "Top Secret" actions increased substantially during the year. They rose by 12,016 (60.1 %). "Secret" actions increased by 34,539 (13.2%). These numbers were offset by a dramatic decrease of 97,857 (-16.3%) in "Confidential" decisions. ISOO is concerned that a trend may be developing for agencies to classify at increasingly higher levels, and will be watching carefully to ensure that any continued movement in such a direction is justified. ORIGINAL CLASSIFICATION DECISIONS "TOP SECRET" ORIGINAL CLASSIFICATION Exhibit 4 DECISIONS TOTAL ORIGINAL 10 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88GO1332R001001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Four agencies classify originally more than 99% of the actions within the executive branch. Of these, DoD reported an increase of 39,577 (11 %) and Justice a rise of 6,341 (10%). The CIA and State reported decreases of 32% and 5%, respectively. The decline of 84,500 actions by the CIA was the primary factor for the lower total figure in original classification decisions. A comparison of original classification decisions by agency for the period FY 1982-1985 shows a dramatic decrease by the CIA from a high figure of 413,521 reported in FY 1982, to this year's total of 181,688. Similarly, the numbers for Justice demonstrate a marked decline in original classification activity from FY 1982- FY 1985. The figures for State remained relatively constant during the period. The only major classifier to register increases each year is DoD, which reported 291,831 original decisions in FY 1982, and 385,496 in FY 1985, a 32% increase. ORIGINAL CLASSIFICATION DECISIONS BY AGENCY 1982-1985 In Thousands E.O.12356 During FY 1985, 35% of the decisions specified a particular date or event for automatic declassification. This is 3% greater than the figure reported in FY 1984. The average of 34% under the current Executive order continues to be considerably better than the estimated 10% under the predecessor system. The DoD's automatic declassification rate remained an impressive 71 % during FY 1985. However, at several other agencies the rate declined sharply from the percentages reported in FY 1984. They were the CIA (5% in FY 1984, to 1 % in FY 1985), DoE (15% to 7%), State (12% to 8%), and Treasury (16% to 9%). ORIGINAL CLASSIFICATION DECISIONS SCHEDULED FOR AUTOMATIC Exhibit 5 DECLASSIFICATION Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88GO1332R001001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 During the course of its on-site inspections, ISOO analysts examine documents to determine the propriety of the classification and the proper use of markings. Frequently, analysts review items that could contain a specific date or event as the declassification instruction but instead bear the indefinite designation, "Originating Agency's Determination Required." Examples of documents that should contain a specific date or event as the declassification instruction are memoranda relating to itineraries abroad by U.S. officials or to this country by foreign dignitaries. This is an area in which further improvements are achievable. ISOO will continue to press agencies to use a date or event whenever possible. Derivative Classification Continues to Rise (Exhibits 8 and 9) Derivative classification is the act of incorporating, paraphrasing, restating or generating in new form classified source information. Information may be derivatively classified in two ways: (a) through the use of a source document, usually correspondence or publications generated by an original classification authority; or (b) through the use of a classification guide. Only executive branch or Government contractor employees with the appropriate security clearance who are required by their work to restate classified source information may classify derivatively. In FY 1985, executive branch agencies made 21,492,254 derivative classification decisions, a 14.8% increase over FY 1984. Of the total, 510,179 (2%) were classified at the "Top Secret" level, 6,539,860 (31 %) at the "Secret" level, and 14,442,215 (67%) at the "Confidential" level. These figures represent an increase at each level, with the number of "Secret" actions rising the greatest at 18%. "Top Secret" and "Confidential" decisions increased 11% and 13%, respectively. ORIGINAL CLASSIFICATION COMPARISON OF DERIVATIVE DECLASSIFICATION ASSIGNMENTS Exhibit 7 CLASSIFICATION ACTIVITY Exhibit 8 1985 Agency % Assigned Date % OADR (Must be % or Event for Declassification Reviewed Before Declassification) "TS" DoD 71% 29% 1% 18% 81% CIA 1% 99% 14% 75% 11% State 8% 92% 0.1% 20.9% 79% Justice 0.4% 99.6% 4% 70% 26% Treasury 9% 91% 0% 5% 95% All Others 21% 79% 2% 25% 73% Totals 35% 65% 4% 36% 60% 12 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Combined Classification Activity Increases (Exhibit 10) An examination of the data from FY 1982 through FY 1985 indicates that DoD and CIA account for nearly all of the derivative classification decisions. The figures for DoD show annual increases during the period from a low of 13,738,420 in FY 1982, to a high of 18,090,961 in FY 1985. The increase from FY 1984-1985, was 11 % or an additional 1,826,923 derivative classification actions. The CIA had experienced declines in each year from FY 1982-1984. However, in FY 1985 it registered a 42% increase in the number of derivative classification decisions. Two agencies reporting substantial percentage decreases in FY 1985, were FEMA (-57%) and Justice (-13%). Given the wide disparity in figures reported by DoD and CIA for FY. 1985, ISOO is concerned that the sampling systems currently in use may not result in the most accurate numbers. Both agencies project the totals based on samples taken over a single one week period. It is likely that in one year the week selected may be relatively quiet while, in another, it may be unusually active. To overcome this potential problem, ISOO is recommending that the DoD and CIA develop systems that sample classification activity during more than a single one week period. DERIVATIVE CLASSIFICATION DECISIONS BY AGENCY 1982-1985 In Millions Exhibit 9 During FY 1985, the combined number of original and derivative classification decisions was 22,322,895. This was an increase of 2,715,159 (14%) over FY 1984. The primary reasons for the rise were the substantial increases reported by DoD in both original and derivative actions and the 42% increase registered by the CIA in derivative decisions. As in the past, ISOO worked with the agencies whose original or derivative classification decisions accounted for the significant increases to help determine the causes. Among the reasons, several agencies cited greater counterintelligence efforts, particularly in the area of combating international terrorism. As discussed in the section on derivative classification, p. 12, ISOO suspects that the difference is partly the result of sampling that concentrates on one week of the year. In FY 1986, ISOO will devote additional energy to the review of documents during its on-site surveys to ascertain the appropriateness of classification. ISOO will also be seeking greater involvement by the agencies themselves to undertake similar spot checks to determine the propriety of classification decisions. The percentage of all decisions classified at the "Top Secret" level remained at 2% for the second straight year. However, there was a shift of one percent from "Confidential" to "Secret." The former now comprise 67% of the total, the latter 31 %. COMPARISON OF COMBINED CLASSIFICATION ACTIVITY Exhibit 10 FY Total Actions % "TS" % "S" % "C" 1981 17,374,102 5% 29% 66% 1982 17, 504, 611 3% 31% 66% 1983 18,005,151 3% 30% 67% 1984 19,607,736 2% 30% 68% 1985 22,322,895 2% 31% 67% Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332RO01001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Mandatory Review Continues to Produce Impressive Results (Exhibits 11 through 15) Under E.O. 12356, the mandatory review process allows agencies or citizens to require an agency to review particular national security information for purposes of seeking its declassification. Such requests must be in writing and must describe the information with enough detail to permit the agency to retrieve it with a reasonable amount of effort. Mandatory review is a process popular with researchers as a less contentious alternative to Freedom of Information Act requests. The number of mandatory review requests received in FY 1985, declined