ARRB-CIA ISSUES: COVER
Originator: CIA
Document date: 09/19/1994
Document type: PAPER - TEXTUAL DOCUMENT

## Page 1

Date:

03/14/05

JFK ASSASSINATION SYSTEM

IDENTIFICATION FORM

AGENCY INFORMATION

AGENCY : CIA

RECORD NUMBER: 104-10332-10024

RECORD SERIES

: JFK

AGENCY FILE NUMBER : PROJFILES-DECLASS STDS

DOCUMENT INFORMATION

AGENCY ORIGINATOR : CIA

FROM

TO

TITLE

DATE

PAGES

: ARRB-CIA ISSUES:

: 09/19/1994

: 16 15

COVER

SUBJECTS : COVER

ISSUES

JFK ASSASSINATION

UNIT INDEX

DOCUMENT TYPE

PAPER

CLASSIFICATION

UNCLASSIFIED

RESTRICTIONS

DATE OF LAST REVIEW

CURRENT STATUS RELISED IN PARI PUBLIC - RELEASED WITH DELETIONS

: 04/01/03

COMMENTS : JFK-M-17

.: F25: 2000.02.24.12:40:58:717035 : UNIT

INDEX: 55 PGS. DIF.

53

Released under the John F. Kennedy

Assassination Flecords Collection Act of

1992 |44 USC 2107 Notel. Case#:NW

65360 Date: 06-01-2023

-_--------=

[R]

- ITEM IS RESTRICTED

104-10332-10024

WWW G0L60 Docld:32404537 Page 1

---

## Page 2

ASCHLY INTERNAL USE ONLY

PRIVILEGSO ATTORNEY

WORK PROSICT

CHRG

Banny

OGC-94-52916

19 September

1994

MEMORANDUM FOR:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

David P. Holmes

Deputy General Counsel

Robert J.. Eatinger. JI.

Assistant General

Counsel

Litigation Division, OGC

DCI Sources and Methods Authority With Respect

to JFK Assassination Records

1.

Per your request, I have attached a copy of the

President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of

1992

(ARCA), Pub. L. 102-526, 106 Stat. 3443-3458, reprirted at

44 U.S.C. §

2107 note.

For your convenience, I have higriighted

the pertinent provisions that

will aid in responding to an

inquiry regarding the statute's effect on the DCI's statutory

authority to protect intelligence sources and methods.

2. The clear language and intent of the law is to supersede

statutes that prohibit disclosure of information, except for some

irrelevant subject areas, such as tax records.

The statute

provides that "it shall take precedence over

any other law

(except section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Codel, judicial

decision construing such law, or common law doctrine that would

otherwise prohibit" the disclosure of information subject to the

ACE.

ARCA § 11(a).

This language, taken with the provisions

discussed below

which limit the intelligence sources and methods

that may be protected and set a strict procedural scheme by which

information is to be reviewed under the ARCA, effectively

supersedes the DCI's National Security Act authority with respect

to intelligence sources and methods information subject to the

3. Section 6 of the ARCA provides the grounds for which the

release of information may be "postponed."

contemplates that all information will eventually be released.

Indeed, it specifies that all information will be made available

to the public no later than 25 years after the passage of the

ARCA (which occurred in October 1992) unless the president

certifies that continued postponement is necessary.

ARCA

§ 4(g) (2) (D) .

With respect to intelligence-related information,

ARCA allows postponement if:

" (1) the threat to ... intelligence operations ... is

of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest, and

such public disclosure would reveal-.

PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

AGENCY INTERNAL USE ONLY

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 2

---

## Page 3

AGENCY INTERNAL USE ONLY

PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY WORK PROSTET

SUBJECT: DCI Sources and Methods Authority With Respect to JFK

Assassination Records

(A)

an intelligence agent whose identity currently

requires protection;

(B) an intelligence source or method which is

currently utilized, or reasonably expected to be

utilized, by the United States Government and which has

not been officially disclosed, the disclosure of which

would interfere with the conduct of intelligence

activities; or

(C) any other matter currently relating to

intelligence operations

... the disclosure of which

would demonstrably impair the natioral security of the

United States."

ARCA § 6(1) (Emphasis added.)

4.

The originating agency is to make the first review to

iderify information that meets

the standards for postponement.

ARCA § 4(C) (2) (D) (i) .

For CIA, this effort is being undertaken

by the Historical Review Group, in consultation with the

Directorate of Operations and other appropriale Agency

components.

Information the originating agencies identify for

postponement must be transmitted

to the Review Board.

ARCA

§ 4(c) (2) (E). The Review Board "shall consider and render

decisions on a determination by a Government office to seek to

postpone the disclosure of assassination reccids." ARCA §

7(1) (1). Specifically, the "Review Board shall consider and

render decisions on

... whether an assassination record or

particular information in

a record qualifies

for postponement of

disclosure under the Act." ARCA § 7(i) (2) (B).

5. If the Review Board determines to order the disclosure

of information that the originating agency feit met the criteria

for postponement, it "shall notify the head of the originating

body of its determination and publish a copy of the determination

in the Federal Register within 14 days after the determination is

made."

ARCA § 9(c) (4) (A). If the information contained in an

assassination record is "obtained or developed solely within the

executive branch, the President shall have the sole and

nondelegable authority to require the disclosure or postponement

of .

the information under the standards set forth in

Section 6."

decision must be certified to the Review Board within 30 days of

•De certified too.

ARCA § 9(d) (1) (emphasis added). The President's

the Review Boards determination. Id.

Records postponed by the

• President must be re-reviewed every 5 years. ARCA § 9(d) (2) .

2

PRIVILECED ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

AGENCY INTERNAL USE ONLY

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 3

---

## Page 4

•"".

AGENCY INTERNAL USE ONLY

ERIVILEGED ATTORVEY WORK PRODUCT

SUBJECT: DCI SouIces and Methods Authority With Respect to JFK

Assassination Records

6.

I would be happy to discuss this further if you so

desire.

You might also want to contact John Pereira

• (x30373)

since he has met with some or all of the Review Board members.

