--REF ID: A66870 .; 

SUBJ¥nTz Clearance o:r SGA.-tr Peno.nnel. 

TOa V/mR FROM: S/ASST DATE: MAY 2 1 1~:NT ~lO. 2 - Continued 

c. l-T:f final recounendation is that we try to ;et sorrie cha.!lge in 

attitude in ]SA-16, toward ereater objectiviey in re:!ard to t-rhat is to be 

considered incm:;>atible lli.tb our fora ot goyerment. • 

1 Incl to Ccr.iment 2 C~s on D/F from SEC 

to V /DlR on Cleara.."lCe of 

SCAI!P Persounel.. 

. 

WILL!A~1 F. F!tIEtt~N 

Special Assistant 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA o_n 10-24-2013 pursuant to E.O. 1352e 

a .... 'fle-· 'T"bEI;" \. .. ,;o.'J ·.. • r::... '... t: 
S9ii.Pm&U?AL - SJIHHR'!f INP6R!M:ftelf 

Sl..'&'ffiCT: Clearance ot SCAMP Persomal. 

TO: V /'f:J.L"l . · FROM: S/ASS'f 

1.- I realize tl'lnt it is Securi.ty"s business to search for,, collect, and. 

present unfavorable or diacredi:table information., that is, mde:rce or indications of loyalty or security risks, in the caoe of each person for whom OllZ" 

special type of clearame is being sought. I realize that. it is not SeCurit,-•s 

bnsiness to search foi; collect,. and present fuorable ·pr creditable intol'mt.icn... 

But it seems to !Ile ·that vhen Securit-y has collected the latter type of intonation it should give some rec<>~n1tion thereto and try to throw it in on tbe other 

side of the clearance scale, to counterbalance the bad. However, it nobody will 

agree 'With me on this point,, then th:i.s weighinc iD. o.f' tbe 11goodn with the· "badn 

should be done by the revietrl.ng authorities, on the echelon imoediately aboYe 

NSA-16, nam~' the Chief 0£ Start., the Vice t>irector I and the Director. I 

take it. that that is 'Wh:f. tr..ese ~ers on aorse,. Newman, and U1a.M were sent to 

you; and it is on tbat basis that- I ::take .!JJ¥ coments below. . . 

2. a. It appears to J!le that- Security is overl7...caut1ous on this natter 

or clearance tor our work. In order to indicate what leads me to this opinion, - I attach hereto a detai1ed eoi:nent on Securityia inclosures dealing vi.th the 

three men ?"Jentioned abcwe. · 

. b. What '::la..'!tes me apprehensive about our clearame '91'0Cedures is that 

we have here three cases on wU.Ch we wanted :"lOre info:mation and asked NSA-16 

therefor.. ~!hen we eot the information I, at least,, do not see too sound grounds 

f'ar not 30-int! ahead with clearame. This raises tbe question: how about the 

hundreds or cases ve do not $ee am do not ask abotlt? Are the .t&-16 procedures 

and inte:.:-pretati ons too st.ri.ct., so that we lose m8!\V" potential.q valuable applicants tor jobs? Furthermore, I e really apprehensiTe or vhat will happen to us 

liihen it becOJtBs known that, so far as NSl-16 is ccncerned.;11 ::iembership in organizations sueh as the A.."lel"ican. .l.ssoeiatiOll for the AdVancem.ent 0£ Science and the 

American !!nt.'!aatical Society is considered. by W...>A-16 as derogatory. We are not 

only not going to be able to build up our statt but may• i:n fact, lose InlV 

competent people lie now have, whose loyalty and securif.¥ hitherto have been 

unquestioned.. l!any or our upper-leYel. em.plo.y-ees are lll!llbers of these organisations; if membership in tr~ disqualif'ies a-gplic.an.te, it will soom,r or later 

l>e deeied suf'ticient to warrant tercrimtion or aenicea or actual· enplo7ees: 

t.~e. ·oQ.vious precaution is to transfer or l.ook elswbere for aployment.. 

