ARRB-CIA ISSUES:
Originator: CIA
Document date: 01/07/1994
Document type: PAPER - TEXTUAL DOCUMENT

## Page 1

1704-10332-10006

2023 RELEASE UNDER THE PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION RECORDS ACT OF 1992

CONFIDENTIAL

file

(DO guidelin

names

7 January 1994

Cuba)

MEMORANDUM FOR:

J. Barry Harrelson @ DA

FROM:

Bryant Rogers

SUBJECT:

MEETING WITH LINDA FLORES

REFERENCE:

On 6 Jan we met with Linda Flores from the DO to discuss HRG concerns with regard to CIA's contacts in the 60's with well

known Cubans and Cuban Organizations.

The outcome of this discussion was that the DO agrees that we can release the names of those major players with whom CIA

worked with as long as we stay within the 60-63 time frame, with some overlap into 1964 for continuity, when needed. We then

discussed our relationships with major anti-Castro organizations. It was agreed that we could release the fact that as a funding vehicle

for the US Govt, CIA provided support including funding in general terms. In some cases we may find it necessary to reveal gross ballpark

figures for annual budgets. The DO would prefer that we continue to protect specific funding amounts where possible. They were

specifically concerned about releasing specific amounts paid to individuals or families of Bay of Pigs members where individuals could

claim that one was paid more than another. In supporting these organizations it was acknowledged by the DO that we could release

generic operational activities such as publishing journals or financing goodwill tours by prominent exile Cubans to Latin America The DO

reminded us that in reviewing these relationships with Cubans and organizations, it was important to protect CIA personnel, agents and

assets and any specifics on tradecraft.

When asked about Bay of Pigs training sites, Linda felt that the actual location should still be protected in spite of the fact that

they have been mentioned in open literature.

With regard to DO location numbers (19 for Cuba) she thought this was OK for the 60-63 time frame but would check with LA

Div. She had no problem with the release of the Bell location in cables since it was no longer used.

CC:

J. Barry Harrelson @ DA

Richard D. Kovar-Y• @ DA

John F. Pereira @ DA

CONFIDENTIAL

---

## Page 2

13-00000

SECRET

F.1:

MEMORANDUM FOR: Chief, Historical Review Group

FROM:

Fredrick C. Wickham, Jr.

DO, Focal Point for ARRB

SUBJECT:

Position on Release of Cryptonyms, Country

Designators, Action Indicators and Employee Irue

Names

During the period since the ARRB last met, the Do has

considered the four issues listed below that have not yet been

addressed with the Board. These issues appear throughout the JFK

collection and by stating our position up front we hope to

facilitate the Board's review and to reach an agreement that will

be mutually satisfying to the Board and the Agency.

Cryptonyms - Except for cryptonyms related to

operational assets or activities involving Mexico or Miami,

the Agency will release the main component of cryptonyms and

withhold only the two-letter digraph.

Treating cryptonyms

in this manner will protect the nationalities of individuals

and operations that are not pertinent to Oswald or the JEK

investigation and render an easier reading of the written

material.

Country File Designators - We will delete the first

element of operational activity and operational interest

files in those instances when the credibility of the

narrative is not affected.

number corresponds to the alphabetical position of the

country name which is easily discernible, whereas the

subsequent two elements relate to type of activity or

interest and specific subject.

Action Indicator (Slug) Lines - Generally, we will

release the entire action indicator line of a document.

Occasionally, however, we will withhold portions when the

CL BY <0695930

DECL OADR

DRV HUM 4-82

SECRET

---

## Page 3

13-00000

SECRET

SUBJECT: Position on Cryptonyms, Country Designators, Action

Indicators and Employee True Names

context identifies a source or a relationship with a

specific liaison

service.

True Names of Staff Employees - In most instances we

will release names of employees who have retired in an overt

status and were serving in Headquarters when cited in a

document. We will continue to protect the true names of

employees cited as serving in a field position.

References

to field personnel in true name are uncommon, however, since

pseudonyms are normally used in correspondence between

Headquarters and the field.

for johnnie

Sons

'redrick

• Wickham, Jr.