by 613 to 4,037. Despite the decrease, this figure represents the fourth highest number of new cases received since the program was instituted in FY 1972. When the 1,523 cases carried forward from FY 1984, are added to the new cases received, agencies had a total caseload of 5,560 during FY 1985. They acted on a total of 3,621 cases, 18% fewer than in FY 1984. MANDATORY REVIEW REQUESTS RECEIVED Exhibit 11 3,945 Since FY 1983, ISOO has collected data on agency actions in response to mandatory review requests in terms of cases, documents and pages. A comparison of the figures for each category for the three years indicates that the numbers for FY 1985, are considerably better than those for FY 1983, but not quite as good as those reported in FY 1984. The 3,621 cases acted on in FY 1985, comprised 84,767 documents totaling 329,945 pages. The number of pages acted on was only 4% less than the record number reported for FY 1984. MANDATORY REVIEW WORKLOAD CASES/DOCUMENTS/PAGES Exhibit 12 1983-1985 = Granted in Full Granted in Part p Denied in Full Cases Documents Pages 14 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88GO1332R001001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Of the 3,621 cases completed in FY 1985, 1,866 (52%) were granted in full, 1,344 (37%) were granted in part, and 411 (11 %) were denied in full. The percentage of cases denied in full marked the first time in three years that the figure exceeded 10%. Of the 84,767 documents acted on in FY 1985, 79,693 (94%) were granted in full, 3,180 (4%) were granted in part, and 1,894 (2%) were denied in full. The number of documents declassified in full increased by an impressive 54,789 (220%) over the FY 1984 figure. Similarly, the number of pages released in full rose 62% from 163,565 in FY 1984, to 265,197 in FY 1985. This was 80% of the pages reviewed during the last fiscal year. Of the remaining pages, 47,920 (15%) were released in part and 16,828 (5%) were denied in full. During FY 1985, 313,117 pages were either declassified in full or in part, slightly below the combined figure of 325,530 for FY 1984. Nevertheless, the percentage of pages released in full rose to 80% in FY 1985, as compared to 47% in FY 1984. Much of the credit for the improvement rests with DOD, which increased the number of pages released in full from 140,505 in FY 1984, to 207,329 in FY 1985. MANDATORY REVIEW ACTIONS FY 1985 MANDATORY REVIEW Exhibit 13 ACTIONS BY AGENCY Exhibit 14 E.O. 12356 also gives requesters the right to appeal mandatory review denials to officials of the denying agencies, or, with respect to classified presidential materials, to the ISOO Director. During FY 1985, agencies received 282 new appeals in addition to the 782 carried over from the previous year. Of these 1,064 pending cases, the agencies closed 522 in FY 1985. This represented a notable 23% improvement over FY 1984. Justice was the agency primarily responsible for the improved figure. Agency Total Cases Acted On % Granted in Full % Granted in Part % Denied in Full State 867 43% 44% 13% DoD 770 62% 28% 10% NSC 677 39% 57% 4% Justice 442 88% 4% 8% NARA 434 41% 39% 20% CIA 281 28% 48% 24% All Others 150 75% 21% 4% Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88GO1332R001001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Systematic Review Results Disappointing (Exhibits 16 through 18) Of the 522 appeals completed, 193 (37%) were granted in full, 262 (50%) were granted in part, and 67 (13%) were denied in full. These appeals totaled 10,669 documents and 56,332 pages, increases of 80% and 113%, respectively, over the figures reported for FY 1984. Of the documents reviewed on appeal during FY 1985, 5,473 (51%) were released in full, 5,036 (47%) were released in part, and only 160 (2%) were denied in full. Of the 56,332 pages reviewed, 28,938 (51 %) were declassified in full, 26,750 (47%) were declassified in part, and 644 (2%) remained fully classified. During FY 1985, the numbers of documents and pages released in full or in part showed substantial gains over the comparable figures for the previous year. Documents rose from 5,723 in FY 1984, to 10,509 in FY 1985, while pages released in full or in part increased from 24,791 to 55,688. Once again it was Justice that accounted for the significant improvement in the figures. APPEALS WORKLOAD CASES/DOCUMENTS/PAGES "Systematic review for declassification" is the program, first introduced in 1972, in which classified, permanently valuable (archival) records are reviewed for purposes of declassification after the records reach a specific age. Under E.O. 12356, NARA is required to conduct a systematic review of its classified holdings as they become 30 years old, except for certain intelligence or cryptologic file series which are to be reviewed as they become 50 years old. While other agencies are not required to conduct a systematic review program, they are encouraged to do so if resources are available. In recent years, the product of the systematic review program has declined as a result of two factors. First, the records that are now being reviewed are not generally susceptible to the bulk declassification methods that were frequently adequate in declassifying World War II era records. Second, the resources available for systematic review have continued to dwindle. From FY 1980 to FY 1983, with the World War II era records almost entirely declassified, the number of pages reviewed under systematic declassification declined precipitously to 12.4 million. Following a call for increased attention by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, in FY 1984, the number increased to 12.8 million pages. PAGES REVIEWED FOR Exhibit 15 DECLASSIFICATION 363 16 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88GO1332R001001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Last year's Report expressed the hope that the slight increase registered in FY 1984, was a sign that the program was on the mend. However, the numbers reported for FY 1985, were the lowest since the program was initiated. During the year, agencies reviewed 10.4 million pages, down approximately 2.4 million (18%) from FY 1984. Of the pages reviewed, 78% were declassified. Although this is lower than the 86% declassification rate reported last year, it is still substantially higher than the 63% registered in FY 1983. While NARA reviewed 9% more pages in FY 1985 than in FY 1984, this increase was offset by the 29% decline reported by DoD. In FY 1985, DOD reviewed 2.8 million fewer pages under the systematic program than in the previous year. Despite this decline, it is important to note that DoD still reviewed more than 6.8 million pages and declassified just over 5 million pages. Under the Executive order, DOD is not required to conduct any systematic review program. Its voluntary efforts in this area continue to deserve special recognition, and ISOO is hopeful that, at a minimum, DOD will be able to maintain the current program. Ultimately, the success of the systematic declassification review program rests with NARA. It is the only agency that is required to conduct such a program. A small amount of progress has been made to implement the recommendations of a special task force established by the Archivist of the United States in 1984. There has been some increase in the resources devoted to NARA's systematic review program. Most of NARA's systematic review activity during FY 1985, resulted from a contract between NARA and State to review State's central files through 1955. NARA has signed a similar agreement with AID and has tentatively reached a new agreement with State to review certain of its records through 1959. In spite of these efforts, the 3,141,949 pages reported for FY 1985, is well below the 5 million pages recommended by the Archivist's task force and the 10 million pages that ISOO believes NARA must review annually to ensure a viable systematic declassification program. PERCENTAGE OF REVIEWED FY 1985 SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PAGES DECLASSIFIED Exhibit 17 ACTIONS BY AGENCY 91% 85% 86% 78% 63% lrl~ IM. DoD 6,803,568 5,074,439 75% NARA 3,141,949 2,808,035 89% AID 352,576 166,062 47% State 59,345 50,670 85% Justice 20,767 3,243 16% DoT 20,000 500 3% All Others 43,810 4,128 9% Totals 10,442,015 8,107,047 78% Exhibit 18 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88GO1332R001001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Agency Self-Inspections Increase