Classification: (This form is to be used for material extracted ; 5 from ClA—controlled documents.) was approyed.* It appears, however, that Oswald's application was processed so expeditiously because it was accompanied with all of the necessary documentation. In response to a Committee inquiry, the Department of Defense has stated that “to a large extent, the time involved in processing depended on how well the individual member had prepared the documentation needed for consideration of his or her case." _/ A review of Oswald's case indicates that his initial application was accompanied by all of the requisite documentation. Oswald had met the preliminary requirements of having made a voluntary contribution to the hardship dependent and of applying for a dependent's quarters Sf *By September 4, 1959, Oswald had been informed that he would be discharged on September 11, 1959. This explains why he was able to tell passport officials on that day that he expected to depart the United States on September 21, 1959. Classification: | Classified by derivation:
LY LY DF 2 LF LD FF SS Za « Classification: | (This form is to be used for material extracted from ClA—controlled documents.) allotment to alleviate the hardship. His application indicated that these measures had been taken, and was accompanied by two letters and two affidavits attesting to Marguerite ; : , ; Oswald's inability to support herself. Documents provided to the Committee by the American Red Cross indicate that he sought their assistance regarding this matter, and therefore was probably well advised on the requisite documentation to support his claim. Indeed, Red Cross officials interviewed Marguerite Oswald, and concluded that she “could not be considered employable from an emotional standpoint."  / The Fort Worth Red Cross Office indicated a quarters allotment was necessary for Marguerite Oswald, rather than a hardship \ discharge for Lee, and assisted her in the preparation of the necessary application documents. Oswald nevertheless informed the Red Cross office in Classification: | Classified by derivation:
Classification: | (This form is to be used for material extracted from ClA—controlled documents.) El Toro, California, where he was then stationed, that he desired to apply for a hardship discharge. The unusual aspect of Oswald's discharge application was that technically his requisite application for a quarters allowance for his mother should have been disallowed because Marguerite's dependency affidavit stated that Oswald had not contributed any money to her during the preceding year. _/ Nevertheless, the first officer to review Oswald's application noted in his endoresment, dated August 19, 1959, that "/a/ genuine hardship exists in this case, and in my opinion approval of the /quarters/ allotment will not sufficiently alleviate this situation."* _/ In addition, five other officers endorsed Oswald's application. The *This quotation suggests the possibility that applications for quarters allotments and hardship discharges are considered independently of one another. | Classification: | : | Classified by derivation: boone
Classification: (This form is to be used for material extracted from ClA——controlled documents.) Committee was able to contact three of the six endorsing officers; two had no memory of the event, / and one could not recall any details. / The Committee considers their absence of memory to be indicative of the Oswald case having been handled in a routine manner. Based upon this evidence, the Committee was not able to discern any unusual discrepancies or features in Oswald's military record. : 13. Lee Harvey Oswald's Military Intelligence File On November 22, 1963, soon after the assassination, Lt. Col. Robert E. Jones, Operations Officer of the U.S. Army's 1l2th Military Intelligence Group (MIG), Fort Sam Houston, San Antonio, Texas, contacted the FBI offices in San Antonio and Dallas and gave those offices detailed information concerning » N = Sz. Oswald and A.J. Hidell, his alleged alias. This information Classification: === f | Classified by derivation: he al LT A
Classification: (This form is to be used for material extracted from ClA—controlled documents.) suggested the existence of a Military Intelligence file on Oswald, and raised the possibility that he had intelligence associations of some kind. The Committee's investigation, however, revealed that military intelligence officials had opened a file on Oswald because he was perceived as a possible counterintelligence threat. Robert E. Jones testified before the Committee that in June of 1963 he had been serving as Operations Officer of the 112th Military Intelligence Group at Fort Sam Houston, Texas.* Under the Group's control were seven regions encompassing five states: Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. Jones was directly responsible for counterintelligence operations, background investigations, domestic intelligence, and any *In his testimony, Jones also clarified and corrected the errors that appeared in communications that were generated as a result of the activities of his military intelligence unit. = “a: “GA Classification: == fi | Classified by derivation:
Classification: (This form is to be used for material extracted from ClA—controlled documents.) special operations in this five-state area. He believes that Oswald first came to his attention in mid-1963 through information f provided to the 112th MIG by the New Orleans Police Department to the effect that Oswald had been arrested there in connection with Fair Play for Cuba Committee activities. As a result of this information, the 112th Military Intelligence Group took an interest in Oswald as a possible counterintelligence threat. The Group collected information from local agencies . : and the military central records facility, and opened a file under. the names Lee Harvey Oswald and A. J. Hidell. Placed in this file were documents and newspaper articles on such topics as Oswald's defection to the Soviet Union, his travels ‘ there, his marriage to a Russian national, his return to the United States, and his pro-Cuba activities in New Orleans. ( Classification: f | Classified by derivation:
Classification: (This form is to be used for material extracted from CiA—controlled documents.) Jones related that on November 22, 1963, while in his quarters at Fort Sam Houston, he heard about the assassination of President Kennedy. Returning immediately to his. office, he contacted MIG personnel in Dallas and instructed them to intensify their liaisons with federal, state, and local agencies and to report back any information obtained. Early that afternoon, he received a telephone call from Dallas advising that an A.J. Hidell had been arrested or had come to the attention of law enforcement authorities. Jones checked the MIG indices, which indicated that there was a file on Lee Harvey Oswald, also known by the name A.J. Hidell. Pulling the file, he telephoned the local FBI office in San Antonio to notify the FBI that he had some information. He soon was in telephonic contact with the Dallas FBI office, to which he summarized the documents in the file. He believes that one Classification: —_ Ga. Sr “GEA | Classified by derivation: _.
