Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[124-10183-10277_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 31]
# Office Memorandum • UNITED STATES GOVERNMENTTO: Mr. J. Edgar HooverDirector, FBIFROM: William P. RogersDeputy Attorney GeneralDATE: June 25, 1953SUBJECT: Executive Order 10450Security Requirements for Government Employment.This is with reference to your memoranda of May I and May 14, 1953, relating to the administration of Executive Order 10450.1. Your opinion that there should be no abuse of the privilege granted by section 3(b) of the order in filling sensitive positions in emergency cases prior to the completion of full field pre-appointment investigations is well taken. So, also, is your suggestion that the Civil Service Commission, in respect to section 3(a), should utilizė extreme care in permitting less than the minimum investigation with respect to per diem, intermittent, temporary, or seasonable employees and aliens employed outside the United States.2. I agree with your assumption that the coverage of the order is limited to the Executive Branch of the Government. However, I do not believe it will be necessary to make specific provision in the regulations to that effect. Inasmuch as they are to be issued separately by and in the name of each executive branch, department or agency, it will be made clear that they relate only to the administration of the particular department or agency concerned.You also make reference to the fact that certain of the non-executive branch agencies, such as the General Accounting Office and the Government Printing Office, participated in the procedures prescribed by Executive Order 9835. I understand this resulted, not because that order was necessarily applicable to those agencies, but because they voluntarily adopted procedures similar to those prescribed by the order. Executive Order 10450 does not prevent them from adopting a similar policy in relation to it. The main question is whether the appropriations of the FBI are sufficient to pay for the investigations required by such agencies. I understand that the appropriations are sufficient with respect to some of the agencies whose employees are part of the classified civil service, such as the General Accounting Office, but not for others, such as the Library of Congress. In the past a system of reimbursement was worked out with respect to investigations for agencies not covered by existing appropriations. I would suggest that the Bureau
[124-10183-10277_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 32]
work out similar procedures with the Civil Service Commission and other interested agencies with respect to Executive Order 10450.3. In reference to the problem of the responsibility of conducting investigations abroad, the Departments of State and Army were requested by letter dated June 5, 1953, to continue the same arrangement under Executive Order No. 10450 for investigations abroad as existed under Executive Order No. 9835. The letter stated that in the absence of any indication of disagreement with this plan, it would be assumed that the existing arrangement would remain in effect. To date no expressions of disagreement have come from either Department.4. In respect to the re-adjudication question arising under section 4, I agree that the Bureau should conduct additional investigations only when their purpose is to develop information of the type described in section 8(d). However, I believe the Civil Service Commission, rather than this Department, should issue direct instructions to all departments and agencies as to proper procedures in connection with requests for investigation. I would accordingly recommend that you work out a plan with the Civil Service Commission to so advise the interested departments and agencies.5. As you point out, the last sentence of section 9(k) of the sample security regulations is subject to possible interpre- tation requiring the employee to be given a copy of the investigative reports in connection with his case. In order to preclude this possibility, an appropriate amendment has been transmitted to all departments and agencies. Many of them have also been informally advised of the matter. In addition, since they are supposed to submit their regulations to this Department before issuance, proper precautions will be taken at that time.6. I agree that your existing policy of sending all Bureau reports to the Commission for dissemination to the appropriate depart- ments and agencies should be continued.7. You note that the sample security regulations do not state whether the hearings are to be open or closed and that under Executive Order 9835 the Loyalty Review Board issued a directive to all departments and agencies requiring hearings under that order to be private. In accordance with your suggestion, an amendment to that effect. has been transmitted to all executive departments and agencies.8. You point out that the sample security regulations provide in section 9(c) (4) that each employee shall have the right "to cross-examine any witness offered in support of the charges"; whereas under Executive Order 9835 the Loyalty Review Board issued.