3 •. •· In reaard to nr. Newman, who ·i;as a clearanee -ror SEC!ET, I rocomend 

amnz ahead with bis participation in SCN-lP, 19S3. which requires DO higher 

clearance. 

b.. I recom::tend,_ .f\zrther,. that in the other two cues., 1!orse and Ulan, 

ve shoul.d try to get vbat.ft"er waiYers :tq reall.j be required, to enal>le us. w.· 

avail ouraalves", . in matters classified tbro~h $?1'.C.RZT, of their high professional 

;qualifications. 
REF ID:A66870 

• 

Ccnmenta ·on a Dfr ft'Cn. Colonel WJman to Admiral Wenger 

on Clearance O'f SCAMP Per-sonn.e1 

1. a. ?he subject memora.."Xlum outlines derogatoey nateri•.l uncovered by 

NS&~ in the course o.r invasti.grr.ltion. ot three pecple: Pro.feaso.r Phillip 

McCord Horse, Dr. Horr.is !lewma!l and Dr~ Stanis-law a., Ulam. 

· .2..• I shall start by taking up the tactual or alleged derogatory 

t:iatGi'ial on each of the aboYe nsed indirtduals in turn. I shall also 

list s~ non-de~t:Jatory' ·!ltaterlal on each ot the three people .. 

.2. a. lfOrse is a full professor at !tIT; his major subject is. I belieVe1 

l'hys!'cs. He has been Mrector oi' Brookhaven Laborato27, which i.s a 

research laboratory 'Of' the Atomc 3nergy Cammis.sion,. lie ws als.o t11e 

founder and first .Direct<>r o.£ the Weapons System -enluation Group, 'Which 

is non the principal Operations Anal.J"Sis Group tar the Joint Chiefs or 

Stat'f. 

b. I'SA-16 lists :-Iarsets associations am affiliations "with organiza-t!'ons vho by tbeir ideol.o:;ies 8IJi plblie sta..""ldi.Bg are kn.om to be 

incompatible with the Uni~ States form of goverment,~ as f'oll.OllS: 

(l) l!assae.husetts Civ.11 Liberty Union. 

Iil cc:mment.: 'While this Union has been cited by Calitornia . i1mmittee on Un-A.'lleriean Activities,. I am not aware t.hat 

it is known to be incompatible vi.th the United States 

1'01'!.'l o£ ganr:nment. It minht be, bu.t U' so, it comes as 

a distinet surprise to me. It is no·t on the list. of 

subV'ersive. organisations .cited by the Attoru;,r Generd 

of the U.S.; nor is. the American Civil Lil>eriiies Urdon., 

the parent. o~ania.tion> on the Attorney Qeneral.•s list - as 70t. xr ve are to be zuj.ded by what !St conmd.ttee 

ot ~ one of the "'8 ar h9 states teel~ about an organuatron, I uo not t;.an.lt thare will be mBn7 organizations 

in the u .. s. that will •pass" the teat. 

(2} The J.mm'iCan Serl.et. Science Society, Incorparated. 

l!Y ce1111ent; There is no question about this society- baing 

been Cited by the Attorney General ot·the United States. 

However, at one t.ime.,, during a period short.1.J' atter 1u 

tcmuli.~~ t.his societ'.f was in no va7 subvenD.ft. Whal 

it became cl.ear to k\'!el'i.can scientiat.s that t.h1s. ora--

izat.i.on had bee int.1ltratea. :nan;, scientists 1ned.t•teli' 

dropped the1-r aernbenbip. · Some. were eYen cpelled. lo 

statement is aade ~oncemizg wbether. in £act,, Pro.tessOl" 

Mone did tins, whether he is nov a member, how long he 

, - ..... P" .. - __ ..... -'!~'·~ --. • - .. - ,...a .. \1 .. pJ~ .,_ 

Inclosure to 

Comment 2 
·. 

REF ID:A66870 

• !iJAY 21 rns:~ 

wu a Rembar._. etc. It seems to me to be of t.be great.est 

irlport.ame to know when, i.t ever 1 a person under im'eat-igation ror clearance dropped ttembership in an organisation 1'h1Ch. bas been c1 ted by the Attorney General ot the 

United States. In tbis coru:iection,. the case or· a:t0ther 

prominent scientist,, Pro!'. Philip norrison. is worth 

t.~ 4bol.lt,, u related in the attached newspaper 

acc0t1nt (AP dispatch of 9 :{ey' 19S3). 