Classification: | (This form is to be used for material extracted . ¢ from ClA—controlled documents.) person with whom he would have spoken was FBI Special .Agent in Charge J. Gordon Shanklin. He may have talked with the Dallas FBI office more than one time that day. Jones testified that his last activity with regard to the Kennedy assassination was to write an "after action" report, which summarized the actions he had taken, the people he had notified, and the times of notification. In addition, Jones believes that this “after action" report included information obtained from reports filed by the eight to twelve Military Intelligence agents who performed liaison assassination. This “after action" report was then maintained in the Oswald file. Jones did not contact, nor was he contacted by, any other law enforcement or intelligence agencies concerning information which he could provide on Oswald. To functions with the Secret Service in Dallas onthe day of the ( Classification: | Classified by derivation: ___
Classification: (This form is to be used for material extracted from ClA—controlled documents.) Jones' knowledge, neither the FBI nor any law enforcement agency ever requested a copy of the Military Intelligence file on Oswald. To his surprise, neither the FBI, Secret Service, CIA nor Warren Commission ever interviewed him. No one ever directed him to withhold any information; on the other hand, he never came forward and offered anyone further information relevant to the assassination investigation because he "felt that the information that /he/ had provided was sufficient and...a matter of record..." Communications Jones' contact with the FBI office in San Antonio is reflected in a teletype message sent at 4:25 p.m. on November 22, 1963, from that FBI office to the FBI Director and the Special Agent in Charge in Dallas. Classification: | Classified by derivation: yf ™
Classification: (This form is to be used for material extracted from ClA—controlled documents.) The Committee found Jones* testimony to be very credible. His statements concerning the contents of the Oswald file are consistent with FBI communications that were generated as a result of the information which he initially provided. Access to Oswald's Military Intelligence file, which the Department of Defense never gave to the Warren Commission, was not possible because the Department of Defense had destroyed the file as part of a general program aimed at eliminating all of its files pertaining to nonmilitary personnel. In response to a Committee inguiry, the Department of Defense gave the following explanation for the file's destruction: L. Dossier AB 652876, OSWALD, Lee Harvey, was identified for deletion from IRR (Intelligence Records and Reports) holdings on Julian date 73060 (1 March 1973) as stamped on the micro- filmed dossier cover. It is not possible to determine the actual date when~physical destruction was accomplished, but is credibly surmised that the destruction was accomplished within a period not greater than sixty days following the identification for deletion. Classification: | Classified by derivation: a. “EA
Classification: (This form is to be used for material extracted from ClA—controlled documents.) Evidence such as the type of deletion record available, the individual clerk involved in the identification, and the projects in progress at the time of deletion, all indicate the dossier deletion resulted from the implementation of a Department of the Army, Adjutant General letter dated 1 June 1971, subject: Acquisition of Information Concerning Persons and Organizations not Affiliated with the Department of Defense (DOD) (Incl 1). Basically, the letter called for the elimination of files on non-DOD affiliated persons and organizations. 2. It is not possible to determine who accomplished the actual physical destruction of the dossier. The individual identifying the dossier for deletion can be determined from the clerk number appearing on the available deletion record. The number indicates that Lyndall E. Harp was the identifying clerk. Harp was an employee of the IRR from 1969 until late 1973, at which time she transferred to the Defense Investigative Service, Fort Holabird, Maryland, where she is still a civil service employee. The individual ordering the destruction or deletion cannot be determined. However, available evidence indicates that the dossier was identified for deletion under a set of criteria applied by IRR clerks to all files. The basis for these criteria were established in the 1 June 1971 letter. There is no indication that the dossier was specifically identified for review or deletion. All evidence shows that the file was reviewed as part of a generally applied program to eliminate any dossier concerning persons not affiliated with DOD. 3. The exact material contained in the dossier cannot be determined at this time. However, discussions with all available persons who recall seeing the dossier reveal that-it most probably included: newspaper clippings relating to pro- Cuban activities of Oswald, several Federal Bureau of Investigation reports, and possibly some Army counterintelligence reports. None of the persons indicated that they remember any Classification: __. | Classified by derivation: