## Page 1

MAnI

1104-10331-1033

2025 RELEASE UNDER THE PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION RECORDS ACT OF 1992

Secret

26 February 1997

Memorandum For:

From:

Subject:

John Pereira

Chief, Historical Review Group

Barry Harrelson

JFK Project Officer

(U) CIA Employees Names in JFK Records

Background

(AIOU) In March 1996, the ARRB agreed to protect the

names of all Agency staff employees that appear in JFK

documents until May 1997. The agreement reflected the

Board's recognition of the need to facilitate the document

review, and that it would take time for the Agency to

collect evidence to defend individual names. Attached are

Jeremy Gunn's memo summarizing the Board's approach to the

release of CIA employee names and the DO's response.

Both

memos assume a name-by-name approach and set categories and

specific requirements for the release or protection of an

individual. Also attached is an analysis of the ARRB and DO

approaches.

(AIOU) I do not know how prepared the DO is, but I

suspect that there is still a significant amount of work to

be done prior to the Board's May meeting. I understand that

many

former employees have not responded to the DO's letter

and that most of the responses have been negative.

Even if

the DO is able to complete the research on all employees

protected to date, it is unlikely that they will be able to

develop the type of evidence required by the Board to

protect most individuals.

Under the name-by-name approach,

we can expect a majority of the names to be released.

Issue

(AIOU) There is considerable concern among HRG

reviewers that the continued release of hundreds of Agency

employees' true names has the potential to do unacceptable

harm to US national security. The harm from release of a

large number of names lies in the fact that it cannot be

measured.

This

is due to the ripple effect that would occur

among assets in many places and with many liaison services.

It undermines the basic concept of cover for a claudestine

service.

CL By :

1611637)

CL Reason: 1.5

(c)

DECL On:

X1

DRV From:

PER 9-87;COV 1.1-86

Secret

---

## Page 2

13-00000

Secret

(U) To date over 500 CIA employee names, mostly DO,

have been protected and are subject to review by the Board

in May 1997.

and are al

Most of these individuals have little or no

connection to the JFK assassination story.

This is far

more names than had been anticipated when

we agreed in March

1996 to the case-by-case approach. [FYI Note: I estimate

that approximately 1800 names have been released to date in

the JFK review].

(S) In addition, the decisions made by the Board at the

May meeting will set

a precedent for the potentially

hundreds of names to come.

We have reviewed only the Oswald

201 file and 12 boxes of the JFK sequestered collection. At

this point it is impossible to determine the total number of

employees mentioned in the JFK collection. (For example it

Box 48, there is a Position Control Register (155 pages)

(listing all employees in Far East Division including the

Tokyo station.

Recommendation

(AIOU) That the Agency re-visit the name issue with the

ARRB based on the following considerations:

* It should be recognized that there are two separate

aspects of the public interest involved in this matter,

and that it is necessary to achieve a reasonable

balance between them. On the one hand, it is clear

that it is now in the public interest to release as

much of our JFK collection as is possible.

other hand, it is equally clear that it is in the

public interest for this Agency to maintain its

essential security practices in order to be able to

serve the Nation effectively in accordance with its

enabling legislation.

* It is not in the public's interest for one of the

fundamental principles of an intelligence agency--

protecting the identity of covert employees--to

While it is not always

possible to show harm by the release of any one

individual's name, the magnitude of the JFK release

clearly has the potential to do harm to the Agency as

an institution and to national security.

There is no

way to measure the possible effect of these releases on

future employees and operations.

* Since most of the individuals involved have little or

no connection with the JFK assassination, the release

of their true names does not add to the story.

substitution of pseudonyms would meet the historian's

need to track who is saying what, etc.

Secret

---

## Page 3

13-00000

Secret

* The Agency recognizes that there are employees who are

part of the JFK story (many of their names have already

been released). We propose that the ARRB staff and HRG

work together to establish a list of individuals who

are important to the story.

These names would be

released unless the Agency is able to provide the

required evidence of current harm.

This approach would serve both the public's and the Agency's

interests. It would also allow the Agency to focus its

resources on completing the review and responding to the

special requests of the Board, instead of spending an

inordinate amount of time and money on individuals of

marginal or no interest to the JEK story.

(C) [Note: There is also the issue of State Department?

equities and the impact of officially acknowledging as CIA

(hundreds of officers who were under official State cover.]

Proposed Action

(AIOU) We have a little over two months to resolve this

issue and be ready for the ARRB meeting, May 12-13:

propose that I set up a meeting with Fred and Linda this

week.

If they agree, then I suggest a memo to the DO and

the General Counsel presenting the issues. Support from top

management including a willingness to raise the issue with

the acting/new DCI and possibly the White House is critical

to success.

I see OGC (Linda) being tasked with preparing a

memo for the Board similar to the one prepared on sources.

(AIOU) The Board has meetings scheduled for 13-14

March, 2-3 April and 23-24 April. I recommend that we begin

discussions with ARRB staff as soon as possible with the

goal of having the memo ready no later than the 2-3 April

meeting.

We should also be prepared to discuss the issue

directly with the Board since we are

asking them to

reconsider a decision in which we initially concurred.

(AIOU) It is important that the DO continue to develop

evidence on the individuals who are scheduled for review in

May .

The worst possible scenario is not succeeding with the

new proposal, and not being ready to defend those

individuals who need protection.

Attachments: As stated

Secret

---

## Page 4

13-00000

John

Jask the JFk

reviewers far comments

1 Gunn's and Wickhan

nemos (attached).

Gay did his as

an

---

## Page 5

13-00000

ADMINISTRATIVE- INTERNAL USE ONLY

SUBJECT:

Analysis of ARRB and DO Memoranda re Treatment

of CIA Officer Names in JFK Collection

(Prepared by Gary Breneman, 11 Feb 97)

1. ARRB Memorandum. The Gunn memorandum sets out the

criteria required to meet the burden under several

situations.

A. For officers who are still alive, Mr. Gunn

states that the proofs required to postpone release of a

name are three in number and all three must be met:

i.

The officer must be living outside of the U.s.

OR,

(R) easonably be expected to travel outside of

the U.S. in the foreseeable future;

AND,

ii. The officer is either working ... (presumably

a current staff officer, contract employee,

or independent contractor) ... or is retired

under cover;

AND,

1ii. The officer objects to the release of his or

her true name.

COMMENTS: Mr. Gunn's

criteria are a little confusing

and may reach beyond the Board's authority.

ADMINISTRATIVE- INTERNAL USE ONLY

---

## Page 6

13-00000

ADMINISTRATIVE- INTERNAL USE ONLY

a. First, note again that the three elements are

joined by an "AND" meaning all elements must be met to

satisfy a postponement.

b. Second, the first requirement of living or

traveling outside of the U.S. is not tied to "cover." Many

officers who do not work under cover all of the time are, in

fact, provided cover for overseas TDY's. Thus, any officer

who might "reasonably" be expected to travel outside of the

u.s. would warrant postponement of his/her true name. This

would seem to include every CIA employee, contract employee

and independent contractor, past and present.

With respect to the third element, Mr. Gunn and the

Board appear to be in error. To my knowledge, they have no

authority to require that an individual be consulted

concerning his or her wishes to maintain cover, thus having

his or her true name postponed, or to give up cover, thus

having the name released. This decision does not lie in the

first instance with the individual but is an institutional

decision which lies solely within the purview of the Agency

and the executive branch of the government. CIA as an

executive agency charged with the creation, maintenance, and

dissolution of cover mechanisms is the only entity competent

to make such a decision. It alone knows if release of an

officer's true name will compromise an existing cover

mechanism which will, in turn, expose others who share or

have shared the same cover. It alone knows if release of an

officer's name will expose CIA sponsorship (a cover entity)

ADMINISTRATIVE- INTERNAL USE ONLY

---

## Page 7

13-00000

ADMINISTRATIVE- INTERNAL USE ONLY

3

of a sensitive activity. It alone knows if release of an

officer's name will violate a promise of confidentiality to

a commercial cover sponsor which could cause both

embarrassment and, possibly, financial hardship to the

sponsor and, in turn, substantially hinder the Agency's

ability to secure subsequent commercial cover sponsors.

d. Turning next to the wishes of a particular officer

(either current or retired) vis a vis staying with his or

her cover, these thoughts come to mind. For current

employees, the decision is again not entirely theirs. If,

after careful review, the Agency does not have a strong

position on the employee maintaining the cover, the officer

should be permitted to decide. He or she should be

counseled however, that an action to remove cover could have

an adverse impact on future assignments or IDYs. With

respect to

retirees, if, after careful review, the Agency

does not object to the removal from cover, the individual

should be permitted to decide. Note, that the responses to

this inquiry will be mixed. As a historical note, the

Agency over the years has been on an ever-swinging pendulum

with respect to "cover into retirement," "cover for life,"

etc.

There will be officers who petitioned hard

unsuccessfully to have their cover removed when they retired

and will gladly consent to lifting the cover. There will be

those officers who do not want their cover lifted under any

circumstance.

ADMINISTRATIVE- INTERNAL USE ONLY

---

## Page 8

13-00000

ADMINISTRATIVE- INTERNAL USE ONLY

4

B. Former officers, status unknown. While the

heading to this section would seem to suggest the CIA does

not know the cover/non-cover status of some of its former

officers, the section does not really deal with this issue.

Rather, within the section, Mr. Gunn simply recognizes the

fact that CIA may not be able to find all of its former

officers to ask if they want to be opened up or remain under

cover. The test required by Mr. Gunn to satisfy the Board

and thus continue postponement until 1 June of this year is

a "good faith showing that reasonable attempts" were made to

locate the officer and failed.

The section contains the additional provision which

advises the Board may continue a postponement beyond 1 June

of this year (i.e., until 2010) if the CIA provides the

board with evidence which satisfies the criteria of either

category 1 or category 3. Such "additional evidence" must

be provided by 1 May 1997.

The requirements or tests of this section for the

Agency are not onerous but should be set-out as a series of

uniform actions or check-off's taken in the attempt to

locate each "current status unknown" officer. The record of

these actions could then be presented to the ARRB in support

of a request for continued postponement. The DO Memorandum

mentions the possibility of asking the IRs or the lOPM for

assistance in this regard and this should probably be done.

ADMINISTRATIVE- INTERNAL USE ONLY

---

## Page 9

13-00000

ADMINISTRATIVE- INTERNAL USE ONLY

5

C. Names having effect on current intelligence

interests. The Gunn letter appears to subscribe a higher

level of concern to this section and its criteria than the

previous two, not recognizing the plain fact that the

criteria of all three sections are inextricable. It sets

out four separate criteria which, if CIA satisfies its

burden; i.e, provides sufficient evidence to prove any one

of them, will operate to postpone a true name until the year

2010.

Note again, the criteria

required are four separate

ones, each

separated by a comma and between numbers 3 and 4

and "OR." They are:

i. The officer must be currently engaged in

clandestine activities; OR,

ii. The release of the officer's name would

compromise ongoing intelligence operations or

operations with current intelligence value

(presumably, the latter permits a review into

the officer's past activities, agent

relationships, and cover positions); OR,

iii.

The release of the officer's true name would

reasonably be expected to cause significant harm

to a living person (including family members) ;

(read broadly, this provision would include, the

individual, former agents, anyone who shared the

same cover or cover position, i.e. a dedicated

[Department of State slot within an embassy};

OR,

ADMINISTRATIVE- INTERNAL USE ONLY

---

## Page 10

13-00000

ADMINISTRATIVE- INTERNAL USE ONLY

6

iv. The release of the officer's name would cause

significant harm to the

national security or the

foreign relations of the U.S. (a criteria which

is broad enough to drive the proverbial Mack

truck through) .

2. In Part II, the Gunn memorandum takes back part of

what it gave in the previous section. It sets up a test of

"importance to the assassination story vs. evidence of

harm."

Essentially, it advises that the Board will weigh

the CIA's evidence but, if within its view, the true name

being considered for postponement is important to the

assassination story, the Board will release it. This means

for those few individuals who may be viewed as "important to

the story," truly substantial evidence must be brought to

bear. Absent such evidence, the Board will release, and the

only recourse left to the Agency would be an appeal to the

President.

3. The Directorate of Operations Memorandum.

The

memorandum basically describes the steps for handling

employee names as contained in JFK records. Over 500 names

will be subject to ARRB action in May 1997.

Comments:

a. For officers who retired under cover, the first

step will be to contact them and ask if they want their true

name released. This should be the last step of the review,

not the first.

ADMINISTRATIVE- INTERNAL USE ONLY

---

## Page 11

13-00000

ADMINISTRATIVE- INTERNAL USE ONLY

7

b. The resources and data bases which will be

researched for each name should be clearly established and

followed in a uniform manner. Deviation from a set, orderly

process will open CIA determinations to criticism,

objections and dismissal; i.e. release of a name that should

be postponed.

c.

In addition to the data bases described --

retirement records, annuity pay records, the office of

security, insurance lists -- consideration might be given

to the Northwest Federal Credit Union) and overt data bases

such as Phonedec. Like the IRS and OPM, the credit union

might not be able from a legal standpoint to provide an

address.

However, it would probably be prepared to contact

an individual and ask that he/she be in touch.

d. The universal release of the true names of overt

employees raises concern about current employees. To the

extent that any current employee, even an overt employee,

may be sent overseas on TDY under light cover, the release

of his or her true name via these JFK documents which will

receive widespread review could jeopardize his/her overseas

mission

l and possibly place his/her life in danger.

ADMINISTRATIVE- INTERNAL USE ONLY

---

## Page 12

13-00000

UNCLASSIFIED.

INTERNAL

• USE ONLY

ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET

CONFIDENTIAL

SECRET

SUBJECT: (Optional)

Proposal for Dealing with Employees' Names.

FROM:

Fredrick C. Wickham; Jr.

DO, Focal Point for ARRB

1D4107 OHB

TO: (Officer designation, room number, and

building)

EXTENSION

NO.

DATE

44448

DATE

RECEIVED

OFFICER'S

INITIALS

FORWARDED

" Chief! Central Cover

( 6B44017 0HB

2. Chief, Historical Review

Group

404 Ames

3.

22A0996

дв

4.

B. HarRelson

5.

6.

File

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

29 July 1996

whom. Drow aline. across.colum

12.

13.

14.

15.

70811

60 USE PREVIOU

EDITIONS

SECRET

CONFIDENTIAL

INTERNAL

USE ONLY

UNCLASSIFIED

---

## Page 13

13-00000

• ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY

29 July 1996

MEMORANDUM FOR: Chief Historical Review Group

FROM:

SUBJECT:

Fredrick C. Wickham, Jr.

DO, Focal Point for ARRB

Proposal for Dealing with Employees' Names

Cover mechanisms are an integral part of conducting

clandestine operations. We are concerned about individuals that

continue to be dependent on particular cover legends and on the

organizations that cooperatively work with us to provide those

cover legends.

The following proposal is offered to streamline

the

process of handling names and minimize the potential damage

an inappropriate release could cause.

A. Incomplete and Unidentifiable names:

a. We will release the occurrence of a name when a

common last name appears by itself or in conjunction

with a common first name such that it does not tend

a i releas

to specifically identify the individual.

b.. We will release the occurrence of a name if it

remains unidentified after a reasonable search is

conducted.

B.

overtly:

Identifiable names for employees that retired

In most cases, overt employees' names will be released,

but in some cases overt employees may have a

portion of

their employment remain under cover.

such

require the same review as that of an

employee who remained under cover into retirement.

ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY

---

## Page 14

13-00000

_ ADMINISTRATIVE - ' INTERNAL, USE ONLY

SUBJECT: Proposal for Dealing with Employees' Names

C. Identifiable names for employees that retired

covertly:

a. We will make a reasonable attempt to locate a

current address and contact the person.

If the person

objects to the release of his or her name for reasons

associated with current life style issues, we will

object to the release of the name. If the person does

not have objections based upon personal circumstances we

will review the name for organizational issues. (See

para C. c.)

b. If reasonable efforts fail to locate the

current address,

but it can be determined that the

individual is still receiving a pension, insurance or

other benefit based upon cover legend, we will need to

continue to protect the name since source of income or

benefits can not be altered without prior notification

to the individual.

If we fail to identify a pension or

other active benefit, we will review the name for

organizational issues. (See para C. c.)

c.

We will make a reasonable attempt to review the

name to look for identifiable harm to the person's

safety, family, ongoing operational activities, national

security or foreign relations.

Assuming that none of

the previous concerns are identified, we will review the

potential damage to the cover mechanism or cover

provider by the specific occurrence of the name if

released.

Because families of deceased employees could be the

beneficiary of pensions or insurance provided under the employees

cover legend, we must review them the same as we would the

employee.

We also have second and third generation officers

following in the footsteps of their parents that could be

negatively impacted by the revelation.

3.

Our efforts to locate current addresses will include all

internal record systems maintained by Office of Personnel

Security, Retirement Branch and (Insurance Branch.

We will

include a checklist reflecting completion of these searches

2

ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY

---

## Page 15

13-00000

ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY

SUBJECT: Proposal for Dealing with Employees' Names

within the documentation when requesting continued protection of

the name.

We considered options of contacting IRS or OPM during

our attempts to locate current addressing information, but based

upon the fact that these offices would be unwitting of the cover

arrangement for the individual, it was determined to be an

unreasonable risk to the cover of thesè officers.

Fredrick C. Wickham,

3

ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY

---