Rant

obert

tinge

Attachment

3

NW 65360 Docid:32404537. Page 4

---

## Page 5

SUBJECT: DCI Sources and Methods Authority w/Respect

to JFK Assassination Records

OGC-94-52916

DCI/OGC/RJEatinger: 76105 (19 Sept 94)

Original

- Addressee */attach) (hand delivered)

- OGC Registry (w/attact:)

1 - Lit File

1

RBB (OGC/ILS)

1

1

1

1

-C/HRG (J. Pereira-404 Ames)

-

RJE - Soft File

(w/attach)

RJE - Signer

PDP

KK -Eyi

PAS - {yi

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 5

---

## Page 6

Assassination Records Review Board

600 E Street NW • 2nd Floor • Washington, DC 20530

(202) 724-0088 • Fax: (202) 724-0457

March 1, 1996

CIA HAS NO OBJECTION TO

DECLASSIFICATION AND/OR

RELEASE OF CIA INFORMATION

IN THIS DOCUMENT

Mr. John Pereira

Director

Historical Review Group

Center for the Study of Intelligence

Central Intelligence Agency

Washington, D.C. 20505

Dear John:

A few months ago we made a request to the Department of Defense for, inter alia,

"Any available MOUs or MOAs defining command responsibilities and

lines of authority, responsibility and accountability when individuals of

the Central Intelligence Agency serve under 'military cover, i.e., are

employed and operate for the CIA while wearing the uniform of the

armed services: (Applicable period of interest here is 1956-64.)*

This letter is our official notification to you that we have made the above stated request.

We understand that the Agency was advised of this request by the Department of

Defense at the time the request was made. We do, however, apologize for our

inadvertent error in not having provided you with a contemporaneous notification.

Sincerely,

Lione

David G. Marwell

• Executive Director

BOARD MEMBERs: John R. Tunheim, Chair • Henry F. Graff • Kermit L. Hall • William L. Joyce • Anna K. Nelson

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: David G. Marwell

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 6

---

## Page 7

ER

97-4962

Assassination Records Review Board

600 E Street NW • 2nd Floor • Washington, DC 20530

(202) 724-0088 • Fax: (202) 724-0457

12-21-17 Audien li

December 18, 1997

i."..

i.

The Honorable George Tenet

Director of Central Intelligence

The Central Intelligence Agency

Washington, D.C. 20505

CIA HAS NO OBJECTION TO

CACLASSIFICATION AND/OR

RELEASE OF CIA INFORMATION

IN THIS DOCUMENE

Dear Director Tenet:

In accordance with the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act

of 1992, I am writing to inform you that the Assassination Records Review Board has

made additional formal determinations concerning the public disclosure of CIA

records at its meeting on December 15, 1997.

Enclosed is a list of the determinations that the Review Board has made. These

decisions were premised on several factors, including the historical interest in the

documents and the absence of evidence that the release of the information would cause

harm to the United States or to any individual.

You have seven days to appeal these decisions to the President. You are invited to send

your representative to the Review Board to examine our copies of the documents for

which determinations have been made and to discuss the determinations with my staff.

incerely,

T. Jeremy Gurn

Executive Director

Enclosure

CC:

Mr. John Pereira

33XG

1JG

BOARD MEMBERs: John R. Tunheim, Chair • Henry F. Graff - Kermit L. Hall • William L. Joyce • Anna K. Nelson

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: T. Jeremy Gunn - DEPUTY DIRECTOR: Thomas E. Samoluk

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 7

---

## Page 8

CONNIDENTIAL

Assassination Records Review Board

Review Guidelines

for Information Relating to Official Cover

This document sets forth the review guidelines for use by the Assassination Records Review Board

("Board" or "ARRB") and the Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA" or "Agency") for public release of

certain information concerning the identity, scope, details, and specific mechanisms of official cover

(hereafter "official cover details"). These guidelines have been officially adopted by the Board to serve the

public interest in making the complete story of the JFK assassination available while protecting from

official disclosure information which would be harmful to the national security and is properly classified

under Executive Order 12958.

1. Information in documents originated by the Congress (most often in the context of personal

statements to committees or committee staffs) which sets forth official cover details shall be presumptively

released unless it sets forth specific information not generally known to the public or the Agency shall be

able to demonstrate that it has taken affirmative action to prevent the disclosure of such information in the

past and that release here would cause identifiable damage to the national security.

2. Information in documents originated by the Executive Branch (including those designated by the

parties as quasi-executive branch documents which reflect extracts from the records of the Executive

Branch) which sets forth official cover details shall be presumptively postponed to the extent that it

concerns:

identification of the official cover provider,

specific locations used for official cover, and

identity, scope, details and mechanisms of any particular official cover.

3. Information in such documents which the Executive Branch has taken an affirmative act to

officially disclose or allow to be disclosed shall be presumed to be releasable.

4. Moreover, information in such documents which relates to individuals who are considered

important to the story of the assassination shall, consistent with past practice, be considered for release on

an individual basis with the Agency having a higher standard of proof of damage to the national security.

5. For any information postponed pursuant to these Guidelines, the Agency agrees to provide a

summary or substitution which preserves the content and relevance of the postponed information.

Neither these guidelines nor the release of documents pursuant to these guidelines shall be deemed

to constitute an official Executive Branch acknowledgment of the identity, scope, details, and specific

mechanisms of official cover in other information disclosure law matters.

For the Assassination Records Review Board:

CONTIDENHIAL

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 8

---

## Page 9

< CONNIDE

SECRET

Example of proposed summary/substitution

Original:

Flynn recalls the following procedures

The

JFK Act 5 (g) (2) (D)

would request

Office would contact the CIA liaison officer, who would

grant clearance. A record of_

JEK Act 5 (g) (2) (D)

JFK Act 5 (g) (2) (D) security file.

JFK Act 5 (g) (2) (D)

for CIA employees,

JFK Act 5 (g) (2) (D

The

The

would then

would probably be placed in the individual's

JFK Act 5 (g)(2)(D)

Summary/substitution:

(NB: Remaining original words in normal type; substituted language in bracketed bold italics)

Flynn recalls the following procedures for la specific provider of official cover to provide

cover] for CIA employees. (One office of the official provider of cover/ would request /certain

documents from a second office of the official provider of cover]. (That second office] would contact

the CIA liaison officer, who would /provide requested information]. [The second office at the cover

provider would take certain administrative steps]. A record lof the requested information] would [be

maintained by the official cover provider).

CC:

Sent on 18 February 1998 at 07:25:54 AM

-CONFIDENT

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 9

---

## Page 10

URGENT FAX

PLEASE HAND DELIVER

to Peggy Grafeld, room 1512

Peggy,

as I mentioned, the judge and jeremy came to visit our

office director yesterday .... very pleasant

.. and everybody

said the right thing about "working

together.

things continue to move forward quickly.

attached is the ARRB's "review guidelines" received last

night and our what will be our hand-written slight suggested

modifications

... and ... most important ... our interpretive

memo.

our lawyers have

reviewed and find them legally identical.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THIS AGREEMENT PRESERVES THE SECRECT RE

OFFICIAL COVER AND THERE WILL BE NO OFFICIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF

ANY SPECIFIC COVER AS A RESULT OF A RELEASE OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH

DOCUMENTS BY THE ARRB.

let me know soonest your thoughts (out Friday COB is

target)... especially if you want anything included in our memo

(the review guidelines belong to them so the thought was suggest

as few changes as possible AND put any clarifying language we

want in our interpretive memo) .

lastly, as for the second "legal" memo for Calder/Kennedy

signature, we can also incorporate any changes but my sense is

the staff

and Board are fairly comfortable with it so it does not

appear to be of overarching necessity to make changes.

thanks,

Lee Strickland

Voice:

(703) 613-1289

URGENT FAX

PLEASE HAND DELIVER

to Peggy Grafeld, room 1512

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 10

---

## Page 11

GuAn's DeAFT

2.

