404-10241-10058 SECRET EVES ONLY EEMORANDUM FOR THE ESCORD REPORT OF INTERROGATION DATE: 29 July 1965 1. Questioning was concentrated on documenta that had to be filled out when Subject was entering the KGB. Komsoaol- queationg and service in the Baltic were not touched at all. ‘Following highlights: . a) AKKETA (DPHQ): Subject dliaplayed a superficial knowledge of this basic questionnaire. He knows generally the appearance, the mature of the questions, and the purpose of the document. He continued to maintain, incorrectly, that 4¢ wag required in two copies, that he filled 1¢ out at none, Shet it consisted of 4-@ pages. He amended his story to say that he does not rewember for sure whether .he turned it in to BOZEENKO'sa peoxle on one of his first visits, or gave it to SAKHAROV when he first reported for work. COMMENT: An ordinary mewber of the KGB might conceivably have forgotten the details of this document which vag filled owt only at the beginsing of hie career. As 8 @eupervisor, however, Subject claims to have reviewed many personnel files (as be should have): a such, be eculd not possibly wake the mistakes that he has about e. vie document, or be unable to give a better deacriptica . it. ‘ ®) Secrecy Agreement: Subject himself stated that be had signed euch a form for SAKHAROY when he first reported for work. He was unable to remesber the proper designatioa oF contents of the document. however. The description of the wording which he provided was similar to that used prior te 1947; alec, it ig similar te the secrecy agreement that wight be signed by an agent. ce) Licbaiy Liatok Uchetu Kadrov: This ig mot a wery important document, pee it is filled out by every efficer, aud ig@ found in every personnel gile. Subject was mot only unable to recall it, he maintained he had sever beard of it eves afterit was.described to hia. . SECRET AYES Cy | 4 \ A AERO ER TN ATENEO TDS, C8 HEE ARTO ARMORED AOI Dm! TRAM aang rele NA Me BLE AAD bet ws heen A me ae eee ee Ro Se aS tee
14-00000 3 z & i aon oh Cr Ee rig, 3 wt tae COMMENT: Again, altbough Subject sight have forgotten it 4% he bad been just a plain case officer in the KGB, he should know of it as @ supervisor, or even as Secretary of the Kowsomol Organization (it is a CC/CP8U queetionanaire). a) GPRAVKA No.1: Thies document is required for every pergonnel action. Subject did not react at all to ites name and said be didn't know of it. When it's purpose was deacribed to hima, Subject managed to give a superficial description of the document. COMMENT: An ordinary case officer would know of the existence of thiga form, but would not mecessarily have ever seen it. Ag deputy chief of a department, however, Subject would bandle this document 30-40 times a year. and would be thoroughly familiar with it. Thus, bia Limited knowleage of it could only have come from a brief. @) Posluzhney Spsok (Eaployment and Service Record): Asked about this document, Subjecg gave a good description of its nature and purpose. Hig answer that he himself did not £421 it cut but that it was filled out by pergonnel on the bagig of the data in big Anketa is perfectly plausible. I¢ ie odd, however, that Subject insiated that he did aot sign this document when he first entered the KGB (as ig normally dene}. but only “in 1958 or 1957." @. Subject was asked how he angvered some of the questicas im the Anketa, particularly the questions on his forser wife, her relatives, and on hig mother's ancestry. I then asked Subject how it wag, taking into account his mother's aristocratic ancestry, the fact that he father died in jail, the Trotskyite allegations against Subject's father, the fact that Subject's Yorwer father-in-law was still in jail, and the fact that Subject was present when TELEGIN's apartment was searched -- that he had been accepted into the KGB, particularly in 1953° ‘Subject ~ adeitted that the question was logical, and said that he could omly agsume that the £@fluence of KOBULOV and the imporgént and influential position of his own father outweighed these megetive factors. He alse cited bigs GRU experience in thie coanection. a agbed Suhiac? her £22 pemomt¢od bia mmognd __. warsriage to the EGS. He replied that hefore the warriage he bag wentioned it briefly to GORBATENKO, and that he had SECRET EYES ONLY i ss ceased AROS Oo oo ARRAY COANE atte et Srenmpoenennenryieibesedtsag eng 5 SID EEE tc SAECO ft etna gente eanonnenneeetaineoent tetera ateanoteee trteeecanstpepefenseeebeh este SSntehttte AA « tmeensenomansearamelUhemeategr «TURUNEN MONY! «ARISEN PRPCVNREE EDT” eet vttearetenthnte tthe qeeinteee en teeter RN eet ep AMBRE ol
14-00000 SEChET yes may unofficially run a nime check on big prospective bride, (which was “clean"), and that after the marriage he had filled out another anketsa for personnel in which he incluged all the required data on bis wife and her relatives. After considerable prompting, Subject said that he had indicated that she and her parents had Seen in France, but that he had concealed the fact that her grandmother had been in German occupied territoty during the war (be admitted that the KGB would have learned this in a routine check, however.) I then reviewed for Subject the negative security factors mentioned above, adding the arrest of KOBULOY, the fact that hie new wife and her parents had been abroad, the fact that her grandmother was in German- eccupied territory, the fact that Subject was now everage for .. the Komgomol but not yet a party member or candidate, and the gact that Subject received a 15 day sentence for misuse of cover documents and incurring venereal disease, and aaked 4f he didn't think that ‘his personnel file had been reviewed im 1954, and 14 so. what grounds there could have been for retaining him in the KGB. Subject gaid that he thought that hig file probably was reviewed but that again the influence of hig father had saved bhim. Subject added that another important factor was probably hia language qualification and particularly his higher education. I told Subject that we would examine the question of hie education in greater detail later. He made no comment. I also pointed out tc Subject. that 42 bie second wife and her parents had been abroad it was impossible that her name check could have been negative. He admitted it wag illogééal, but insisted that thie was eo. ‘@ 4. CGORCLUSIONS: Evidence continues to pile up to show thet Subject was never in a supervisory position im the KGB, _. aed that he could not have and did not enter the EGB in 1953. Hig weak knowledge of the documents discussed indicates that 42 he was ever in the KGB at all it was igter, and for a relatively short time. 6. Despite the fact that I continued to challenge Subject © frequsntly, the tone of the interrogation was perticularly friendly today. The following exchange was of sowe interest: Subject: You probably worked for twenty yeare in pergonnel! ~ Ped: ot exactly. You should know better. a a a Subject: ‘No, X¥ dom't kmow. If you told me your nane? Ted: We'll taik about that later, and maybe even drink to each other's heaith. SECRET EYES ONLY an ef an 2 2 eR <a eet eS ee Rane EPR Pc CAS 5D EEE SS a Cage TES - Getter ree ectiebieoneaptnegnenetetteeat eet PPFD NGS eh edenseeneteeni aah + et
— “po Poa j ao tne w etaiee Lon , se ° - Site fen oe tect be 3 a SECRET VES ORLY 6. The plan for tomorrou's session ja to attack Subject on his service in the Baltic in 1952. dide 3th SECRET EYES ily