Marginally (Exhibits 19 and 20) While the Executive order authorizes the Director of ISOO to conduct on-site inspections of those agencies that generate or handle classified information, it places primary responsibility for internal oversight on the agency heads themselves. The Order requires that agency heads establish and maintain "an active oversight and security education program." Agencies report to ISOO the number of self-inspections that they undertake each year. They also report the number and type of infractions found during the year. Infractions are minor violations of the Order, the implementing ISOO Directive or agency regulations. These statistics do not include the more serious security violations that agencies must report to ISOO as they occur. For FY 1985, agencies reported that they had conducted 28,319 self-inspections. This was a disappointing 2% increase over FY 1984. Those agencies showing significant decreases included CIA (-14%), DoT (-35%), State (-65%), and Treasury (-53%). Agencies reporting major increases were DoD (+2%), NSC (+93%), and NASA (+46%). AGENCY SELF-INSPECTIONS ISOO is concerned not only with the quantity of self-inspections the agencies undertook in FY 1985, but also with their quality. This concern arises from the fact that during the self-inspections conducted in FY 1985, agencies found 4,003 fewer infractions than in FY 1984. The total of 15,154 reported for this fiscal year is 21 % lower than the figure for the previous year. The average number of infractions discovered per inspection fell 22% from FY 1984, to FY 1985, to .54. This is far fewer than the number found during ISOO's regular program reviews, and calls into question the thoroughness of the self-inspections the agencies are conducting. ISOO is particularly concerned that agencies increase their review of classified holdings to ascertain the appropriateness of classification and the correctness of security markings. Exhibit 19 INFRACTIONS Exhibit 20 Total FY 82 Total FY 83 Total FY 84 Total FY 85 % Change 84-85 Unauthorized Access 475 620 483 440 - 9% Mismarking 11,499 10,849 7,503 6,642 - 12% Unauthorized Transmission 1,197 1,294 1,773 1,688 - 5% Improper Storage 4,222 3,844 7,363 5,089 - 31% Unauthorized Reproduction 207 249 190 143 -25% Overclassification 290 220 302 164 - 46% Underclassification 365 317 351 265 - 25% Classification w/o Authority 392 238 597 109 -82% Improper Destruction 665 581 475 322 - 32% Other 967 132 120 292 +143% Totals 20,279 18,344 19,157 15,154 -21% Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88GO1332R001001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Improving the Information Security System When the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) issued its last Annual Report in April 1985, it was, fittingly, recapping the recent past in order to anticipate the future. Little did ISOO realize, however, how quickly several of its pronouncements would occupy some of 1985's most spectacular news stories. Less than a month later, the FBI's arrest of John Walker commenced the so-called "Year of the Spy," and highlighted the subject of national security information like never before. In its Report, ISOO expressed ongoing concern about several program weaknesses: The excess of security clearances; the apparent erosion in the "need-to-know" principle; the overdistribution of classified information among and within agencies and offices; and the continuing problem of overclassification, that is, the classification of information whose sensitivity doesn't merit this extraordinary protection. Within weeks of the issuance of the ISOO Report, daily news accounts of the Walker investigation exposed these subjects to the public in a way that ISOO and the rest of the security apparatus within Government could never accomplish. To be sure, many news accounts grossly exaggerated the link between instances of espionage and perceived weaknesses in the personnel and information security systems. For example, it became almost commonplace for commentators to blame the espionage, in part at least, on the vast numbers of individuals holding security clearances and on the classification of too much information. In each new case, however, the facts belied the logic of these assertions. While far too many people hold unneeded security clearances, all of the accused who held clearances occupied positions that clearly required them. And while the problem of overclassification persists, it is farfetched to establish a direct link between overclassification and espionage. The information at issue in the recent spy cases obviously warranted classification. The actual or intended procurers of the information certainly placed great value upon it, and the Government, in hearing after hearing, has justified the classification of the information to the satisfaction of the judges and juries. An Opportunity To the Government's security apparatus, however, the Walker case and its cousins presented something far more important than a challenge - they presented an opportunity. Upon the release of its FY 1984 Report to the President, ISOO noted little interest within the executive branch to embark upon a program to improve an information security system that ISOO itself pronounced in generally good shape. It was the publicity over the Walker affair that created a hospitable environment in which to attack the problems that continued to nag the system. ISOO welcomed the opportunity. In July 1985, the National Security Council endorsed ISOO's request to commence an interagency review of the information security system, focusing on five program areas that both the NSC and ISOO perceived as most in need of attention. These were overclassification, or unnecessary classification; the overdistribution of classified information; classification management; revitalization of the "need-to-know" principle; and unauthorized disclosures. That same month the ISOO Director chaired a meeting of representatives of those agencies most heavily involved in the security classification program, including the Departments of State, Treasury, Justice, Defense, Army, Navy, Air Force and Energy, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. That meeting produced five task forces, each consisting of at least one civilian and one defense agency, responsible for recommending initiatives pertinent to one of the five problem areas. By the end of October, the interagency group had reached a consensus on thirteen separate initiatives that the ISOO Director transmitted to the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. During testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) in November 1985, the ISOO Director invited the Committee's 19 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88GO1332R001001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 input on the proposed initiatives. Subsequently, the NSC concurred in ISOO's recommendation to invite the input of other interested committees of Congress as well. To date, the NSC and ISOO have received four congressional responses, including a comprehensive package from the SSCI. Each of these responses has endorsed the initiatives wholeheartedly. As this is being written, ISOO is anticipating the NSC's imminent approval to begin those actions necessary to implement the initiatives. The Initiatives The thirteen initiatives will not alter the basic structure of the current information security system. Each of the agencies participating in their formulation agreed that the structure of the system established by President Reagan in 1982, is fundamentally sound and, for the most part, working quite well. Rather, the initiatives strive for increased knowledge and increased accountability among the many people who are entrusted with making the system work as it should. Although they are few in number and quite modest in potential cost, ISOO firmly believes that they will spark the improvement of the information security system. 1. Overciassification The placement of overclassification as the first problem area was intentional. Although the problem of overclassification is not nearly as severe as the popular media portrays it to be, it is a continuing nuisance that eats away at the credibility of the entire system. Critics proclaim that overclassification is the mechanism the bureaucracy uses to hide its mistakes, to shield it from embarrassment, and to cover up its misdeeds. In ISOO's experience, the principal causes of overclassification are far less intriguing. Very few classification decisions are the tools of a cover-up, albeit even one casts a lingering shadow. Instead, ISOO believes that just about every instance of initial overclassification results from one or more of the following reasons. First, overcaution. Many classifiers believe, and with some reason, that it is better to err on the side of protection than on the side of disclosure. Second, rote classification. It is almost always easier to do things the way they've been done before. Independent thought takes time and effort. Third, status or prestige classification. Some misguided individuals believe that it elevates their stature to elevate the protection of their product. For status classifiers, "Confidential" is never high enough, and "Secret" is merely tolerable. Fourth, and related to status classification, exclusionary classification. This occurs when an official decides that the classification of his product will establish a more exclusive environment, free from routine oversight. Fifth, incorrect, inadequate or nonexistent classification guidance. Poor guidance results in inaccurate derivative classification actions and, quantitatively, is probably the most significant cause of overclassification. And sixth, the lack of portion markings in documents used as sources for derivative classification. If the entire text of a document is classified, even though some portions need not be, documents derived from those portions will be needlessly classified. There are primarily three initiatives that will attack the problem of overclassification, although others will certainly impact upon it. First, ISOO will issue a directive that establishes minimum requirements for mandatory training of original and derivative classifiers, including those who either issue or use classification guides. Too often these officials are receiving little or no training about the classification system and process, and because of their positions, the agency employees who are supposed to provide this training are reluctant to require it. By mandating training, this directive will provide those responsible with the ammunition they need to enforce adequate familiarity with the information security system. The directive will also require that agencies keep records of the training that each of these officials receives. Second, ISOO will issue a directive on agency self-inspections that establishes minimum 20 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88GO1332R001001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 criteria for internal oversight. This directive will include the requirement that agencies periodically and routinely examine a sample of their classified product to ensure the validity of classification and the existence of appropriate markings. Most current agency self-inspections concentrate almost exclusively on physical security arrangements and largely ignore the information being protected. Third, ISOO will ask the President to amend Executive Order 12356, "National Security Information," to require employees to report instances of improper classification. Currently, the system strongly encourages, but does not require employees to report classification actions that they believe to be incorrect. In practice, this rarely occurs. If amended, the Order will also require agencies to establish effective procedures for employees to challenge improper classification free from the fear of retribution. This fear is believed to be a primary reason that employees and contractors are not challenging classification decisions today. To be sure, this initiative may result in many unfounded complaints. This seems to be a reasonable price to pay for improving the quality of classification decisions. II. Overdistribution The overdistribution of classified information has become a very serious problem in recent years. The widespread availability of copiers and the proliferation of automated information processing systems has multiplied the wholesale distribution of classified information. Increased distribution results in increased security costs and increased vulnerabilities. With much more classified information around, it becomes far more difficult to enforce the requirement that no one, even with a security clearance, may have access to classified information without a job related need to see it. To attack the problem of overdistribution, therefore, is also to help restore the "need-to- know" principle. Three initiatives confront the problem of overdistribution. First, ISOO will ask the President to issue a statement to the heads of agencies that addresses, among other problem areas, the overdistribution of classified information. A presidential statement will highlight overdistribution as a serious threat to security, not just an administrative burden. Second, ISOO will amend its current Government-wide directive to require agencies to review, at least annually, the automatic or routine distribution of all classified information. Distributors will be required to update automatic distribution lists and to verify the continuing "need-to-know" of recipients. This initiative should remedy the too frequent situation in which a onetime bona fide recipient is placed on an automatic distribution list and continues to receive the unneeded classified product of the distributor. Third, ISOO will also amend its current directive to encourage originators of classified information to widen controls on its reproduction, unless there are countervailing reasons to permit uncontrolled reproduction. Currently, "Top Secret" information may not be reproduced without the permission of the originator. Although originators may place similar controls on the reproduction of "Secret" and "Confidential" information, they rarely do so. With copiers available in just about every office, copies of classified documents proliferate. This initative should increase both control and accountability, and reduce the overdistribution of national security information. III. Classification Management ISOO has termed the third problem area "classification management." Although classification management is not a new term by any means, here it refers broadly to the management of classified information by classifiers, security specialists, and others whose work has a significant impact upon its creation and handling. The initiatives on classification management will clearly impact as well on each of the other problem areas. First, ISOO will seek the amendment of E.O. 12356 to identify the management of classified information as an area requiring agency head attention. Specifically, this initiative would 21 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 require that the responsibilities for managing classified information be included as critical elements in the performance rating systems of civilian and military personnel who are original classifiers, security managers, or who are otherwise significantly involved in managing classified information. Perhaps more than any other, this initiative will confirm that personal accountability is the most effective means of improving the operation of the information security system. Second, ISOO will ask that the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs call upon the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to review and revise the security specialist position series, to include proper recognition for the special skills necessary for the management of classified information. In many respects security specialists occupy the lowest rung of the professional ladder. They receive little respect, low salaries, and few opportunities for advancement. All too often the best people leave the security field as quickly as they can. The Government must improve the professional standing of security specialists, so that it can attract and retain competent, motivated people in these critical jobs. Third, ISOO will ask that the President direct the Secretary of Defense to study the feasibility of expanding the Defense Security Institute to provide basic training for all executive branch security personnel. Security education plays a fundamental role in assuring the effectiveness of the information security program. Today, however, basic security training is not always available to those who need it. The Defense Security Institute offers an existing school with excellent instructors in the necessary security