3.

4.

DRAFT DRAFT DRAFE CIAL COLLECTIONS

February 20, 1998 BLEA3E IN FULL

ARRB Staff Guldelines for Review of Records Involving Of @ial Cover

Substitute language or a summary will be used for all postponements. The

substitutions will preserve the context and relevance of the information. (E.g.,

"official cover" or "location" or "details of cover arrangements.")

For Congressional documents. Cover information will be released unless the

information explains details of the scope of official cover or important details

about the mechanisms of official cover that is not generally known to the public.

Information shall not be released if the Executive Branch shall be able to

demonstrate that it has taken affirmative action to prevent the disclosure of such

information in the past and that release here would cause identifiable damage to

national security.

For Executive Branch documents and "derivative" documents. Information

generally will be released except:

a.

the substitute language "official cover" will be used for the actual official

cover,

b.

substitute language will be-used in lieu.of the details of official.cover.or the

specific locations of cover facilities;

c.

the cover status of certain high-profile individuals will be released when

disclosure has previously been permitted by affirmative official acts of the

Executive Branch of the US govemment;

d.

cover status of other individuals will be disclosed only to the extent that

they are important to the assassination story and they will be handled in a

way similar to other key issues on a case-by-case basis; and

e.

information disclosing that a cover arrangement was not employed shall

be released unless the information reveals or would reasonably imply the

existence of otherwise postponable information.

The Review Board shall continue to retain the final authority to make "formal

determinations" within the meaning of the JFK Act. Although these Guidelines

describe the approach the Board intends to follow, whenever a document

presents an issue that is not resolvable under these guidelines or to the extent

that a document presents a difficult issue under these guidelines, the issue shall

be brought to the Review Board's attention for its formal determination.

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 11

---

## Page 12

Central Intelligence Agency

CIA SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

RELEASE IN FULL

2000

Washington, D C.20S05

DRAFT

3 April 1998

T. Jeremy Gunn, Esquire

Executive Director

Assassination Records Review Board

600 E Street, NW

Suite 207

Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Mr. Gunn:

Re: Release or Postponement of "Official Cover" Information

This letter is intended to confirm our understanding of the

recent "review guidelines" promulgated by the Assassination

Records Review Board ("Board" or "ARRB") for public release of

certain information concerning the identity, scope, details, and

specific mechanisms of official cover (hereafter "official

cover

details"). This understanding is based on the prefatory

negotiations between our respective staffs and reflects the

agreement of all concerned agencies

and departments within the

Executive Branch. Please note that we have included a classified

addendum which presents examples of some of the following

understandings.

1. It is the intent of the staff of the Board and the

federal agencies that these guidelines should serve the public

interest by making the complete story of the JFK assassination

available while protecting from official disclosure information

which would be harmful to the national security and is properly

classified under Executive Order 12958.

2.

Information in documents originated by the Congress

(most often in the context of personal statements to committees

or committee

staffs) which sets forth official cover details

shall be presumptively released unless it sets forth specific

information not generally known to the public or the Executive

Branch is able to demonstrate that it has taken affirmative

action to prevent the disclosure of similar or identical

information in another context in the past and that release here

would cause identifiable damage to the national security.

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 12

---

## Page 13

T. Jeremy Gunn, Esquire

3. Information in documents originated by the Executive

Branch

(including those

designated by the parties as quasi-

executive branch documents which reflect extracts from the

records of the Executive Branch) which sets forth official cover

details shall be presumptively postponed to the extent that it

concerns:

• identity or identification of the official cover

provider,

• specific locations used for official cover, and

• scope, details and mechanisms of any particular

official cover.

4. Information in such documents which the Executive Branch

has taken an affirmative act to officially disclose or allow to

be disclosed shall be presumed to be releasable; however, in no

event shall extrinsic evidence by inference or deductive

reasoning be deemed to qualify for this provision.

5.

Further, information in such documents which relates to

individuals who are considered important to the story of the

assassination shall, consistent with past practice, be considered

for release on an individual basis with the Executive Branch

having a higher standard of proof of damage to the national

security.

6. For any information postponed pursuant to the review

guidelines, the concerned Executive Branch agency or department

agrees to provide an unclassified summary or substitution which

preserves the general content and

relevance of the postponed

information.

2

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 13

---

## Page 14

T. Jeremy Gunn, Esquire

7.

It is the intent of the Executive Branch that neither

the review guidelines nor the release of documents pursuant to

these guidelines shall be deemed to constitute an official

Executive Branch acknowledgment of the identity, scope, details,

and specific mechanisms of official cover in other information

disclosure law matters.

8. It is the understanding of the Executive Branch that no

release under the authority of the JFk Act shall be

deemed to constitute official executive acknowledgment in other

information disclosure law matters unrelated to the Act.

Your acknowledgment of receipt and concurrence below would

be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Lee S. Strickland

Chief, Information Review Group

Receipt and general agreement acknowledged

in my capacity as Executive Director,

Assassination Records Review Board:

I. Jeremy Gunn

Date

3

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 14

---

## Page 15

12123/97

ALTIUN:

COPIES

M

INR

s/S

LA

WIISI

a sra

U4: 53.

11ON

OZUZ 647 1558

& w

STATE A

0002/003

Assassination Records Review Board

600 E Street NW. • 2nd Floor • Washington, DC 20530

(202) 724-0088 • Fax: (202) 724-0457

9722779

December 18, 1997

The Honorable Madeleine K. Albright

Secretary of State

2201 C Street, NW

Washington, DC 20520

Dear Secretary Albright:

In accordance with the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act

of 1992, I am writing to inform you that the Assassination Records Review Board has

made additional formal determinations concerning the public disclosure of State

Department records at its meeting on December 15, 1997.

Enclosed is a list of the determinations that the Review Board has made. These

decisions were premised on several factors including the historical interest in the

documents and the absence of evidence that the release of the information would cause

harm to the United States or to any individual.

You have seven days to appeal these decisions to the President. You are invited to send

your representative to the Review Board to examine our copies of the documents for

which determinations have been made and to discuss the determinations with the

Review Board staff.