2

SECRET

---

## Page 4

13-00000

SECRET

8 November 1995

•materia i

MEMORANDUM FOR:

Jeremy Gunn,

ARRB. Staff

FROM:

Barry Harrelson,

CIS/CSI/HRG

SUBJECT:

Issues re Cryptonyms, Country

Designators, Action Indicators and

Employee True Names (U)

Attached is memorandum from the DO Focal Point for the

ARRB addressing the release of cryptonyms, country

designators, action indicators and employee true names.. The

memorandum is intended to provide guidance to you and your

staff and complements information provided in previous

discussions.

Ellie and I welcome the opportunity to discuss

163732

these issues with your 'staff. (U)

Attachment

Unclassified When Separated

FrOm Attachment.

SECRET

---

## Page 5

13-00000

30 10.1

is.uu

sat iud

in ute.

•АЛи

LUU:

10

Assassination Records Review Board

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

(202) 724-0088 - Fax: (202) 724-0457

"PFW

December 11, 1995

CIA HAS NO OBJECTION TO

DECLASSIFICATION AND/OR

RELEASE OF THIS DOCUMENT

BY FACSIMILE

Mr. John Pereira

Director

Historical Review Group

Center for the Study of Intelligence

Central Intelligence Agency

Washington, DC 20505

Dear John:

As Mary and I discussed with Barry late last Friday, CLA's long-awilited response to

ARAB's request for evidence about the true names to be considered at lomorrow's

Board meeting was disappointing and madequate. For several months, the Board has

beon encouraged by the CLA to expert a comprehensive presentation of specific

evidence relating, to its desire to protect the true names of CLA employees. The Board

has delayed action on hundreds of assassination records in anticipation of this evidence.

We are frankly concerned not only by the impact the CLA's action will have on our

work, but also by the tact that we feel we have been mislead by the Agency in this

unstance.

We urge your tull compliance with our request in time for tomorrow's meeting.

Sincerely yours,

Sione

David G. Marwell

Executive Director

BOARD MEMBEHS: juhnH. Tunneim. Chgis - Henry E Grasf • Kermiel Hall - William L. Jovie • Anna K. Nolsori

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. DAVId Ó Marmell

---

## Page 6

13-00000

SECRET

11 December 1995

NOTE FOR THE FILE

SUBJECT: Briefing of

JFK Board Staff: Cover

On 1 December, Barry Gibson, Deputy Chief of the

Office of Central Cover, briefed the

Executive Director of

the Assassinations Records Review Board and other Board

staff members.

Also participating from CIA were (John Goins

and Eleanor Neiman of IMS; (Linda Cipriani, 'OGC; and Barry

Harrelson and I from HRG.

2. The focus of the briefing was on the need to protect

the names of former Agency employees that appeared in the

JFK records. Gibson discussed the risks involved for people

who retired under cover if they were identified in the

public record as former CIA employees. He discussed the

efforts made by his office to obtain written statements from

the more than 100 individuals whose names appear:

The purpose of the briefing was to assist the Board

in its review of names when it meets on 12-13 December.

The

Agency was asked in particular to present, in writing,

evidence.of risk for each of the names that will be

discussed at the Board's meeting.

Merican

John F. Pereira

C1 BY 50185904г

CL FEASON:

COi2-57,1-5C

DECL ON:.

XI

DEV FTIOM:

Alts 70-9

SECRET

---

## Page 7

13-00000

ADMINISTRATIVE • INTERNAL USE ONLY

From the Desk of Linda C: Cipriani

NOTE FOR:

FROM:

DATE:

SUBJECT:

Barry. R. Gibson @ DO

Elaine S. Mathias @ DO

Linda C. Cipriani: O€C

03/04/96 09:26:53 AM

JFK - Central Cover appeal

The General Counsel and I met with the JFK Review Board on Friday and discussed, among other things, how to deal with the potential

public release of the identities of former employees retired under cover. The Board clearly wants to do the right thing here, but they feel

they are not getting enough information to make that decision.

Jeremy Gunn (JFK Board's General Counsel) will soon provided me with some of the Board's suggestions on how to deal with this which I

will pass on to you (including how to deal with Whitten). I would at the very least like to be able suggest that we attempt contact again

this point will be extremely helpful. My sense is that this issue of protecting retirees is something everyone at CIA will want to appeal

you should continue to prepare that appeal you are drafting]

In the meantime, can you please provided me the following figures:

1. The # of people we sent letters to regarding the potential Board releases. (isn't it 150?) and the following breakdown if

available:,

- # living abroad

- # of those retired under cover vs. those whose cover has been rolled back or lifted

- # of those who still work for us in covert/overt capacity

2. The # of responses we received to date.

3. The # of responses to date requesting that we don't release.

4. The # of responses to date saying that they didn't care.

I realize you are all out of the office these days, but I would appreciate getting this as soon as you can. Thanks.

CC:

J. Barry Harrelson

Eleanor E. Neiman @ DO

Frederick Wickham @ DO

ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY

---

## Page 8

13-00000

...

ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY

8 March 1996

MEMORANDUM FOR:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

REFERENCE:

J. Barry Harelison

John Pereira

(Linda C. Cipriani

DCI/OGC/LD

JFK - March 18 Board Meeting

ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY

From the Desk of Linda C. Cipriani

NOTE FOR:

(Paula A. Sweeney@ DCl

Robert O. Davis @ DCI

Robert D. Caudle @ DCI

FROM:

Linda C. Cipriani

DATE:

03/08/96 02:50:39 PM

SUBJECT:

JFK - March 18 Board Meeting

I have been informed that Dave Edgers will be attending the next JFK Board meeting. If this is the case, it would seem that Jeff should

go as well.

Two issues need to be discussed with the Board: stations and cover employees.

1.

Jeff and the Board agreed in principal to a "window" in which all stations would be opened (1960:64). Of course, if

there are particular stations which need to be exempted from this the Board will consider it upon the presentation of substantive

evidence.

• HRG and the Board think this is a good idea that would enable them to avoid raising potential appeals every month

-Dave Edger needs to be signed onto this idea.

• Jeff, last month, presented additional information on Oslo, Stockholm, and Copenhagen? Jeff and Dave should be

prepared to answer questions or provide more information so that the Board will agree to protect these stations.

2.

The Board recently released the names of 16 cover employees. An appeal is being prepared (or so I am told). The

thirty days runs on March 18. We need to finalize with the Board how to handle this issue. At the last meeting the Board agreed that

this was a really important decision, but that they were not getting the information they need to make the right decision. At the last

meeting, the Board intimated that they might be willing to delay this release, if CIA and the Board could come to a mutually agreeable

way to deal with cover employees. I understood from Jeff that this is an issue that CIA will appeal on just the principal. If this is true,

the Board should understand what our ultimate position is on this, but that we are willing to cooperate with them to find a suitable

alternative (using pseudos or generic descriptions like "case officer")

3.

I will be out all next week but Barry Harellson/HRG (30292) and John Pereira/CSI) (30373) will be happy to fill you

in on the details. Barry will be contacting: Bob Caudle next week to find out how the March 18 meeting will be handled.

ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY

---

## Page 9

13-00000

MEMORANDUM

March 20, 1996

To:

CC:

GIA HAS NO OBJECTION TE

DECLASSIFICATION AND/OR

RELEASE OF THIS DOCUMENT

Review Board

David Marwell

CLA Team

T. Jeremy Gunn

From:

Subject:

The Staff understahds the Review Board to accept the following general guidelines on

the release of true names of CIA officers:

When the true name of a CLA officer (i.e. past or present employee of CIA) appears in a

document, the Board will bring to its review a presumption that the true name will be

released. In order to overcome this presumption of release, CIA must provide evidence

demonstrating that release of the name would be harmful. In order to meet its burden

of proving harm, CIA must tailor the evidence to satisfy one of the three categories

identified in Part I (below). However, when the name of an officer is of such

importance that the public interest would not be served in postponing a name, the

Board may release the true name consistent with the principles identified in Part I

(below).

Part I. Categories of Officers.

1. Living officers. For living (present or former) officers, CLA must prove that:

(a) the officer is living outside the United States (or reasonably is expected to

reside or travel outside the United States in the foreseeable future); (b) the officer

is either working or is retired under cover; and (c) the officer objects to the

release of his or her true name. If CIA satisfies this burden, the Board

presumptively (see Part II below) will release a pseudonym and postpone the

officer's true name until the year 2010.