[124-10183-10277_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 33]
a directive permitting Loyalty Hearing Boards to hear witnesses in the absence of the employee and his counsel, if the witness so requested.I understand the provision of section 9(6)(4) to be a deliberate policy judgment that witnesses, other than confidential informants, shall be subject to cross-examination. Accordingly, persons giving testimony will not have the choices set forth in your memorandum. I therefore suggest that you advise prospective witnesses that their testimony will have to be in the presence of the employee and his counsel and will be subject to cross-examination.9. I consider the Bureau's policy of permitting Special Agents to testify at the hearings only "where they are in a position to furnish competent evidence," to be sound and suggest that you undertake through the Civil Service Commission to advise the agencies concerned that this policy will be continued.10. Serious consideration has been given to your suggestion that dismissals without prejudice to applicants in cases before the Regional Loyalty Boards may effect the Civil Service Commission's register of eligibles. The Commission has already advised that it believes that, under the basic Civil Service Act, it can establish criteria with respect to the register of eligibles similar to those set out in the order. The Department has advised the Commission that the order does not preclude it from so acting under the authority of the Civil Service Act if it is satsified as to the existence of such authority.11. I also go along with your view that it will be necessary that agencies use, a standard form containing sufficient identifying data in checking individuals! names through the Bureau's files and in connection with investigations conducted under the Executive Crder, and suggest that you work out a procedure for establishing such a form with the Civil Service Commission.12. With relation to section 5 of the order you state that the Bureau, on receipt of information of a nature necessitating investigation by it, intends to follow the policy of immediately initiating the investigation rather than awaiting a request from the department or agency concerned, but notifying the head of the department or agency that information of a nature requiring investigation by the Dureau has been received and an investigation is being conducted. You also mention that upon request the interested.agency will be furnished with the basis for the investigation. I do not believe this policy to be in conflict with any provision of the order and see no reason why you should not follow the policy you suggest.
[124-10183-10277_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 34]
13. You point out that section 3(a) of the order requires    "a check of the fingerprint files of the Federal Bureau of Investi-    gation", but that section 4(b) of the sample security regulations    dealing with the same subject matter omits the quoted language.    In accordance with your suggestion, an amendment to the regula-    tions along the lines you suggest has been transmitted to all executive    departments and agencies.14. You note that the abolition of Regional Loyalty    Boards and the Loyalty Review Board will affect procedures pursuant    to Executive Order 10422 relating to United States citizens who    are United Nations employees. As you suggested, amendments to    cover this situation have been promulgated to all executive depart-    ments and agencies.
[124-10183-10277_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 35]
Date: July 2, 1953To: Mr. James E. HatcherChief, Investigations DivisionU. S. Civil Service CommissionWashington 25, D. C.From: John Fdgar Hoover - Director, Federal Bureau of InvestigationSubject: EXECUTIVE ORTER 10450SECURITY RECUIREMENTS FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENTWith the inception of the cantioned Executive Order it became evident to this Bureau that certain problems would arise which have been encountered in the past in this Cureau's operations under the provisions of "recutive Order 98335. Several of these have been posed to the Department of Justice and the latter has now furnished tris ureau its advice regarding them.One consideration is just what agencies in the Federal Government are to be included in the operations of Trecutive Order 10350. As your files will reflects by letter dated August 21, 1947, the Honorable arthur. Flerining, then the Acting President of the Commission, furnished this Jureou a list of cil such agencice to be included within the provisions of Ezecutive Order 99956 ambered aroon these were the General Accounting Office and the Government printing Office, neither neithe of which were agencies of the recutive Pranch. The thought occurred ce to whether these agencies are to be included Hader the noo program and is as hether your cotinetes of cases to be handled for these evencies in the current and succeeding fiscal years which you have furnished this Aureau include the ceneral Accountin Office and the Government Printing Office.It is understood that the Commission considers playeខន of these agencies within the provisions of rzecutive Or since they are competitive employees as are the bulk onNW 88326 Docld:32989603 Page 36
[124-10183-10277_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 36]
employees of several executive agencies. It would be appreciated if you would furnish this Bureau a list of the agencies to be included within the provisions of Frecutive Order 10450 at your earliest convenience. In addition, would you advise whether the General Accounting Office and the Government Printing Office and their employees will be considered as subject to the provisions of the captioned order. If such is the case we would appreciate your advice as to whether your estimate of the volume of work to be handled for these agencies was included in the budgetary estimates furnished this Bureau.As you are aware, employees of the Library of Congress have been processed under Executive Order 9835 through agreement with officials of the Library and the results of name checks and investigations handled for the Library were compensated for on a reimbursable basis. Would you advise whether the agreement had with the Library of Congress for processing its employees under the old Loyalty Order has been renewed for Executive Order 10450. If such is the case is the Library of Congress agreeable to continue the procedure of reimbursement for each matter handled?With regard to the question as to what agencies have investigative responsibilities in connection with the additional investigation that may be necessary in the readjudication of full field investigations conducted under Executive Order 9335 as called for in Sed Section 4 of the cuptioned order, this Bureau feels it should conduct such investigations only when the purpose is to develop information of a nature described in "ection 8(d) of this order. The Department of Justice advised that it concurs in this opinion and stated that it feels the Civil Service Commission should isque direct instructions to all departments and agencies as to the proper procedures to be followed in connection with requests for further investigation. It is felt that if such instructions are issued it will preclude the receipt of a large number of requests by the FBI for investigation solely to bring the previous investigation up to date or to develop some allecations of a nonsubversive nature. For your further information, the Department of Justice has advised that it agrees this Bureau should continue the procedure established under the Loyalty Order of channeling its investigative reports through the Civil Service Commission for dissemination to the appropriate departments or agencies.