Sineerel

I. Jeremy Gu

Executive Director

Enclosure

CC:

Ms. Margaret Grafeld, Director, Office of Information Resources, Management

Programs and Services, Department of State

BOARD MEMnERs: John R. Tunheim. Chair • Henry F. Graff • Kermit L. Hall • William L. Joyce • Anna K. Nelson

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: T. Jeremy Guna • DEPuTY DIrectoR: Thomas E. Samoluk

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 15

---

## Page 16

UJ.jy

NUL 04I 1000

SIALE A

180031002

Assassination Records Review Board

600 E Street NW • 2nd Floor • Washington, DC 20530

(202) 724-0088 • Fax: (202) 724-0457

December 22, 1997

HAND DELIVERY

DES 22 FI."'

Mr. Strobe Talbott

Deputy Secretary of State

Department of State

Washington, D.C. 20520

Dear Mr. Talbott:

I am writing in response to your December 17, 1997 security-classified letter to

Assassination Records Review Board Chairman John R. Tunheim. Inasmuch as the

Executive Director is the statutorily designated liaison of the Review Board to Federal

agencies, I am taking the liberty of responding to you directly.

Your letter identified State Department interests in several records that are scheduled

for an upcoming Review Board meeting. Although the Review Board is well aware of

the general interest that you describe in your letter, the Board has not received evidence (or

argument) from the State Department regarding the particular records at issue. Even if the

Board were to agree with the general propositions stated in your letter, it is not clear

that the opening of the documents at issue would release any information that is not

already effectively in the public domain.

The Review Board strongly urges the Department of State to provide evidence that is

specific to the documents at issue. I would be pleased to make arrangements for your

designated representative to review the specific records so that he or she might provide

evidence that would assist the Review Board in its decisions.

Executive Director

BOARO MEMBERS: John R. Tunheim, Chair • Henry F. Graff • Kermis L. Hall - William L. Joyce • Anna K. Nelson

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: T. Jeremy Gunn - DEPUTY DIRECTOR: Thomas E. Samoluk

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 16

---

## Page 17

SECRET

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY .

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20505

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

ER 97-5738

26 November 1997

The Honorable John Raymond Tunheim

Chairman

Assassination Records

Review Board

600 E. Street N.W.

Washington, D.C.

Dear Judge Tunheim:

I€t I have just received informal word of the.

decisions the JFK Board made at its 17 November 1997

meeting.

Most of the Board's decisions--those relating

to

the CIA presence in Warrenton, CIA's involvement in various

non-governmental organizations, and the details of CIA

funding of the Cuban Revolutionary Council--are very

welcome.

I must, however, urge the Board to reconsider its

decision to release documents in a form that would reveal

the Agency's use of

JEK Act 5 (g) (2) (D)

tet We stand behind the position that we have

presented in writing and in discussions with the Board on

previous occasions.

I would welcome an opportunity to have

a senior CIA representative meet with the Board at your

convenience to explain why the Agency considers this

information so sensitive and to answer any questions you may

have. Meanwhile, I offer the following summary of our

fundamental concerns.

JFK Act 5 (g) (2) (D)

CL BY:

CL REASON:

DECL ON:

DRV FROM:

2217297

1.5

(c)

X1

COV 2-87

SECRET

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 17

---

## Page 18

SECRET

Judge Tunheim

clearly illustrates the purpose behind the Director's

statutory obligation to protect intelligence methods

unnecessary and inappropriate disclosure.

JEK Act 5 (g) (2) (D)

JFK Act 5 (g) (2) (D)

cover continues to be an

important

intelligence method. Its use is undiminished

since the 1960s, and it will remain essential for the

foreseeable future.

I urge

the Board to reconsider its

recent decision insofar as it concerns the Agency's use of

JEK Act 5 (g) (2) (D)

_ In this regard, we will be

forwarding a more comprehensive memorandum addressing the

damage issue prior to the next Board meeting, and we would

also like to offer the Board the opportunity for a personal

appearance by a senior CIA representative should that be

appropriate.

Sincerely,

David W. Carey

2

SECRET

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 18

---

## Page 19

SECRET

Judge Tunheim

Distribution: ER 97-5738

Orig - Addressee

1 - GC

1 - D/CSI

- ADDA

- ADDO

- C/DO/OCC

1

- Linda Cipriani (OGC)

1 - John Pereira (CSI)

1

Barry Harrelson (CSI)

1

- EA/Chrono

1

- ER

SECRET

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 19

---

## Page 20

JFK Act 5 (g)(2)(D)

Page Denied

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 20

---

## Page 21

.

SECRET/NOFORN

JFK Act 5 (g) (2) (D)

CL BY

SIGNER

DECL OADR

DRV COV 2-87

-SECRET /NOFORN

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 21

---

## Page 22

JFK Act 5 (g) (2)(D)

Page Denied

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 22

---

## Page 23

JFK Act 5 (g) (2)(D)

Page Denied

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 23

---

## Page 24

JFK Act 5 (g)(2)(D)

Page Denied

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 24

---

## Page 25

JFK Act 5 (g)(2)(D)

Page Denied

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 25

---

## Page 26

05:34AM

F.3

JFK Act 5 (9) (2) (D)

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 26

---

## Page 27

-CONFIDENTIAL

CL BY:

CL REASON: Section 1.5

DECL ON:

DRV FRM:

From the Desk of

JFK Act 5 (g) (2) (D)

Senior CIA Liaison Officer to State

TERAOKS COENDTE FOR:

FROM:

OFFICE:

DATE:

SUBJECT:

Richard D. Calder @ DA

Janice W. Fitzgerald @ DA

@ DI

12/23/97 12:32:23 PM

JFK ARRB Response to State

This morning I got copies of two letters from the ExDir of the JFK Board, T. Jeremy Gunn, one dated 18 Dec and addressed to Madeline

Albright, one dated 22 Dec and addressed to Strobe Talbot. |

JFK Act 5 (g) (2) (D)

The first letter just offered 7 days to appeal the decisions to the President. The second says they have not received evidence or

argument from State regarding the particular documents.

I have discussed with Kennedy, who initially felt State was just getting blown off. I have forwarded copies to Lee Strickland and DDA.

My guess would be that the first JFK Board letter was written after receiving Kennedy's letter, but before they got Talbot's. Have put

State's Acting FOIA & Declassification head, Margaret Grafeld, in touch with Lee to discuss next step and response. If anyone knows

ExDir Gunn, would like a reading to pass on to Kennedy.