2. Where current status of former officer is unknown. Where CLA has been

unable to contact the former officer because his or her location is unknown, CIA

must present a good faith showing that reasonable attempts have been made to

locate the officer. If the Board is convinced that CIA has made a good faith

showing that it was unable to locate the former officer, the Board will postpone

the true name until June 1, 1997. However, the Board may postpone the true

---

## Page 10

13-00000

- 2 -

name beyond June 1, 1997, if CIA provides to the Board, prior to May 1, 1997,

additional evidence that satisfies the criteria of either category 1 (above) or

category 3 (below).

3. Names having effect on current intelligence interests. If CLA believes that

the release of a true name may compromise currently existing intelligence

operations or might otherwise cause an identifiable harm, it must provide

evidence that: (a) the officer currently is engaged in clandestine activities; (b) the

release of the true name would compromise ongoing intelligence operations or

would compromise operations with current intelligence value; (c) the release of

the true name would reasonably be expected to cause significant harm fo a living

person (including family members), or (d) the release of the true name would'

cause a significant harm to the national security or the foreign relations of the

United States. If CIA satisfies this burden, the Board presumptively (see Part I

below) will release a pseudonym and postpone the true name until 2010 or until

such other date as CLA reasonably shows to be a date on which the release could

be made without causing harm.

Part II. Names of Officers Who Are Important to the Assassination Story.

The Board presumptively will postpone the release.of names consistent with

categories 1-3 of Part I. However, for certain persons whose names appear in a

context that is important to the assassination story, the Board may nevertheless

vote to release the true name. In all such instances, the Board will notify CIA of

the importance of such a person and provide CIA with the opportunity to

provide additional information in support of postponing the release of the

names. These names shall be reviewed on a case by-case basis, with due

consideration being given to the importance of the person to the assassination

story and such evidence of harm as CIA may provide.

---

## Page 11

13-00000

ADMINISTR

VE INTERNAL USE ONLY

29 July 1996

MEMORANDUM FOR:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

Chief Historical Review Group

Fredrick C. Wickham, Jr.

DO, Focal Point for ARRB

Proposal for Dealing with Employees' Names

1. 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

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. Identifiable names for employees that retired

overtly:

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

cases will require the same review as that of an

employee who remained under cover into retirement.

ADMINISTRATIVE, INTERNAL USE ONLY

---

## Page 12

13-00000

ADMINIST

I 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.

2.

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

ADM

IVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY

---

## Page 13

13-00000

ADMINISTRATIVE

INTERNAL USE ONLY

SUBJECT: Proposal for Dealing with Employees'

Names

within the documentation when requesting continued protection of

the name.

4.

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 these officers.

fredrick s. wickham, it.

3

ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE ONLY

---

## Page 14

13-00000

ADMINISTRATIVE.

INTERNAT USE ONLY

SUBJECT: Proposal for Dealing with Employees' Names

IMS/RPG Fwickham:mjk (29 July 1996)

Distribution:

Orig & 1 - Addressee

- C/OCC

1 - IMS/ESG/ALB

1 - IMS/ESG/IRB

1 - IMS/ESG/HCS

1

- IMS/ESG-OIT/MSG/RDP

1

ESG Chrono

4

LICE ANTI

---

## Page 15

13-00000

wakfi6

SECRET - WORKING PAPER

5. March, 1997

Memorandum For: Chief/HRG

FrOm:

Subject:

Barry Harrelson

Name Issue / Status of Review

Reference:

Meetings with ARRB staff (Marwell

4 March 1997

& Gunn)

Name Issue

I met with Gunn and Marwell (separate meetings) to

'discuss the reopening of the names issue per my memo to you.

Both Gunn and Marwell reacted positively. They found the

proposal to be reasonable one and they are willing to work

with us

in approaching the Board.

However, both said they

could not predict the Boards reaction.

Per Marwell, one

member of the Board (Anna Nelson) seems to believe that if a

person worked for the CIA it

should be known.

Apparently our

timing is excellent.

Marwell is

planning to propose to the Board that they change the

process from the focus on individual postponements to

documents.

Under the new approach his staff would have the

authority to negotiate with the Agency on the release of

documents, and only issues/documents of disagreement would

be placed

before the Board. Marwell is convinced that even

with an additional year they will not finish the project

with the current approach.

He sees our proposal on the

names as an example of how the process would work.

Marwell recommends that we include examples of

documents containing names of little or no connection to the

Bob Skwirot (he was in the meeting with Marwell)

said that there were a number of names that appeared in only

one document and that the number of names had reached 590)

Marwell wants to start immediately on preparing a joint list

of important/releasable individuals.

Action: Advise DO, OGC, upper management of our proposal to

Need to decide what level

would sign the memo to the Board, and who would prepare the

memo. If

you agree I can send a copy of

my memo to you to

Linda and Fred

for background use.

HRG and DO team will collect examples of documents and

prepare (with ARRB staff) a list of individuals. The DO

should focus on any person on the list that needs protection

and prepare the evidence ASAP (i.e. not wait for the issue

to be resolved).

SECRET

---

## Page 16

13-00000

SECRET - WORKING PAPER

New ARRB Review Process

process would work. He would like to test the process for

comments:

1)

HRG reviewers would review the documents the same

as they do now (postponements

would be blue highlighted).

[no change in our procedures]

ARRB staff would review the blue highlighted

document.

a) If they agree, they would stamp the document

"ARRB approved" and return it to HRG to process

for NARA.

b) If they disagree they would highlight in

yellow (creating green highlighting).

If the two

staffs cannot resolve the issue, then the document

would go before the Board.

[Major change: ARRB staff would no longer record all the

proposed postponements, no DO damage review, no detailed

determination letter requiring HRG reviewers to use the

"grid" to determine what happen.]

3)

Non-issue documents would be sent to the ARRB

staff when ready for NARA.

would prepare a simplified final determination notice and

letter to the Agencies.

I No action would be required; HRG would file the final

determination notice with the document].

"Green" highlighted documents that go to the Board

would be handled the same as today.

[The expectation is that a lot less documents would require

Board action. J

Comments: With some fine tuning, I think this process could

work, and

we would be able to complete the re-review of

documents released

in 1993 and 1994 by Oct. 1998.

Completing the entire project will depend on how quickly the

"non-related" material and the "addition records"

are

reviewed by the ARRB staff.

SECRET

---

## Page 17

13-00000

SECRET - WORKING PAPER

Pending Issues

As part of the change in process, Marwell wants the

Board to focus on outstanding

substantive issues as opposed

to micro managing the review.

We discussed the following:

1) Nosenko. ARRB staff needs to review the non-related

material and make a recommendation to the Board.

Marwell

leans toward not treating all of Nosenko as assassination

related. Could be a hard sell with some Board members.

Should we request that Nosenko meet with the Board? Marwell

thinks they would react favorably.

2) Personnel Files.

Again the first step is to have

his staff confirm that only a part of a file is related and

that those documents are in the released material.

3) (Gibson. FBI file issue; we need to present case to

the Board

4) LI 9. Continuing to protect will be a hard sell

given that Newman has published) identity; we need to present

case to the Board.

5) CRC Financial Files. ARRB staff needs to review

Annual Report and Extension

Marwell ask me to draw you attention to the Annual

Report and the request for an extension. He would still

like a letter from the Agency (could

be addressed to him)

along these lines:

"reviewed Annual Report"

"note that the Board has ask for extension"

"support the request/feel it is in interest of

Agency and public /or something along these lines"

Other issues (not discussed with Marwell/Gunn)

(Linda) (OGC) says CI Staff has ask Gunn to rewrite his

notes, and opposes Gunn's suggestion to release pages from

the CI histories he reviewed.

Gunn indicated in his notes

that some of the pages should be released and might be

considered assassination records.

We are going to run into

similar problems with the other histories.

Gunn will be in

HQ tomorrow to re-do his notes.

She will discuss the "pages

issue" with the goal of having him drop the request to

release.

As to the question of designating the pages

as

assassination records, she will inform him that CI will

oppose. If he insist, she will refer back to HRG.

SECRET

---

## Page 18

13-06909

04/23/97

WED 15:53 FAX 202_724 0457

ARRB

0001

E

FAX

To:

Fax #:

Subject:

Date:

Pages:

E

E

J. Barry Harrelson

703-613-3063

Segregated Collections

April 23, 1997

7, including this cover sheer.

Today the Board adopted the attached guidelines.

CIA HAS NO OBJECTION TO

DECLASSIFICATION AND/OR

RELEASE OF THIS DOCUMENT

From the desk of...

T. Jeremy Gunn

General Counsel

Assassination Recorde Review Board

600 E Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C, 20530

(202) 724-0088

Fax: (202) 724-0457

---

## Page 19

13-000084/23/97

WED 15:53 FAS 202 724 0457

ARRE

1002

CIA HAS NO OBJECTION TO

DECLASSIFICATION ANDIOR

RELEABE OF THIS DOCUMENT

Assassination Records Review Board

Guidelines for Review of Postponements in the Segregated Collections

Adopted: April 23, 1997

Background

In order to ensure that the Review Board will be able to complete its task of reviewing

all identified assassination records, the Board recently took two significant steps. First,

on November 13, 1996, it adopted guidelines with respect to reviewing "Segregated

Collections" with regard to information that is "not believed relevant" (NBR) to the

assassination. Second, in February 1997, the Review Board requested Congress to

extend its tenure for one additional year.

It is the Review Board's judgment that, even with the assumption that our operations

may be extended through Fiscal Year 1998, the Review Board cannot hope to complete

review of postponements in the Segregated Collections under the current method of

review. In particular, a reasonable modification of current postponement standards

would greatly expedite and facilitate the release of additional information and records.

Otherwise, the Review Board might cease operations without having reviewed claimed

postponements in tens of thousands of pages of FBI and CIA records.

Postponement Criteria for the Segregated Collections

In a further effort to enhance the Review Board's work, the Review Board now issues

these revised guidelines for the review of records in the Segregated Collections.'

(These guidelines do not affect the FBI's Core and Related Files or the ClA's 201 file on

Oswald.) The four principal factors that underlie these review guidelines are: first,

continuing, to the greatest reasonable extent, the Review Board's established

guidelines for postponements that have emerged over the past two years; second,

establishing guidelines consistent with the Review Board's decision regarding NBR

records; third, establishing reasonable and workable guidelines that will enable the

'The regulations adopted by the Board on November 13, 1996, detine

"Segregated Collections" as including first, FBI records that were requested by: (a) the

House Select Committee on Assassinations ("HSCA") in conjunction with its

investigation into the Kennedy assassination; (b) the Church Committee in conjunction

with its inquiry into issues related to the Kennedy assassination; and (c) by other bodies

(e.g., Pike Committee, Abzug Committee, etc.) that relate to the Kennedy

assassination; and second, CIA records including (a) the ClA's Sequestered Collection

of 63 boxes as well as one box of microfilm records and the microfilm records (box 64),

and (b) several boxes of CIA staff "working files."

---

## Page 20

13-000064/23/97

WED 15:54 FAX 202 724 0457

ARRB

0003

- 2 -

Review Board, the ARRB staff, the CIA, and the FBI to complete the significant amount

of work that remains; and finally, to provide reasonably consistent standards for the

review of postponements that would apply equally to CIA and FBI records.

The following are, in summary form, guidelines for reviewing postponements in the

Segregated Collections.?

CIA Source and FBI Informant and National Security Asset Postponements

There are, of course, similarities and differences between FBI informants and CIA

sources. Like FBI informants and national security assets, ClA sources may or may not

be paid for the information that they provide and they may or may not be providers of

information over the long-term. When providing information to the Bureau, FBI

informants generally are understood to be cooperating with law enforcement officials for

a legal and legitimate purpose. It is often the case, although not always, that FBI

intormants understand that at some point their name might surface in conjunction with a

criminal prosecution and that they may need to testify in court. Foreign ClA sources

and FBI national security assets, however, are not necessarily deemed to be

cooperating with law enforcement officials but may, in fact, be committing the crime of

espionage against their native country by cooperating with US authorities. Furthermore,

unlike FBI informants, CIA sources and FBI national security assets presume that their

names will not be released publicly and they certainly presume (in the ordinary course)

that their identities will not surface in criminal trials. As a practical matter, it is generally

much easier today for the FBI to locate a former informant who resides in the United

States than it is for the CIA and FBI to locate former sources and national security

assets.

Despite these differences - differences which would generally suggest a greater

degree of protection being owed to CIA sources and FBI national security assets -- the

issues in terms of postponements are fundamentally similar.

"The existing "NBR" guidelines allow the Review Board to remove from detailed

consideration those records or files that truly have no apparent relevance to the

assassination. Nevertheless, a significant number of files in the Segregated Collections

contain records that shed some light on issues that the HSCA explored as potentially

relevant to the assassination of President Kennedy. The following criteria would apply

to all records in the Segregated Collections, including records containing some NBR

redactions.

---

## Page 21

13-00008 4/23/97

WED 15:54 FAX 202 724_0457

ARRB

2004

- 3 -

CIA Sources

The Review Board established guidelines, during its December 1996 meeting, for

handling CIA source issues and applied those guidelines at the January 1997 meeting.

These guidelines directed the protection of names and identifying Information of CIA

sources in cases where the identity of the source is of low public interest or is peripheral

to the JFK assassination. The Board's decision was based on two factors: the concern

that since CIA sources generally live outside the United States, they could risk harm if

their identities were revealed. Moreover, many of the sources referenced in ClA

records appear intrequently and are of relatively low public interest. Therefore, in

records where the identity of the source is of importance for understanding the

assassination, the CIA will be required to provide additional evidence to support the

protection of the source's identity." In cases where the identify of the source is

peripheral to the assassination story, the information will be postponed until 2017.

FBI National Security Assets

FBI national security assets should be treated in the same manner as ClA sources.

FBI Informants

Informant issues represent the largest category of postponements in the FBI's

Segregated Collection, as they do in the "core". FBI assassination files. They also

provide the greatest opportunity for streamlining the review process. Currently, there

are ten members of the Bureau's JFK Task Force who are responsible for researching

individual informants in response to evidence requests from the Review Board." They

retrieve and review the informants' files and attempt, through DMV, Social Security, and

other database searches, to determine if the informant is alive. Under current Review

Board standards for "core" files, this work is necessary to provide evidence to support

redacting the informant's name, regardless of whether the informant provided

information. Removing the requirement of proving whether informants are alive in the

Segregated Collections would free up significant resources that could be deployed to

reviewing unprocessed HSCA subject files.

The new approach to HSCA subjects is to protect informant-identifying information,

'An example would be the case of John Scelso (pseud.). The Board found that

his identity is relevant to the assassination story and CIA offered evidence of a

continuing need to protect the identity. In this case, "Scelso" documents would

continue to be scheduled for release in five years.

"Six work full-time on informant evidence, four devote about half their time to

informant evidence.

---

## Page 22

13-00000

-4-

without requiring the Bureau to make a showing that the informant is alive. This

protection would extend to individuals characterized as symbol-number informants,

"PSis," "PCls," "established sources," "panel sources," and the like - designations that

indicate an ongoing relationship with the FBI. It would not extend to individuals who

requested that their identity be protected in an isolated contact with the FBI or to local

and state law enforcement officers.

The "informant-identifying information" to be protected would Include the customary

(I.e., informant-specific) portions of informant symbol numbers and file numbers,

informant names, and - at least potentially - descriptions of, and information received

from, the informant. How much, it any, of the latter type of information should be

redacted would be the principal focus of staff-level discussions with the FBI. The staff's

principal goal in this process, with regard to each inforrant, would be to release as

much intormation that is relevant to understanding the assassination as possible. In

discussions with the FBI, the staff would be prepared, if necessary, to concede

redaction of informant-identifying information that is unrelated to the assassination in

order to ensure that more pertinent information is released.

The presumption will be that an informant's identity will be released if the informant

provides "positive" information about an assassination-related issue. To overcome this

presumption of release for informants with "positive" information, the FBI would need to

make a particularized showing that the identifying information should not be released.

To the extent that an informant's identity is protected, it will be postponed until 2017.

CIA Employee Name Postponements

Over the past year the ClA has addressed the employee name issue and has released

some names that it had previously asked the Board to postpone. But during that time

the list of names has grown to a size that had not been imagined at the time the work

began. To date, the Review Board staff has identified in the JFK Collection over 650

names of ClA employees. These names appear in more than 1000 documents already

reviewed by the Board and numerous additional records that have not yet been

processed. While some of these employee names are important to the assassination

story, many appear only a few times in the entire JFK Collection and seem to add little,

if any, important information.

Sin HSCA subjects, there typically will not be information about Ruby, Oswald or

the assassination itself. However, in a file on, for example, Sam Giancana, there may

be informant reports on Giancana's support of anti-Castro activities, and reports from

the same informant on day-to-day numbers operations in the Chicago area. The staff

would set a higher priority on release of the former reports than on the latter.

---

## Page 23

13-0000004/23/97

WED 15:55 FAX 202 724. 0457

ARRE

0006

- 5-

CIA's argument to protect employee names emphasizes a number of points. First,

since many employees are "under cover," the maintenance of that cover is critical to

gathering intelligence. CIA argues that identification of a name can identify the cover

provider and jeopardize operations. Second, although the majority of names are of

retired CIA employees, CIA has a confidentiality agreement with them and many do not

want their past Agency affiliation released. The argument here is that release may

jeopardize business relationships or personal safety. Such arguments have already

been presented to the Board. Their merit can only be determined on a case-by-case

basis. However, due to the volume of names in the JFK Collection, the individual

review and evaluation of each case would delay significantly the review of documents

and ultimately lead to less total information becoming available to the public.

CIA has proposed, and the Review Board agrees, that ClA employee names be treated

in a manner similar to that applied to Source names: to postpone until 2017 those

employee names that are of low public interest or are of peripheral interest to the

assassination. It will be presumed that employee names will be released if their

identities are important to the assassination story unless the CIA is able to provide

specific information of a potential harm of release. (CIA acknowledges the presumption

of release unless specific evidence is provided to the Review Board that harm to

national security or to personal safety would result from the release of the employee

name.)

FBI "Foreign Counterintelligence" Postponements

It is presumed that the FBI will, at least partially, carry over its post-appeal standards for

disclosing "FCI" activities targeting Communist-bloc nations. To the extent that the

HSCA subjects reflect "FCI" activities against other natlons that have not been

addressed by the Review Board in the "core" files, the FBI will be allowed to redact

direct discussion of such activities, unless the information in the proposed redaction

meaningfully contributes to the understanding of the assassination.

FBI and CIA Foreign Llaison Postponements

The criteria for these postponements would not, in the abstract, depart significantly from

the Review Board's current approach of releasing information received through liaison

channels, while protecting direct acknowledgment of the source of the information. In

practice, however, the staff would be more flexible in protecting text that implies,

although may not unambiguously state, that a foreign goverment is the source of

particular information. Nevertheless, the more significant the information is to any

assassination-related issue, the more information would be released under these

guidelines.

---

## Page 24

13-00000

-5 -

CIA Stations and Other Issues

Over the past two years the Review Board has established other guidelines that will

continue to guide the review process, some of which will be outlined here. For CIA

stations, all locations related to the Mexico City story will be released during the period

1960-69. Outside of that window, they will be released on a case-by-case basis should

the identity of the station be critical to understanding the assassination. Other stations,

except for those identified as particularly sensitive, will be released from the beginning

of the Kennedy administration until the publication of the Warren Commission report,

(i.e., January 1, 1961 to October 1, 1964). Outside of these windows, stations will be

postponed. Cable prefixes, dispatch prefixes, and field report prefixes would be

postponed or released according to the same windows as the stations to which they

refer. CIA job titles also are redacted or opened along with the station at which the

officer served.

Crypts would be released along lines similar to other information. All "LI" crypts, except

those considered particularly sensitive would be released through October 1, 1964, as

are "AM" crypts and U.S. govemment crypts. In other areas, only the digraph is

protected. Again, the exception is sensitive crypts, which would be protected in their

entirety. After October 1, 1964, the presumption shifts towards protection of the crypts,

except those that provide meaningful information about the assassination story. (For

example, crypts pertinent to Garrison-era documents would likely carry the same

presumption of release as those generated during the Warren Commission.)

Surveillance methods will be released if the nature of the surveillance has a material

bearing on information related to the assassination unless CIA provides evidence

demonstrating the political or operational sensitivity, in which case the information will

be released in 2017.

e:larrb\regsleview.wpd

---