[124-10183-10277_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 37]
Your attention is invited to the letter from Mr. Peter Campbell Brown, then the Acting Assistant to the Attorney General, to the Honorable Seth W. Richardson, then the Chairman of the Loyalty Review Board, dated Day 5, 1949, Therein Hr. Brown requested Hr. Richardson to clarify Review Board instructions to the various departments and agencies to the effect that "Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation will testify before Hearing Boards where they are in a position to furnish competent evidence. They will not, however, participate otherwise in the proceedings or will they be made available merely to interpret information appearing in their investigative reports." This policy will continue to be the policy of this Bureau under Executive Order 10450 and it has been concurred in by the Department of Justice, The Department has further suggested that the Commission so advise the various departments and agencies that this policy will be continued.These points are being called to your attention in order that you may furnish this Bureau the information requested above, as well.as give consideration to the necessity for furnishing instructions as outlined above to the varicus agencies for their information and guidance in the operations of Executive Order 10450.
[124-10183-10277_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 38]
COPYEganFile: I:LK:hhJuly 16, 1953Honorable J. Edgar Hoover, Director.Federal bureau of Investigation.Washington 25, D. C.Dear Mr. Hoover:Attached is a list of agencies in the Federal government which are to be included in the operations of Executive Order 10450. This information was requested by your letter of July 2, 1953, addressed to Mr. James E. Hatcher, Chief, Investigations Division.The subject of investigations for the General Accounting Office, Government Printing Office, and Library of Congress is being covered in a separate letter.The Commission will issue instructions to all departments and agencies as to the proper procedures to be followed in connection with requests for further investigation under Section 4 of Executive Order 10450. Instructions will also be issued regarding testimony by special agents or the Federal Bureau of Investigation before security hearing boards.Very truly yours,/s/ Joseph E. WinslowJoseph E. WinslowActing Executive DirectorAttachmentCOPYNW 88326 DocId:32989603 Page 39
[124-10183-10277_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 39]
COPYDEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES INCLUDED IN THEOPERATIONS OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 10450.*EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT:*White House OfficeBureau of the budgetCouncil of Economic AdvisersExecutive Mansion and GroundsNational Security CouncilNational Security Resources BoardOffice of Defense MobilizationOffice of the Liroctor for Mutual SecurityPresident's Advisory Committee on GovernmentOrganizationEXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS:StateTreasuryDepartment of DefenseOffice of the Secretary of DefenseDepartment of the ArmyDepartment of the NavyDepartment of the Air ForceJusticePost OfficeInteriorAgricultureCommerceLaborHealth, Education and WelfareINDEPENDENT AGENCIES:American Battle Monuments Commission.Atomic Energy CommissionBoard of Governors, Federal Reserve SystemCanal Zone GovernmentCentral Intelligence AgencyCivil Aeronautics BoardCivil Service CommissionFederal Personnel CouncilCommittee on Government Contract Compliance.Committee on Retirement Policy for FederalPersonnelNW 88326 Docld:32989603 Page 40
[124-10183-10277_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 40]
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES: (Continued)Defense Materials Procurement AgencyDefense Transport AdministrationEconomic Stabilization AgencyExport-Import BankFederal Civil Defense AdministrationFederal Coal Mine Safety Board of ReviewFederal Communications CommissionFederal Deposit Insurance CorporationFederal Mediation and Conciliation ServiceFederal Power CommissionFederal Trade CommissionGeneral Accounting OfficeGeneral Services AdministrationGovernment Printing OfficeHousing and Home Finance AgencyIndian Claims CommissionInternational Boundary and Water CommissionInterstate Commerce CommissionMutual Security AgencyNational Advisory Committee for AeronauticsNational Capital Housing AuthorityNational Capital Planning CommissionNational Labor Relations BoardNational Mediation BoardNational Science FoundationNational Security Training CommissionPanama Canal CompanyRailroad Retirement BoardReconstruction Finance CorporationRenegotiation BoardSecurities and Exchange CommissionSelective Service SystemSmall Defense Plants AdministrationSmithsonian InstitutionNational Gallery of ArtSoldiers HomeSubversive Activities Control BoardTariff CommissionTax Court of the United StatesTennessee Valley AuthorityVeterans AdministrationWar Claims Commission
[124-10183-10277_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 41]
UNO STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONWASHINGTON 25, D. CADDRESS ONLY"CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION"IN YOUR REPLY REFER TOFILEAND DATE OF THIS LETTERJuly 21, 1955Honorable J. Edgar Hoover.Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation.Washington, D.C.Dear Mr. Hoover:You will recall that several agencies of the Legislative Branch of the Government participated in the loyalty program prescribed in Executive Order 9835. These same agencies have made requests of the Cormission that they be permitted to participate in a similar manner under the program prescribed in Executive Order 10450. By letter dated June 29, 1953, the Deputy Attorney General advised the Comission that if these agencies are of the view that they can adopt procedures which would make it possible for them to participate in the program by virtue of authority conferred under the acts under which they operate, it would be entirely appropriate for them to participate in the program on a voluntary basis. It was suggested in this letter that the Commission work out with your Bureau the question relating to reimbursement by the agencies involved.Because of the above opinion I have attached for your consideration proposed undated drafts of letters to the Librarian of Congress, The Public Printer, and the Director of Personnel of the General Accounting Office advising that sübject to their meeting the above conditions they may participate in this program. The budget estimates of the Commission for some time have inclučed work items which would result from making national agency checks and inquiries and limited personal investigations, when necessary, for the Government Printing Office and the General Accounting Office. It is our understanding that this is true with respect tο the budget estimates of your Bureau insofar as they pertain to searching fingerprint records and Standard Forms 67 for employees of these agencies and making full field investigations when necessary under Section 8(d) of Executive Order 10450. For this reason, no feature of reimbursement has been mentioned in our proposed letters to these agencies.The Commission is willing to conduct for the Library of Congress cn a reimbursable basis activities which it would perform for an agency ia the Executive Branch under Executive O Order 10450. I have taken the liberty of including in the draft to the Librarian of Congress the basis for re- imbursing your Bureau for its part in this program. This was done for.NW 88326 Docld:32989603 Page 42
[124-10183-10277_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 42]
discussion purposes. It is not the. Commission's intent to imply commit-ments on the part of the FBI.After your review I would appreciate your returning the enclosuresto me together with any comments or suggestions you may wish to make.Sincerely yours,![Signature of Joseph E. Winslow]Joseph E. WinslowActing Executive DirectorEnclosure 28952NW 88326 Docld:32989603 Page 43
[124-10183-10277_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 43]
# UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONWASHINGTON, D.C. 20415December 2, 1965Honorable Nicholas deB. KatzenbachAttorney GeneralWashington, D.C. 20530Dear Mr. Attorney General:The President has directed the Civil Service Commission, after consulting with the major users of personnel investigations, to formulate and issue minimum standards of acceptable investigative coverage for Federal civilian employment.I should appreciate your comments and suggestions relative to the following proposed minimum standards for acceptable full field coverage:## Scope of Full Field InvestigationsFull field investigations on Federal employees and applicants are personally conducted investigations which cover the life of the individual with special emphasis on the person's background and activities during the most recent fifteen years, or since his eighteenth birthday, whichever is the shorter period. In addition, a thorough personal investigation is made of any materially derogatory matters developed, requiring investigation before the fifteen-year period.The basic elements of investigation are:*   a national agency check, as described on page 736-3 of the Federal Personnel Manual.*   personal interviews with present and former employers, supervisors, fellow workers, references, neighbors, school authorities; and other associates.*   checks of police, credit, field office and other pertinent records as appropriate, such as Immigration and Naturalization, Passport Division of the State Department - 1935, vital statistics, military service, and the like.
[124-10183-10277_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 44]
Personal interviews are scheduled with employers, supervisors, and work associates to verify and obtain pertinent details for all employments in the investigativo period. Particular caro is taken also to verify the fact of unemployment or self-cmployment claimed by the subject of investigation.The last period of education at a college level is always verified by a check of the school records. Stacndary cducation is investigated whon tho subject is young and has had no subsequent schooling. Porcoral interviews are conducted with witnesses such as professors and former students who werè associated with the subject during recent schooling.Neighborhood investigation is regularly conducted to cover residenco during the most recent three years. Testimony of neighbors before that period ray be sought to verify periods of unemployment or self-employment, or to resolve questionable matters which have been raised from other sourcos.The number of witnesses interviewed cannot be reduced to a formula but in each caso depends upon the diversity of the subject's experience and places of residence, as well as upon the depth of knowledge showm by witnesses concerning the subject's character, habits, and background. The objective of the investigation is to obtain a comprehensive and well-rounded picture of the individual's background and activities.## Matters Covered### Field InvestigationsBasically, full field investigations are designed to develop sufficient information to enable agency accutricials to determine the fitness of persons entering critical- v positions. Fitness includes both security and suitability el...........Character, habits, morals, on are investigated generally. Loyalty is particularly stressed and if a question is raised concerning. the subject's loyalty the case is referred to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in accordance with Section 8 (d) of Executivo Order. 10450. Particular attention is directed to cuch miters as immorality, habitual use of intoxicants to excess, lack of integrity, dismissals from employ- mont, arrests, financial responsibility, and health.