JFK Act 5 (g)(2)(D)

CC:

William H. McNair @ DO

Gloria Boyd @ DO

John Pereira

J. Barry Harrelson

Dawn R. Eilenberger

James R. Oliver @ DA

Rodney A. Snyder

John E. Pereira-C- @ DA

R. Bruce Burke

Victoria L. Pepper @ DA

Barbara T. Blufer @ DI

Kathryn Dyer

Becky L. Rant @ DA

Frieda P. Omasta @ DA

Nancy E. Morgan @ DA

Gary L. Moore @ DA

Glenn R. Jacobs @ DA

-CONFIDENTIA

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 27

---

## Page 28

JFK Act 5 (g) (2)(D)

Page Denied

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 28

---

## Page 29

SECRET

JFK Act

5 (g) (2) (D)

(U) As a preliminary matter, we would respectfully ask

the Board and staff to

note the classified nature of this

memorandum, to limit access to those individuals properly

cleared, and to return it to Agency representatives

conclusion of your deliberations.

JEK Act 5 (g) (2) (D)

2

SECRET

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 29

---

## Page 30

JFK Act 5 (g) (2)(D)

Page Denied

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 30

---

## Page 31

SECRET

JFK Act 5 (g) (2) (D)

Doc No.

104-10119-10247

Doc No.

104-10120-10094

JFK Act 5 (g) (2) (D)

Specifies a named officer operating under State

Department cover in Argentina; we propose to

substitute the words "US Government" for "State

Department" in three locations.

Doc No.

124-10176-10000

Doc No.

180-10096-10401

JFK Act

5 (g) 12) (1)

Doc No.

180-10110-10122

Doc No.

180-10141-10488

4

SECRET

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 31

---

## Page 32

SECRET

JFK Act 5 (g) (2) (D)

Doc No.

180-10142-10391

Doc No.

180-10143-10070

JEK Act 5 (g) (2) (D)

Doc No.

180-10143-10150

Doc No.

180-10143-10181

very similar to Document No. 104-10120-10094; we

propose to substitute the words

"US Government" for

"State Department" in two locations.

JFK Act 5 (g) (2) (D)

5

SECRET

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 32

---

## Page 33

JFK Act 5 (g) (2)(D)

Page Denied

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 33

---

## Page 34

JFK Act 5 (g)(2)(D)

Page Denied

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 34

---

## Page 35

JFK Act 5 (g) (2)(D)

Page Denied

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 35

---

## Page 36

JFK Act 5 (g)(2)(D)

Page Denied

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 36

---

## Page 37

JFK Act 5 (g) (2)(D)

Page Denied

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 37

---

## Page 38

JFK Act 5 (g)(2)(D)

Page Denied

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 38

---

## Page 39

JFK Act 5 (g)(2)(D)

Page Denied

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 39

---

## Page 40

JFK Act 5 (g) (2)(D)

Page Denied

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 40

---

## Page 41

JFK Act 5 (g) (2)(D)

Page Denied

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 41

---

## Page 42

JFK Act 5 (g)(2)(D)

Page Denied

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 42

---

## Page 43

JFK Act 5 (g) (2)(D)

Page Denied

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 43

---

## Page 44

SECRET

JEK Act 5 (g) (2) (D)

g: lipcrdwp\generalllsslarrb

_cov. doc

(last modified at 1130 hours,

21 january 1998)

17

SECRET

NW 65360 Docld:32404537

Page 44

---

## Page 45

JFK Act 5 (g) (2)(D)

Page Denied

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 45

---

## Page 46

JFK Act 5 (g) (2)(D)

Page Denied

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 46

---

## Page 47

JFK Act 5 (g)(2)(D)

Page Denied

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 47

---

## Page 48

JFK Act 5 (g) (2)(D)

Page Denied

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 48

---

## Page 49

JFK Act 5 (g) (2)(D)

Page Denied

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 49

---

## Page 50

SECRET

JFK Act 5 (g) (2) (D)

2.

(U)

As a preliminary matter and as with our

previous written submission, we would respectfully ask the

Board and staff to note the classified nature of this

memorandum, to limit access

to those individuals properly

cleared, and to return it to CIA representatives at the

conclusion of your deliberations.

JEK Act 5 (g) (2) (D)

-SECRET

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 50

---

## Page 51

JFK Act 5 (g)(2)(D)

Page Denied

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 51

---

## Page 52

JFK Act 5 (g)(2)(D)

Page Denied

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 52

---

## Page 53

JFK Act 5 (g) (2)(D)

Page Denied

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 53

---

## Page 54

SECRET

JFK Act 5 (g) (2) (D)

in whichl

were removed

I was driven in large measure by an

unscrupulous politician looking for headlines."

JFK Act 5 (g) (2) (D)

6

SECRET

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 54

---

## Page 55

JFK Act 5 (g)(2)(D)

Page Denied

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 55

---

## Page 56

SECRET

JEK Act 5

(g) (2) (D)

JFK Act 5 (g) (2) (D)

in terms of a

security threatl

remains the

only capital in the western hemisphere

that has been the victim of two Hizballah bombings, killing

hundreds of people.

JFK Act 5 (g) (2) (D)

JFK Act 5 (g) (2) (D)

terrorist infrastructure exists in the

tri-border area

JEK Act 5 (9) (2) (D)

JFK Act 5 (g)(2)(D)

8

SECRET

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 56

---

## Page 57

SECRET

JFK Act 5 (g) (2) (D)

JFK Act 5 (g) (2) (D)

two or

three times per year,

reporting of

another threat on local Jewish or US interests, including

this Embassy.

It is his judgment that, in this environment, JFKAot (g)(2)D)

publication of CIA use of

might endanger

peoples' lives, specificallyl

officers' given that

Hamas, Gama'at Al Islamivah, and Hizballah are all active

locally

JEK Act 5 (g) (2) (D)

Arab population of over

700,000.

D. (S) Mexico City Station

15. 4S) The Chief of Station (COS) Mexico City, given

prior disclosures, provided an equally detailed and

compelling rationale for non-disclosure.

JFK Act

5

(9) (2) (D)

9

SECRET

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 57

---

## Page 58

JFK Act 5 (g)(2)(D)

Page Denied

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 58

---

## Page 59

JFK Act 5 (g) (2)(D)

Page Denied

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 59

---

## Page 60

• SECRET

JFK Act 5

(g) (2) (D)

III.

(U) Officially Released Information

and Official Acknowledgment

19.

(U)

For information to be "officially released,"

it must be official Executive Branch information, released

by an authorized current official of the Executive Branch,

for information under his or her official cognizance, and

after a deliberation and conscious application of the

classification and declassification rules promulgated by the

President of the United States. 3

that neither private writings cleared by CIA, nor acts bu

former officials,

governmental entities, nor mistake o fact of lat on ene

declassification process,' nor accidental disclosures,

nor

See, generally, Section 3 of Executive Order 12958.

particular,

see section 3.1(c) which defines who may act as a

"declassification authority" and section 3.2 which specifies that the

declassification requires an individual determination as to

whether particular

information currently meets the standards for initial

classification.