(3) Tho P.ct'1cational FUnd oi' the b:rgency Casai.ttee of At<ai.c 

Scientists. · . ~tv' comnent: Tb.ere aeem. to 'be s.everal things ~41.inst :1arae on 

account ot h:ts connection with this cotDittee. FU-st. be 

1$ a trustee ot the Comrd.tteeJ next~ the names of other 

neni>ers of the CCD'!littee are Ci.ted as those of people 

obvious~ not ~be trust&d. The other r.isn'bers· meo.ticaed 

are Harold c. Urey aili Linus Pauling. I do not know hOIJf 

Narold c. Urey- becape a "i'ellow·tra•eler" or even lJOY the 

authorities define or determine what wch a kneler !81 

but I. <lo know that he is a 'fbbel Prize -w"inner, important. 

contributor to the- ato:.lic bdlllb develop:ient.., Cld an outspoken anti-comm.mist. I do no.t kn.oW on u:.l&t. cx-ou.nda 

Linu.s Pauli~ is considered a eo::m:iunist suspec't~ but I 

do knoY that he is l'residont.-EJ.ect of tbe !ratioi."l&l AcadmT 

or Scie~e• of the lfni tod States. ~tr cor.n~nt um.er a 

above! wi.th reapect to listing by a co."?11t.Lttee of one.-of 

the ~ti or h9 s.tates o.r the Union~ al.so applies to th& 

citing :0r the S:lera~l Camnittee Of Atonic Scientists .. by the Joint Legisl.a1'm'e Fact F1ncJ.ins Committee of the 

State of Uashington. 

(4) The Scientists Ca:mtti.ttee on Leyalty Problea&. 

qz cocnent: Hembersbip in this committee.J eited by the IITM 

tln-A."!iorican Activities CCIDllittee,,. may be sufficient. justification !"or del\vinc ~forse. clearance. Observe, hcnre"Nr• 

that it is not stated that lie is a ?Wlb&r but oni,- that. 

ha is a sponsor.. I SI!l no-t quite sure vb.at this means and~ 

in fac~, it uy be that sponsorsbip is wrse tban membership from the point of' view that it r:my i.!:1p.q greater 

participation. · 

(S} I see notilinir derogatory vbat.wer in the first sentence; aa 

to tl~ secom.,. a tact is a tact no matter 'Where it appoara. 

Uby .told it. a~ainst tre>rse that the fact vu '9Ublished in a 

vell-knovn Ccr.aun:i.&t; j~? 

2 
,,, .e ·9· -... - 1 ~ llV C) 'I" ~ n · : ~!HI t.. -· 1j,.·.J 

(6) Same CQnment as applied to t.he t.Ust sentence or· (S) abov'e; 

as to the second sentencei if ~,. this is an item :1u 

bxltor ot norse. 

. c.. Pi.'1Al.l.;r,_ the report; coricludes ld.th the stateoont. that !!orse•s . colli~-u.es considered ll'il:l 1<T;al. It appears to ?:Ie t!'..at of the s1z 

c<l!19ants o~ .. (2) and (4) al"a relevant and these need further expanaj.on. 

There is a quotation trom USCIB f;'5 which states tbat."Tlle penon shall 

be ot atcal.lcnt character an1 di.scretto~ and o.t U."lqUestioned loyalty to 

the United States. There sball be no ezeption to thi• requirement.• 

Professor ~·!arse is certainl.T o£ excellent character and there has never 

been any question concerning his diaeretian,. The q_ueation er bis lo;yaltJ' 

rcaains to be exa.U.'led aod it is quite pas sible that fu1'ther imre&tigatlon 

developing around points (2) and (4) may indicate that there is SOltlB doubt. 

concerning bis 107al ty. However, on the basis of what bas been presented 

I do not see hou this eonclus.:toa was: reached. 

· .). a• The case of Dr. Morris Neeman is cons:ideftlbly different fi'cm that 

ot ·Professor i!Qrse.. Dr. Mewnum. is denied clearance .tor the f'oUOid.ng 

reasons: 

' . (l) ffi.s ~other is not a citizen ot the United States .. 

(2) His wife did not list :!!embership in a cited organization when 

&!)pi,-ing for a govenmient position. 1'he entii'.e tacts of bar 

SU$perud.cn are ::iot known by this Agency, at this time. 

My commants1 Point (l) is not at eooplete variance vi.th 

. USdtt4 PS, si.nc.o trot docuaent !'lerely states that a person's 

parents should be citizens :>! ~ United States~ 2M not 

t.lJat they :ms£ be .citizens of tbe United State.a'" The 

real .(!Ue'st!on is, Where is his !llOt.ber? Is sbe in the 

u.s.- or in so:.'le country behind the iron C"J.1"tainf HOii' 

strictly USCID regulations are to be interpreted. ia;. of 

course,. a matter £or top lnel policy., bu..t it is '1!1¥ 

opinion tbat'asA-16•s interpretati~n is «iti.rel.T too 

strict. when it wishes to c:lel\v" even a start on cl..-.nee 

si.mpl'3 because of the :t'act eited in point (1) above. 

P~t {2) is somavhat bothC"Same to me. It sa:s that 

•The e.~t:i,re tacts are not Jmmm by this Aae.i.'1CY, at;. this 

time,. n. but it a3)pears to me 1ha t w ahou.ld tey to 

ascertain them.. before coming to any final conclusions. 

Uhan qμ.al.U'ied scientific personnel •t this A;;e!lCy oake ~ous el'tort to -obtain the. serri.oee ol qualif:led 

seientif'ic personne1 at. other a,aenciea it appears to 

me tt.at !lSA-16 should '!'!Ul'fe tnery at'tc.rt to pt all the 

.tacts needed,, In 'lilis -connection it is interesting to 

- -; 

. ·"~- - ,- -~ ...... .. ~~ ... J ....... -: .... J.r t.-=.::11 
... .,.,.._n, \.., ~L:. ~,;1i ·~ ... ,·, .1-.::::: • 

note that USA-16 states that Dr. NN!l81l•s vi.fe had been. 

cleared of loyalty ebargdJ I than:f'ore do not see~ 

Ne11!!1tm' s cleara!lce ~hould now be in question an accoun.t 

or his vlle'-a clearance ~ttea. 

b. nr. Ifewman•s members.bi!) in three organizations is diaciisaed in 

1TSA-I6• s report. Even though :io T11ention is nade ot these nmbersbips in 

tr.e concludinG reasons for denial of cleara."?ce_, I a at a loss to undel:'-

stand Vat they are '1eatiomd at all. T~ first or these organizations 

is the A~ri.c.an Association for tho Advancement of' SCi.ence. This is a -cor.ipletel;r :ion-poll tical.1 scient.ific- organi.zation whose aembership comprises \housands ot outataading scientiata.. 'l'be second orgam~ation 

~entioned ic 't.b.e Amaric.&Di Mathematical Society-. To put it :iildb-1 it 

is a rather far-retched even to ~nt that a person is n-ot clearable 

because he beloDt;,, to this society.· Jobn von Net:m18I1!1 was preaident ot 

this society .from 1.950 to 19$2 •. Present and past members who worked at 

or with the A3eney and who have CO'm:HT cleara.9le& are:. H .. n. Cznpaigne,, 

W. · D .. 'Wray,, S. f('ullback 1 R.. A. Leibler 1 J. J.. Eachua, A.. !!. Gleason, 

:farehall !iall.1 S. S. Cairns; !t. P .. Robertson,, H. T. Engstrom$ C. B. 

TO!!lpkins, :·3.na Rees#- ar.d about fifty other people at the Ag•DCJ'. 1be1"9 

is no comi:ient 1.>y .NSA.-16,. .or i~, oa the third o.t'p.nization,, the Mathematical 

Association o£ .America. _That is fortu.nate since this organiZation concerns itself" primarily ~th the teaching of college mathematics. 

c. Finally we COi'1e to the case of nr_. Stanisl.a.u Ul.am. This is the -

stra'iigest case or· the three ... · It appears to me that NSA-16 does· not support 

its cue for dttJVing Ula couurr clearance by its own quotes. Under itea 

(2) let us comider the r.eascm:s for derraing clearance point. by point: 

points {a),. (b) and (c} a3a:i.n are que$tions of strict, ""'ledl,um,_ or looa• 

interpretation or USCID 115 and I shall not go into tber.t- In point (d) it 

is stated that Ula is not _ c.onsidered to be of excellent. discretion and 

items ld (3), 1d (4), and ld (7) are the refe:rencea. Let us look at those 

references in inverse order: 

(1) In ld (7)~ Ulam. is characterized as a ~:ative,. sociable 

individllal"but not indiscreet and was,. in fact, most. c1rcamopect regarding contiden1;1.al mat.ters. H::m can •llJ"OIMI c<acei vabl.7 interpret this statement as indi.cating that Ula 

is not conaideNd to be o:t auellent diacretiotl? 

(2) In ld (4) it is etated that nam "ia mt too diacreet,, altboagh 

it i:Dlt! not. to tell. anything, he vould not tell J.t .• • Again I 

_fail to see how this indicates indiscretion on A.PIJC7 probl.ma, 

since we certainly ~ people not to tell csecreta. 

I 

(3) In ld {3) it ia stated that Ulm is in the intervi.nee'• 

opinion sOlll91lhat indiscreet. H~er. this sems to be the 

only evidence ot Ulam.1 s indiscretion. ilao it is to be noted 

that no account is taken of' a:v of the :;ood things which haYe 
.. -. 

G0HPfBttf !ftL 

• • : :.~.Y 2 :. 

been said about Ula. ApparentJ.7 only derogatorJ" or 

poesibly derogatoZ'J" intomation 1a ;:tiftll aI'J1' weigh~ but 

this may be consistent with the thesis that it ie 

Securi v• s business ~o search tor dsroga:tocy eYidence 

o:U.y. 

(h) In point 2. {e) it is stated that Ula.ii and wile are known 

to as".lociate with a co:.mi.."list sym.pathi.zer.. Je.tereuce is 

:"lade to l. (s). But l!ere it is stated tbat UlaI1 a1Yl wife 

are closely' ass~iatod with someone who is know to baye 

mssoeiated vi.th people of cam.unist sympathy and who is 

hmsol.f suspected -or O)'mi'"lathf wi. th comr.u:ti.st ideals. It 

is also- stated that. it is the intomant• s opi;.1ion that 

Ula:i. does not subscribe to the theories am ideas of his 

wile am the first associa"!i.a. iiote a.;;ai.n that the negative rr.ateria.l_. no ·...a.twr h£>u slight, is given veight 

1!1hile the !')Os! tive material is CO?:lpletel.y ignored~ 

. . 

(5') Fincllj·. i..--i 2f. it is stated that Ulam.• s ld.fe is considered 

extra. "Progressive am even radic.:L in her political 'Views. 

~rne:r;. one exar.Tines the data presented to support this claia 

it 2.s a3ain noted that. the informant stated that Ulam does . not ~ubscribe to the t···eories and ideas of his wife. 

4. a.. As in the case -of ~1eH!lla."1, there are nan.y i ttns collected under 

Ulam.Ts ~ame -:r~.ich are not inclμded ano11.::; the reasons wh;r Glar.t was denied 

elearame. !>:hy were tr.e7 collected or ha.vi.Th.:; collected t~~ea, mw. are 

the7 :aentioned! Some a-£ they;i appear to be irreleTant, some ~1alt~trutbs 

a.'ld sol'le even. :ru.9P0rt lJl.~1 o 107&1ty- .and discretion • 

. · . 

b. On the basis o~ what ~.JSA-16 presents it a;.;>ears to ~e that ulam. 

is eirtlli.nl..y" a clear.£1.blc i.."ldividual,, there is .no question concerning 

clearame for :·rew!'IZHlt a.'ld the case of ~brse r.ieri.ts fart."ler investi.;:Iat.i.on. 

c • .Finally,, the i tet'IS regarded by Security as beins derot;atory raise 

a question as t.o v~ther Security is bei.'1c realistic in its field. Some · of t!10::?1: are relevant, SO!'te arc irreleva-it .and so.e,, tar i'ro::i being da.rogatory, a.one actually. just; the opposite. This vould appear to·indicate at 

least so:r~ lack of :>crspectivc on the part or Security. -.me 'i!Jl!q' conclude 

that ?Ul\? lo:ral a"ld potentially valua~·llc pe~ple are being lost to tlll!i 

Agency by too-inflexible interpretations ~.rj,:ich, step tq step, will. soon 

lead to equating 9el'.lbership in the American Mathematical Society with 

r.unbership in truly subversive orga...1\i-zations such as the Communist Party 

of .America. 

'° I • r-°