Evening star., 1952-08-09
Security
Continued From First PageJ

ings, for the most part, don't
involve loyalty issues.
In its report to the President,
the committee stressed that secur-
ity risk cases should be restricted
to agencies concerned directly with
national security functions, and
that, even in these bureaus. the
program should be limited to jobs
directly tied in with these duties.
Some "Coerced" Into Resigning.
The committee said it had OBJ
served a tendency in some agencies
for administrative or security OFF,
GERS to confront employees with
derogatory information ''in a man
ner which coreces them into re-
signing"
It said it had also learned of
some security cases in which state
ments of charges were so vaguely
worded and generally written as
to render impossible any intelli-
gent reply or defense.
Not all agencies give the person
accused as security risk written
statement Of charges against him.
The committee said that such
written statements should be given
those accused, as far as consistent
with national security.
The third type of firing pro-
gram now in effect in Govern
ment is civil service suitability" 4"
in which employees may be dis
missed for a variety of reasons.
including inef1ciency, misconduct.
insubordination. and the like. In
these types of firings. only veter-
ans may appeal to the Civil
Service Commission.
In its report to the President,
the interdepartmental committee
scored the lack of uniformity
among agencies in dealing with
security risk cases. resulting in
uneven standards.
Departmental Discretion.
While advocating a central ap-
peals board to hear the cases Of
employees fired for security rea-
sons. the committee said its de-
ciSion should not necessarily be
binding on an agency.
"Since only the department or
agency involved is thoroughly
familiar with the nature of the
work and the security require
ments of a given sensitive posi-
ton, and since the department
or agency head is responsible for
the security Of his organization,
the committee considers that the
final authority for the decision
in a security case must remain
with the department or agency
head" the report declared.
The committee said that, if an
appeals board finds in favor Of an
employe. it should submit its find
ing to the agency head for final
action by him.
While such findings by an ap-
pealS board would not be binding,
they would tend to protect en-
ployes against arbitrary or capri
cious actions by agency officials.
Another factor is that a ruling
in favor Of an employe could
clear him for employment in nom
sensitive Federal bureaus and
would remove the stigma that
goes with a security risk firing.
Full Hearings Recommended.
The committee said the Civil
Service Commission is the proper
agency to conduct the integrated
dismissal and appeals program
because it already has the re-
Sponsibility in the matter of most
offenses for which an employe
can be fired.
The committee urged that an
employe in a security case be
given a full hearing before his
agency appeals board, with the
right of counsel and the right to
appeal an adverse decision to the
head of the agency. II the deci-
sion still remained adverse, the
employe could appeal to the Civil
Service Commission.
In its report, the committee
said many of the security prob
lens now arising in Government
could be avoided, if persons were
not appointed to sensitive posi-
tions without prior investigation
of their background.