• (0)

Schlesinger v. CIA, 591 F. Supp. 60, 66 (D.D.C. 1984), Pfeiffer

v. CIA, 721 F. Supp. 337 (D.D.C. 1989); Washington Post v. DOD, 766 F.

Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1991) •

5 (U) Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. v. Department of the Navy,

891 F.2d 414, 421-22 (2nd Cir. 1989) (rejecting argument that a

statement by retired Admiral constituted an authoritative disclosure by

the Government); Sims v. CIA,. 471 U.S. 159, 181 (1985) (declassification

decision by prior DCI "does not bind his successors to make the same

determination").

6 (U) Hunt v. CIA, 981 F.2d 1116, 1120 (9th Cir. 1992) .

' (U) Examples of mistakes in which the Government has asserted there

was no valid declassification include: (a) the reviewing officer

k [insert]

8 (U)

Washington Post v. DoD, No. 84-3400, slip opinion (D.D.C. 22 Sep.

1986) (no declassification where disclosure was "involuntary as a result

of a tragic accident such as an aborted rescue mission, or used in

evidence to prosecute espionage.")

12

SECRET

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 60

---

## Page 61

SECRET

JFK Act 5 (g) (2) (D)

limited public use for official purposes' constitute a bona

fide declassification action.

Accordingly, in deciding whether particular

information in a particular

information release case has

• "officially

acknowledged," the federal courts have

consistently followed three established criteria. First,

the information at issue must have been made public through

an official, authorized and documented Executive Branch

release (see above test). Second, it must be as specific as

the information previously released. And, third, the

information must match the information previously

disclosed. 10

Thus it has been held that information in an

Executive Branch document should not be released even if it

was the subject of a Congressional release, " that an

official release of a general reference to an intelligence

does not compel the release of specifics of that

method, 12 and that official release of information of one

date does not compel the release of identical information of

another date.

21. (U)

In sum, the courts have consistently held

that these criteria are important because they acknowledge

9 (U) Id.

10 (U) Fitzgibbon v. CIA, 911 F. 2d 755, 765 (D.C. Cir. 1990); Atshar v.

CIA, 702 F. 2d 1125, 1133 (D.C. Cir. 1983) .

11 (U) Fitzgibbon, 911 F.2d at 765-66; Salisbury v. United States, 690

F.2d 966, 971 (D.C. Cir. 1982); Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S.

518, 528 (1988) .

• 12 (U) Afshar, 702 F.2d at 1133 (acknowledgment of a liaison

relationship would not require the disclosure of any information

"regarding the extent and nature of the liaison").

13 (U) Fitzgibbon, 911 F.2d at 765-66.

13

SECRET

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 61

---

## Page 62

SECRET

JFK Act 5 (g) (2) (D)

the fact that in the arena of intelligence and foreign

relations, there can be critical differences between

official ana unofficial disclosures.

Indeed, most

relevant for the Board's consideration is the unequivocal

holding by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals:

"...

that the fact that information resides in the

public domain does not eliminate the possibility that

further disclosures can cause harm to intelligence

sources, methods, and operations. "15

the deter standaris be the bit one.

Given this fact and the damage arguments presented

previously and below, the information at issue here meets

the deferral standards of the JFK Assassination Records

statute.

14 (U) Fitzgibbon, 911 F.2d at 765; Abbotts v. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, 766 F. 2d 604, 607-8 (D.C. Cir. 1985) ; Military Audit Project

V..Casey, 656 F.2d 724, 742-45 (D.C.Cis. 1981); Phillippi v. CIA, 655

(S) A factual example of this distinction is given by discussions

between a senior State Department official and a CIA Chief of Station-

designate.

In that conversation it was observed that a previous FOIA

release had stated that a particular Norwegian diplomat had limited

intellectual capacity, abused alcohol, and was "controlled" by his

spouse. That diplomat had, by the time of the conversation, become the

JFK Act 5 (g) (2) (D)

and had called on the State

Department earlier that day to protest that "official" disclosure in the

strongest possible terms.

15 (U) Fitzgibbon, 911 F.2d at 766; Abbotts, 766 F.2d at 608; Military

Audit, 656 F.2d at 753; Hayden v. NSA, 608 F.2d 1381, 1388 (D.C. Cir.

1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 937 (1980) .

14

—SECRET

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 62

---

## Page 63

SECRET

JFK Act 5 (9) (2) (D)

IV.

(U) "Studies in Intelligence"

Was Intended to Present Private Writings

and Not Official Executive Branch Information

22.

(U)

What is "Studies in Intelligence"?

"Studies"

was conceived as and historically conducted itself as a

professional journal where the original thoughts and

learnings of members of the profession of intelligence may

be shared with others.

It has not been viewed as presenting

the official position

1 of the CIA and typically bears the

following disclaimer:

"All opinions expressed in Studies are those of

the authors.

They do not necessarily represent

the official views of the Central Intelligence

Agency

or any other component of the

Intelligence Community. *16

It has been regarded, in every factual and legal sense, as

the private writings of current and past intelligence

officers and experts which, but for the nature of their

work, could be published in any private publication.

As

demonstrated by the attached memorandum from Brian Latell,"

the current chairman of the Editorial Board, and the

historical practices and procedures of publication, the

articles published to date have been considered personal

16 (U) See Attachment 1 for recent example.

The Board's inquiry served

to highlight one accidental inconsistency in our publication process.

While the disclaimer has been used consistently since 1955 (see

Attachment 2), the Agency began an unclassified annual version in 1993

(dated 1992),

also bearing a substantially identical disclaimer (see

Attachment 3). Due to paper and formatting changes and an oversight in

the production process, subsequent unclassified versions were published

with the disclaimer inadvertently missing.

The Legal Advisor in this

regard has directed that all subsequent versions of "Studies" should

contain the disclaimer.

The current Chairman of the Editorial Board and

the "Studies" editor advise that there was no intent to remove the

disclaimer.

1? (U) See Attachment 4.

15

SECRET

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 63

---

## Page 64

SECRET

JEK Act 5 (g) 12) (D)

works and their entry into the public domain -- under the

holdings of Schlesinger and related cases - have not been

thought to constitute "official acknowledgment. "18

23.

(U)

What was the genesis of "studies"?

World War

II brought Sherman Kent to the Office of Strategic Services

(OSS) from an academic teaching post at Yale University. He

spent most of his professional life with the successor

agency -- CIA -- where he gained a reputation as the pre-

eminent intelligence analyst in the Federal Government and

indeed headed the U.S. Government's most prestigious

analysis unit —- the Board of National Estimates -- for

sixteen years. He was a professional, an academic, and a

leader who recognized the need for professionalism in the

intelligence business. He observed:

"Where would ... chemistry of medicine or economics

... be if no one aspired to the honor of publishing an

original thought or concept or discovery in the trade

18 (U) It is correct that published volumes of "Studies" bear the seal

of the CIA and are published with appropriated funds.

Yet there is no

difference from similar publications at other public or private agencies

including myriad items from the Department of Defense (e.g., Naval

Proceedings).

Indeed, in discussions with representatives of the Office

of General Counsel at Defense, they concur that articles in such .

journals do not affect the continued classification of identical or

similar information in official records of the Department.

The purpose

of all of these publications is the academic diffusion of knowledge in

its most basic, Jeffersonian sense -- the encouragement and sharing

ideas of the most diverse nature for the benefit of man.

of

"Studies," as

with most if not all of these other publications, encourages academic

diversity of thought and imposes no organizational or policy test on

proposed content.

Indeed, some articles are critical of official

positions and actions and, indeed, are the antithesis of "official

acknowledgment."

JFK Act 5 (g) 12) (D)

16

SECRET

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 64

---

## Page 65

SECRET

JFK Act 5 (g) 12) (D)

journals of his profession? In our calling we do

not

do enough... systematic professional literature. "19

24.

(U)

The literature he had in mind would be "

. .

an elevated debate... (and] ... a kind of intellectual

platform upon which

the new debate can start."

Hence, the

first volume of "Studies" appeared in 1955 and the Editors.

followed his objectives closely. They declared that:

"... this literature should attempt to define,

criticize, and improve on the 'first principles' of

intelligence; and that this literature (couldl only be

written by experienced officers, presenting their own

personal views

... [that] ...

these views (would] in

no case be put forward as Agency or Office of Training

doctrine

.. land that the Board would not bel

responsible

... for the substance of the arguments and

criticisms and opinions expressed. "20

25.

(U)

What implications then may this Board draw

from their observations that many volumes of Studies were

published as classified documents and subsequently redacted,

declassified and placed in the public domain?

What is the

logic behind the initial classification of personal

writings?

The answer is two-fold.

The CIA recognized the

importance of openness in general

and concluded that these

articles published in our professional journal should be

subject to the same controls as similar personal writings

published in the public sector.

As more fully detailed in

the attached memorandum of John Hedley, Chairman of the

Publications Review Board, 21 CIA practice has been generally

to conduct a review of appropriate articles by our

19 (U) "The Need for An Intelligence Literature," Sherman Kent, Studies

in Intelligence, Vol 1, Number 1 (1955).

20 (U) "The Current Program for An Intelligence Literature," The

Editors, Studies in Intelligence, Vol 1, Number 1 (1955) .

21 (U) See Attachment 5.

17

SECRET

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 65

---

## Page 66

SECRET

JFK Act 5 (g) (2) (D)

Publications Review Board (PRB) under the legal standards

for personal writings -- not the legal standards for

official government records.22

26.

(U)

An example of this process is given by a

current case of a writing by a CIA officer who, as a young

officer on his first tour, was caught in the Tehran Embassy

takeover and held prisoner in solitary confinement for 425

days of his total 444 days ordeal. The article was reviewed

by the PRB which posed no objections for publication in the

classified issue of "Studies" and requested only minimal

changes for publication as unclassified in "Studies" of any

nonofficial publication. 23

27. (U) Moreover, the actual classification marking

of articles in "Studies" and, in certain instances, the

subsequent obliteration of those markings and the release

into the public domain, have not been considered

inconsistent with their status of personal writings

and the

PRB process.

When a manuscript is received by PRB it is

reviewed for the presence of classified information in the

22 (U) The standards for review are significantly different because of

the context

-- private writings versus official government records. The

courts have held, in light of the Constitutional issue, that the

Government to withhold must prove that identifiable damage will flow

from the publication of specific information in the context of that

specific private writing given information already in the public domain

through either official or non-official release. Thus, for example, the

PRB would allow publication of a fact that has appeared in the New York

Times (especially if the manuscript cites to that source), although a

FOIA review of a federal record containing that same fact would result

in redaction.

Indeed, because of the absolute dichotomy between the

review processes, the

courts have consistently held that cleared private

writings do not constitute official acknowledgment and are not relevant

to withholding decisions in cases involving federal government records.

23 (U) See Attachment 6, Memorandum from Chair, Publications Review

Board, to William J. Daugherty dated 28 August 1996, classification

SECRET.

18

SECRET

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 66

---

## Page 67

- SECRET

JFK Act 5 (g) (2) (D)

given context and appropriate pages (or the entire document)

are then marked with the requisite classification markings.

Redacted of modified pages, which are deemed no longer to

present classification issues, are of course not so marked.

In sum, the classification markings and declassification

markings on "Studies" articles have been fully consistent

with our publications review process and have not viewed as

altering the intrinsically personal nature of the writing.

19

-SECRET-

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 67

---

## Page 68

-SECRET

JFK Act 5 (g) (2) (D)

29.

(U) As in our previous communications, we

respectfully request that the Board postpone release of such

information with the substitutions proposed both formally

and informally to Board staff.

In particular, we would

reiterate that we are prepared to replace all information at

issue with specific substitutions or summaries which would

preserve the historical and substantive content of the

documents.

We are also prepared, in accordance with

contemporaneous staff discussions, to interpose no objection

to the release of information which consists of statements

by former government officers which would be authorized by

the publications review process.?

We believe that this

approach is consistent with the

Board's mission and the

necessity for the American public to have the fullest

possible disclosure regarding the assassination of President

Kennedy while preventing a harmful disclosure that is

significantly disproportionate to any public benefit. We

trust that the Board will accept our compromise so that an

appeal to the President, with the attendant embarrassment to

the Administration and delay to the important work of this

Board, can be avoided.

24 (U)

See footnote 1 for examples of the application of this offer.

20

-SECRET

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 68

---

## Page 69

JFK Act 5 (g) (2)(D)

Page Denied

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 69

---

## Page 70

Declaration of Teresa F. Wilcox

I, Teresa F. Wilcox, hereby declare and say as follows:

1. (AIUO) I am the Information Review Officer (IRO) for the

Directorate of Science and Technology (DS&T)

I was appointed to

his position in February 1996, and have held various professional

positions within the Central Intelligence Agency since 1985.

responsible for the review of records maintained by offices in the

DS&T, to include the Offices of the Deputy Director

for Science and

Technology and the Associate Deputy Director for Science and

Technology; the Office of Technical Service (OTS) ; the Office of

Technical Collection (OTC); the Clandestine Information Technology

(CITO); the Foreign Broadcast Information Service

(FBIS);

the Office of Development and Engineering (OD&E); the Office of

Advanced Analytic Tools

(AAT); the Office of Advanced Projects

(OAP); and the Office of Research and

Development (ORD).

addition, I am responsible for

searching and reviewing certain

records of the former National Photographic Interpretation Center

(NPIC) .

2. (AIUO)

I am aware that the DS&T has searched appropriate

records systems for information responsive

to all requests the DS&T

has received. I have obtained this knowledge through my personal

experience, as well my conversations with, and my review of the

records of, the former DS&T IRO Anthony R. Frasketi, and the DS&T

Information Management Officer, Marsha A. Hubbs.

(AIUO) The following is a

description of DS&T searches

and review of documents undertaken in response to Board taskings

the DS&T has received.

CIA-IR-U7 Claude Barnes Capenart.

The DS&T made

deletions to security records located by the Directorate of

Administration.

The DS&T Searched ODDS&T records for

capehart's medical file.

The DS&T forwarded the medical file

to the Board for its review.

CIA-IR-08 Family Jewels Memorandum.

The DS&T reviewed a

package of documents

forwarded by Barry

Harrelson.

The DS&T

advised the Board it had no objection to ARRB access.

CIA-IR-15 Electronic 'take' from Mexico City Station.

This memorandum addresses

the portion of the action, "Ir

addition, the Board is still awaiting a response on

• the

present location of Staff D records.

Regardless of the

outcome of these particular searches, the Review Board

continues to seek a full accounting for all surveillance

conducted during the relevant time periods."

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 70

---

## Page 71

In conducting a search for the above information, the

DS&T located in OTS records a file with the folder title,

"Mexico City,

Mexico."

We forwarded the entire contents

of

that folder for the period 24 May 1961

to 10 June 1965, with

one exception.

Three Operational Monthly Reports were

forwarded to the Board.

The dates covered were 1-30 September

1963; 1-31 October 1963; and 1-30 November 1963.

The

attachment to Dispatch HMMA 20307 dated 4 December 1962 was

a poor-quality audio tape in Spanish,

between two individuals

talking about office procedures. No

substantive information was exchanged during this

conversation.

Directorate of Operations (DO). We reviewed old Do Records

Retirement Requests; there are no shelflists (folder-

inventory) associated with these Records Retirement Requests

since the Division D records were recorded initially in the DO

We forwarded for the Board's review the six Records

Retirement Request whose job numbers reflected the years 1959

to 1962.

We advised the Board that Records Center records

indicated the records' disposition as follows:

1. 59-5-477: Destroyed September 1977.

2. 60-S-182R: Destroyed May 1980.

3.

Transferred to FI/D(DDO), December 1977.

4. 61-S-157R: Four boxes transferred to FI/D (DDO), March

1972; three boxes destroyed, May 1980.

5.

62-S-885:

Destroyed (no date given)

6.

62S000986R: Transferred to the Office of SIGINT Operations

(DS&T) .

These were the only Records Retirement Requests in the

possession

of OTC that are

in the time frame relevant to the

JFK assassination.

As their descriptions indicate, they do

not appear relevant to the request.

The DS&T also conducted a search of CITO records. This

DS&T office inherited some

files from OTC when CITO was

established.

We searched its records in the event some

Division D records were held by CITO. These searches

identified no responsive records.

Searches of OTS, OTC, and CITO records used the following

keywords:

surveil*

Russian

USSR

Cuba*

audio*

electron*

embassy

Mexico*

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 71

---

## Page 72

CIA-IR-16 U-2 Files.

The DS&T provided the Board a copy

of the U-2 shelflist

We also

searched for records filed

under Richard Bissell's name.

We received no follow-on

request from the Board.

CIA-IR-16 FBIS-USR-92-112. The DS&T provided to the

Board a translation of articles about a KGB file on Oswald.

CIA-IR-17 DS&T Records on Castro Assassination Plots.

following keywords:

KDBADGER.

In addition,

following:

Project _ZRRIFLE,

diving suit, sea shell,

and project AMLASH. As a result of

these searches, we provided to the Board a document titled,

"Handwriting Analysis - AMLASH-1," dated 7 April 1965.

CIA-IR-25 Zapruder Film. A search was conducted on

records of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (records of

the former National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC)

and Office of Imagery Analysis) using

the terms Zapruder, JFK;

and 1963.

Hits on year 1963 did not reveal any

pertinent

Commissioninformation.

We located no record of a

"William

Green" at NPIC in November 1963. We located no 10g books, or

indexes regarding the processing or handling of any

assassination films.

We also reviewed an audiotaped

interview with a former NPIC employee, and made minimal

deletions to the tape.

CIA-IR-33 Search of FBIS records for any files on Oswald,

and request for information on how FBIS-USR92-112 was filed.

No past or present files were found.

An explanation on how

FBIS-USR-92-112 was filed was provided.

Review of three Ford Library Documents (178-10003-10453,

178-10004-10087, 178-10002-103 Made deletions

Made deletions and deferred

to the DO on 178-10002-10394.

to Summary

Report on CIA Investigation of MKNAOMI.

Review of two terms.

should not be released because of ongoing CIA activity at the

tele sed because

The DS&T advised that the terms

location.

Review of Alias Documentation issue (104-10220-10179, -

10181,

and -10188). Requested that Board postpone release of

specific information.

A search of OTS records indicated OTS

had no records on particular documents in the 1960s and 1970s.

Review of a slug in current use.

Requested that the

Board postpone its release because the slug is in current use.

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 72

---

## Page 73

Review of Organizational Charts of all Agency

directorates

for the years 1958-1968 (CIA-1). Requested

deletions.

Review of the proposed release of an Agency facility.

Provided information about DS&T activities at risk if this

facility were acknowledged.

Review of records regarding the release of the name of

Jose Marie Mankel.

Provided information about the potential

chilling effect on current operations.

Review of documents concerning a certain entity in the

CIA Sequestered Collection which are Not Believed Relevant

(NBR) to the JFK assassination.

Four documents had been

previously released (one was released in

full, and three were

sanitized); eight documents had been denied in full. The

Board determined that four documents were NBR.

Review of the Board's request to review an index

resulting from the CIA's History Staff's review of 61

histories for any connection to the JFK assassination. The

DS&T concurred in the Board's review of the index.

4. (U) Based. on this information, I have concluded that the

DS&T has diligently searched and reviewed all requests for

information

from the Board that the DS&T has received.

5. (U) I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing

is true and correct.

Executed in Langley, Virginia on this 218 day of August 1998.

but. Wilcox

Teresa F. Wilcox

NW 65360 Docld:32404537 Page 73

---