disciplines. The demand for its courses far exceeds its current capacities. To increase the Institute's course offerings and enrollment, the Secretary of Defense should have the option of seeking reimbursement from the agencies whose employees and contractors would benefit from its expansion. IV. "Need-to-Know" The criteria for access to classified information have long been the security clearance plus the "need-to-know". With the proliferation of clearances, reliance upon "need-to-know" becomes even more critical. Instead, there is the clear perception of widespread indifference to this principle. The obvious security threat is not the only unfortunate consequence of the relaxed enforcement of the "need-to-know" principle. Another is the increasing use by agencies of special access programs to help protect classified information. These programs have all too often substituted for the absence of enforced "need-to-know". The initiatives to attack the overdistribution of classified information should also serve to revitalize the "need-to-know" principle. In addition, ISOO seeks two other initiatives. First, ISOO will ask that the President issue a statement to agency heads that stresses the importance of revitalizing the "need-to-know" principle. To avoid duplication, this would be part of the presidential statement proposed to address other problem areas as well. Second, ISOO will seek the amendment of E.O. 12356 to require agency heads to ensure effective internal oversight of special access programs, including periodic reconfirmation of their continued need. Special access programs may be established by some agency heads for particularly sensitive information upon a determination that normal management and safeguarding procedures do not control access sufficiently. At present, too many special access programs actually receive less security oversight than normal programs. In addition, a number of these programs are probably unnecessary. This initiative aims for both improved security and increased scrutiny of these costly programs. V. Unauthorized Disclosures Unauthorized disclosures is a subject that the executive branch has explored repeatedly in recent years. There are many ongoing and pending actions to deal with this very serious problem. To complement these actions are two additional initiatives. First, ISOO will coordinate with the Security Committee of the Intelligence Community in seeking the development of Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 educational materials, both unclassified and classified, that address the damage caused by unauthorized disclosures. ISOO is particularly interested in the development of effective, unclassified materials, although it recognizes that the production of these is far more difficult without the aid of classified examples. Second, ISOO will ask that the President call upon the Attorney General to review and revise existing guidelines on the investigation of unauthorized disclosures. Revised guidelines would cover both internal agency investigations and external investigations by the Department of Justice and the FBI. Currently, investigations of unauthorized disclosures rarely lead to successful prosecutions or even administrative sanctions. Revised investigative guidelines may improve upon this record. Conclusion: The Unceasing Need for Improvement Some months ago the Director of ISOO hosted a meeting with an official of an allied democracy. That official had requested the meeting in order to learn more about the American information security system. In describing his government's slow but methodical pace toward greater freedom of information, he cited the American system of access as an ideal, even if flawed, to which all democracies should strive. That conversation illustrated, perhaps as well as any, the constant irony of the American information security system. Even as other democracies are attempting to cope with the rudiments of open government, officials of the United States Government are struggling to improve the system that protects only a very small portion of the tremendous amount of information it produces every day, so that less, not more information, will remain hidden. From ISOO's experience, just about every person entrusted with protecting that information wouldn't want it any other way. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Appendix A - DoD Sampling Systems For most of the agencies that ISOO monitors, the statistics reported each year are based on an actual count of items in each category. From the beginning of ISOO's data collection efforts, however, it was known that such an item-by- item tabulation of classification actions by the agencies with the largest programs was not possible. This was particularly true in the case of DoD, with its large number of components and the enormous volume of its classification activity. Therefore, ISOO agreed that DoD could devise a system to sample the number of its classification decisions, and then project the total for a given fiscal year. ISOO's approval for use of a sampling system, however, did not include the other categories that agencies must report annually, and DoD's data on classification authorities, declassification actions, self-inspections and infractions are based on actual counts. The original sampling system developed by DoD, and in use since ISOO began collecting program activity statistics, was based entirely on electronically transmitted message traffic. At the time, it was believed to be the only feasible means for DoD to sample its classification activity. Initially, the sample was derived exclusively from the Defense Communications Agency Switch Network Automatic Profile System. Subsequently, NSA also began sampling its message traffic because of its significant involvement in the classification process. Although ISOO approved the message traffic system, ISOO and DoD were never completely satisfied that it was producing the most accurate statistics, because it was believed that message traffic skewed certain statistics about classification, including the raw numbers. Nevertheless, ISOO recognized that the consistent application of this system successfully identified the trends in DoD's classification activity. Recently, ISOO and DoD agreed to develop a revised sampling system that would produce more reliable data. As a result, in FY 1985, DoD devised a new method. It requires all DoD components to sample classification actions over a one week period. The numbers obtained are then multiplied by 52. While the figures reported under the revised system are not based entirely on an item-by-item tabulation of original and derivative classification actions, ISOO is convinced that the results are more accurate than those registered under the previous system. First, the sample is not grounded exclusively on message traffic data. The new system includes other document types, including memoranda and reports. Second, the statistics provided are based on data supplied from a greater number of DoD components, including all of the major activities of the military departments, the DIA and NSA. For FY 1985, DoD used both systems, and reported the results separately. Although ISOO intends to use the data compiled under the new sampling system in future Reports to the President, it did not do so with this Report without first explaining the reasons why the revised method is likely to produce more reliable numbers. For this reason, the main body of the Report reflects the statistics provided by the electronic message traffic system. Use of the revised method at this time would not allow for an accurate analysis of the trends because there are no prior data available for comparative purposes. 24 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 A comparison of the data furnished by the two systems indicates that there are substantial differences. First, the volume of original classification using the new method is considerably higher. Under the previous system, DoD reported 385,496 original decisions. Under the new, the figure is 702,208. Of these, 22% of the original actions were assigned a date or event for declassificaton, as compared to a 71 % rate under the old method. By classification level, the number of "Top Secret" original decisions was 9,327 higher under the new system, while "Secret" and "Confidential" actions were 283,547 and 23,838 greater, respectively. A second difference is that the amount of derivative classification activity is markedly less under the revised sampling system. DoD reported 18,090,961 derivative decisions using the message traffic system, and 10,571,652 utilizing the new method, 42% fewer. There are also significant differences regarding the classification level percentages, except with respect to "Top Secret" actions, which represent 2% of the total under both systems. Using the revised method, "Secret" actions account for 38% of the total, while "Confidential" decisions comprise 60%. Under the old system, the figures were 21 % and 77%, respectively. DoD ORIGINAL CLASSIFICATION Exhibit A DoD DERIVATIVE CLASSIFICATION Exhibit B Actions Assigned Date or Event for Declassification Actions Requiring Review by Originator (OADR) 702,208 Old Sampling System New Sampling System S Classification C Classification Old Sampling System New Sampling System 25 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Due to significantly fewer derivative decisions, and despite a greater number of original actions, the combined classification reported under the new sampling system is 7,202,597 less than under the old method. Overall classification level percentages also vary considerably, indicating a tendency to classify a greater amount of information at the "Secret" level. Under the new system, 39% of the combined actions are "Secret," while 59% are "Confidential." This is in contrast to the 21%/77% ratio when the old method is utilized. DoD COMBINED CLASSIFICATION Exhibit C Old Sampling New Sampling System System Although ISOO believes that DoD's new system will provide more accurate statistics, it also believes that the system should be refined further. Current instructions require that DoD components undertake the sampling over a single one week period. ISOO is concerned that relying exclusively on such a limited time period may result in skewed numbers. For example, during one year the week selected might be unusually slow in terms of the volume of classified information generated. Thus, the numbers reported will be too low. On the other hand, the week selected the following year might be crisis-ridden and result in unrealistically high figures. To avoid this possibility, ISOO has recommended to DoD and CIA that each agency conduct the sampling of its classification activity on more than one occasion during the year, and then report an average of the data. 26 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Appendix B - Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement Paragraph 1(a) of National Security Decision Directive 84, "Safeguard- ing National Security Information," of March 11, 1983, directed ISOO to issue a standardized nondisclosure agreement to be executed as a condition of access to classified information. In September 1983, ISOO issued the Standard Form 189, "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement," and directed agencies to work toward complete implemen- tation as quickly as possible. The chart below provides an agency by agency breakdown of progress to date. Implementation for New Full No Employees and/or Agency-wide Implementation Apparent Planning Reinvestigations Implementation In Some Full Agency Implementation Implementation Only In Progress Components Implementation 27 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Appendix C National Security Information: Different Perspectives An audience of 750 from Government, the media and industry heard six noted authorities address their own particular ideas about classified information. The speakers included: R. Scott Armstrong - Author and former reporter for The Washington Post. Current Executive Director, National Security Archive. Samuel Gammon - Former Ambassador and current Executive Director of the American Historical Association. Guenter Lewy - Author and Professor of Political Science at the University of Massachusetts. Mark H. Lynch - Litigator with the American Civil Liberties Union, National Security Project. Edward F. Sayle - Former Curator of the Central Intelligence Agency's Historical Collection and current editor of Periscope Magazine. Richard K. Willard - Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Department of Justice. The following quotes reflect some of the divergent opinions expressed by the speakers. They are intended as highlights, not comprehensive statements. Arrangements can be made with ISOO for copies of the complete transcript or videotape, or selected excerpts of either. Scott Armstrong on the source of leaks The vast majority of the information that makes its way to the newspaper... comes from multiple sources, from multiple interviews, from career bureaucrats. It comes from those people who themselves would not initiate a story or a leak but who will, when faced with a significant disclosure coming out of the room just down the hall from the Oval Office, will correct the information, will put it into context, will say, "That's really not quite right. It really happened this way." A symposium sponsored by the Information Security Oversight Office December 5 1984 Department of Interior Auditorium Guenter Lewy on rationalizing unauthorized disclosures What honestly may appear to the military as information that should be withheld for reasons of security may as honestly appear to the media as information that the American people have a right to know.... The fact that both the media and military act honestly is entirely irrelevant. The question is, "Who should have [the] final ,,, say... Samuel Gammon on declassification Historians are not just working on the decline and fall of the Roman Empire or the administration of George Washington .... The woods are full of scholars who are toiling away on the Nixon and Ford administration[s] and there are plenty of them already working on Carter, and I daresay some getting started on the [Reagan] administration. So, actually, we want it yesterday, as far as declassification is concerned. Richard Willard on overclassification Overclassification can be just as much a danger to an effective information security program as can inadequate classification or inadequate protection. 28 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Mark Lynch on secrecy and public debate [T]he Manhattan Project and the decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima... [were] so closely held that the options of not dropping the bomb or dropping a demonstration bomb were never seriously considered. Scott Armstrong on the law I can say as a matter of practice that I don't steal and I don't accept stolen property.... The act of dubious legality [is] showing me the information. Guenter Lewy on journalistic ethics [T]here's no justification for the view that a citizen who... comes into possession of [a] secret and who knows that it is a secret, should be free to... harm the nation by passing on the secret as he pleases. Journalists too are citizens. They should have the same obligations as anyone else. Mark Lynch on the scope of Freedom of Information costs I'm willing to wager that the propaganda public relations efforts of the Department of Defense alone are far greater than the amount of money spent on Freedom of Information processing. The Singing Sergeants, the airplanes that do loop-de- loops at parades and that sort of thing, I'm sure represent a far greater expenditure of funds than FOIA requests. Edward Sayle on secrecy in American history Benjamin Franklin and Robert Morris... looked at the intelligence and they reached an agreement which they committed to paper: "We agree... that it is our indispensable duty to keep it a secret even from Congress. We find by fatal experience the Congress consists of too many members to keep secrets." And they only had 13 colonies. Richard Willard on preventing a double standard We need to make it clear that rules on information security apply throughout the administration from the very top to the very bottom. We need to make it clear that people are going to be held to a high level of trust regardless of their position in the administration. Mark Lynch on the perils of compartmentation [I]f... compartmentation is increased, you may cut down on leaks, but you're also likely to get an increase of ill-conceived operations being put into effect because enough ... disinterested people within the policy making arms of the Government won't have an opportunity to render a second, third or fourth opinion. Samuel Gammon on "intelligence sources and methods" It is widely rumored, though as far as I know never confirmed, that in 1961, the CIA ran a urinalysis on Khrushchev in Vienna during the summit meeting. A brilliant piece of intelligence work. Possibly what one might call an unauthorized leak. Edward Sayle on secrecy in American history When ... Tom Paine was determined to have made an unauthorized disclosure of very sensitive diplomatic information, he was dismissed from his job as Secretary to the Foreign Affairs Committee, and stigmatized publicly by a resolution of the Congress. Now that's handling a security violation. ... Do you think we have the same will today? Scott Armstrong on the source of leaks The President doesn't have to look very far from his keester to find most of the sources of serious disclosure in this administration. Richard Willard on misguided disclosures [T]here are a lot of people in the administration who don't know the difference between an authorized and an unauthorized disclosure. There are probably a lot of political appointees who may think that they're helping out the President, and they really aren't because this President does not believe that every political appointee has the authority to declassify information whenever he thinks it will help with the bureaucratic game. Samuel Gammon on recovering disclosed information To the best of my knowledge, even the State Department medics, good as they are, are not competent to perform prefrontal lobotomies on people [who] have learned things. So once its gone, it's gone.... Edward Sayle on the effect of leaks [U]nless steps are taken to stop this escalating pattern of leaks and to move against those Government employees who are responsible, be it either appointees or careerists, I fear that [a] filtration process may eventually settle in at all levels of this Government, denying our nation's leaders the details essential ... for policy level decision making .... Guenter Lewy on anti-leak legislation The harm which irresponsible press conduct can do in revealing national security information in some cases will indeed be irreparable.... I do not think it is realistic to rely exclusively on the good will of reporters and editors.... I favor legislation that will give national security information the same protection now available to next year's soybean crop estimate. 29 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Appendix D ISOO Inspections FY 1983 - 1985 Agency for International Development Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean, Office of Caribbean Affairs Bureau for Africa, Office of East Africa Affairs Bureau for Asia Office of Security Office of the Special Assistant to the Deputy Administrator Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Office of Administration Communications Section General Advisory Commission on Arms Control Bureau of Multilateral Affairs Bureau of Strategic Programs Strategic Affairs Division Bureau of Nuclear Weapons and Control, International Nuclear Affairs Division Board for International Broadcasting Central Intelligence Agency Directorate of Intelligence Directorate of Administration Directorate of Science and Technology Directorate of Operations Other Major Activities Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Strategic Technology Office Tactical Technology Office Defense Science Office Directed Energy Office Information Processing Techniques Office Administrative Services Office Defense Communications Agency Headquarters Joint Data Systems Support Center, Pentagon Command and Control Systems Organization, Arlington Hall Station Defense Communications Engineering Center, Reston, VA Joint Data Systems Support Center, Reston, VA Defense Contract Audit Agency Security Branch Defense Industry American Telephone and Telegraph Technologies, Inc., Burlington, NC American Telephone and Telegraph Technologies, Inc., McLeansville, NC ITT Electro-Optical Products Division, Roanoke, VA Reynolds Metals Company, Richmond, VA Science Applications International Corporation, Huntsville, AL Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC CAS Incorporated, Huntsville, AL Teledyne Brown Engineering, Huntsville, AL SCI Systems, Inc., Huntsville, AL BDM International, Inc., Huntsville, AL Defense Intelligence Agency Directorate of Security and Counterintelligence Defense Intelligence College Directorate for Estimates Directorate for Scientific and Technical Intelligence Directorate for Intelligence and External Affairs Directorate for Communications Directorate for Foreign Intelligence Directorate for JCS Support Directorate for Research Directorate of Technical Services and Support 30 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88GO1332R001001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Defense Investigative Service Headquarters Capital Region, Alexandria, VA Defense Logistics Agency Headquarters Defense Technical Information Center Defense Fuel Supply Center Defense Mapping Agency Headquarters, Office of Security Office of Distribution Services Hydrographic/Topographic Center Special Security Office Defense Nuclear Agency Intelligence and Security Directorate Counterintelligence Detachment Classification Management Division Security and Operations Division Radiation Directorate Shock Physics Directorate Office of the Inspector General Office of the Deputy Director for Science and Technology Nuclear Assessment Directorate Technical Information Directorate Department of Agriculture Employee Management and Training Staff (Security) Foreign Agriculture Service Office of Management Services Trade Policy, Planning and Analysis Division Western Europe and Inter-American Division Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe Division Communications and Records Cables Division Office of Emergency Planning Department of the Air Force Assistant Chief of Staff, Intelligence Assistant Chief of Staff, Information Systems Deputy Chief of Staff, Plans and Operations Deputy Chief of Staff, Research, Development and Acquisition Deputy Chief of Staff, Programs and Resources 1947 Headquarters Support Group - Air Staff Air Force Systems Command, Andrews AFB Electronics Systems Division, Hanscom AFB Aeronautical Systems Division, Wright- Patterson AFB Foreign Technology Division, Wright- Patterson AFB Air Force Logistic Command Headquarters, Wright-Patterson AFB Space Command, Denver, CO North American Aerospace Defense Command, Denver, CO Office of Special Investigations, Bolling AFB Air Force Intelligence Service Air Force Academy Strategic Air Command, Offutt AFB 31 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Department of the Army Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations Military District of Washington Criminal Investigation Command Comptroller of the Army Logistical Command Military Traffic Management Command Office of The Adjutant General National Guard Bureau Intelligence and Security Command Corps of Engineers Materiel Development and Readiness Command Missile Intelligence Agency, Huntsville, AL Ballistic Missile Defense Systems Command, Huntsville, AL U.S. Army Missile Command, Huntsville, AL Communications - Electronics Command, Ft. Monmouth, NJ U.S. Army Natick Research and Development Command, Natick, MA Army Materials and Mechanics Research Center, Watertown, MA White Sands Missile Range, Las Cruces, NM Inspector General Army Electronics Research and Development Command Judge Advocate General U.S. Army Information Systems Command, Ft. Huachuca, AZ U.S. Army Intelligence Center and School, Ft. Huachuca, AZ Department of Commerce Headquarters' Office of Security National Telecommunications and Information Administration International Trade Administration Bureau of the Census National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Patent and Trademark Office Department of Education Office of the Secretary Office of the Under Secretary Office of Inspector General Office of Postsecondary Education Office of Vocational and Adult Education Office of Planning, Budget, and Evaluation Department of Energy Energy Information Administration Office of Classification Office of Computer Services and Telecommunications Management Office of General Counsel Office of International Security Affairs Office of Management and Administration Office of Safeguards and Security Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health Office of the Secretary Food and Drug Administration National Institutes of Health Department of Housing and Urban Development Immediate Office of the Secretary Assistant for International Affairs Assistant Secretary for Administration Inspector General Department of the Interior Headquarters' Office of Security U.S. Geological Survey Bureau of Mines Office of the Secretary Office of the Solicitor Office of Environmental Project Review Office of the Assistant Secretary - Water and Science Office of Information Resources Management Assistant Secretary - Land and Minerals Management 32 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Immigration and Naturalization Service Drug Enforcement Administration El Paso Intelligence Center Bureau of Prisons Foreign Claims Settlement Commission Main Justice Antitrust Division Civil Division Criminal Division Justice Management Division Tax Division Office of Intelligence Policy and Review Office of Information and Privacy Department of Labor Office of Emergency Preparedness Planning (Information Security) Bureau of International Labor Affairs Bureau of Labor Management Relations and Corporate Programs Department of the Navy Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Naval War College, Newport, RI Naval Underwater Systems Center, Newport, RI Naval Underwater Systems Center, New London, CN Naval Intelligence Support Center Naval Research Laboratory Joint Cruise Missile Project Office Office of Command Control U.S. Atlantic Fleet Headquarters, Norfolk, VA Commander Naval Surface Forces, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, Norfolk, VA Headquarters Fleet Marine Force Atlantic, Norfolk, VA Commander Submarine Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, Norfolk, VA Commander Naval Surface Forces Pacific, San Diego, CA Space Command and Control Directorate Navy Ocean Systems Command, San Diego, CA Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, CA Department of State Classification/Declassification Center Information Systems Office Information Systems Security Staff Office of Security Domestic Operations Education and Training Staff Bureau of Intelligence and Research Office of the Executive Director Office of Economic Analysis Office of Analysis for Inter-American Republics Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs: Japan United States Mission to the United Nations, New York, NY Office of Administrative Affairs Reference Section Political Section Economic and Social Section Communications Section Security Resources Management Bureau of European Affairs Office of Soviet Union Affairs Bureau of Inter-American Affairs Office of Central American Affairs Office of Caribbean Affairs Bureau of Politico - Military Affairs Office of Strategic Nuclear Policy U.S. Embassy, Ottawa, Canada Office of the Deputy Chief of Mission Personnel Section Political Section Economic Section Administrative Counsellor Department of Transportation Office of the Secretary Federal Aviation Administration United States Coast Guard: Headquarters; Miami; New Orleans; El Paso Intelligence Center, El Paso, TX; National Narcotics Border Interdiction System, Miami, FL Maritime Administration Federal Highway Administration 33 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Department of the Treasury Office of the Secretary U.S. Customs Service Internal Revenue Service U.S. Secret Service Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Bureau of Engraving and Printing Bureau of Public Debt Bureau of Government Financial Operations Comptroller of the Currency Bureau of the Mint Environmental Protection Agency Facilities and Support Services Branch Personnel Security Division Office of the Associate Administrator for International Activities Executive Office of the President, Office of Administration Export-Import Bank Federal Communications Commission Office of Science and Technology Office of Plans and Policy Mass Media Bureau Emergency Communications Division Internal Review and Security Division Federal Emergency Management Agency Emergency Operations Directorate Office of Security Document Control Branch National Preparedness Programs Directorate Federal Home Loan Bank Board Federal Maritime Commission Bureau of Investigations Office of Policy Planning and International Affairs Federal Reserve System Office of Security International Information Center General Services Administration Office of Internal Security Federal Property Resources Service Information Resources Management Service Interstate Commerce Commission Office of Compliance and Consumer Assistance Staffing and Employee Relations, Personnel Office National Aeronautics and Space Administration Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology Office of Space Science and Applications Office of Space Flight Office of Space Tracking and Data Systems Goddard Space Flight Center John F. Kennedy Space Center, Kennedy Space Center, FL National Archives and Records Administration Administrative Services Division Records Declassification Division Lyndon B. Johnson Library, Austin, TX Nixon Presidential Materials Project National Labor Relations Board National Science Foundation National Security Agency National Security Council National Transportation Safety Board 34 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of International Programs Office of the Deputy Executive Director for Operations Standardization and Special Projects Branch Division of Security Information Security Branch Facilities Personnel Security Branch Systems Security Branch Policy and Operational Support Branch Division of Technical Information and Document Control Records Services Branch Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Division of Rules and Records Office for Micronesian Status Negotiations Office of Management and Budget Office of Personnel Management Personnel Security Division Compliance and Investigations Group Office of Science and Technology Policy Office of the Secretary of Defense Executive Secretariat Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Net Assessment Defense Guidance Staff Emergency Planning Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs General Counsel Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Assistant Secretary of Defense, Comptroller Assistant Secretary of Defense, Manpower, Installations and Logistics Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Inspector General Defense Security Assistance Agency Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Atomic Energy Washington Headquarters Services Assistant to the Secretary of Defense (Intelligence Oversight) Program Analysis and Evaluation Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88GO1332R001001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Office of the United States Trade Representative Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Office of the Secretary Office of the Director, Joint Staff Office of the Chairman Manpower and Personnel Directorate Operations Directorate Logistics Directorate Plans and Policy Directorate Support Services Directorate Joint Analysis Directorate Command, Control and Communications Systems Directorate Joint Planning Staff for Space Strategic Plans and Resource Analysis Agency Joint Special Operations Agency United States Readiness Command, Tampa, FL United States Central Command, Tampa, FL Overseas Private Investment Corporation Peace Corps President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board President's Intelligence Oversight Board Securities and Exchange Commission Selective Service System Small Business Administration Physical and Personnel Security Branch United States Information Agency Office of Security Physical Security Division Office of American Republics Affairs Office of North African, Near Eastern, and South Asian Affairs Office of Public Liaison Office of Administration and Technology Classified Library Bureau of Management Secretariat Staff Afghan Media Staff Office of International Visitors Office of East Asian and Pacific Affairs Communications Center United States Postal Service Office of the Chief Postal Inspector Inspection Service Veterans Administration Assistant Inspector General for Policy, Planning and Resources Department of Medicine and Surgery Office of Data Management Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332RO01001150007-7 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7 Information Security Oversight Office Washington, D.C. 20405 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/11 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001001150007-7