Committee Prints

were derisively termed. These included Harry M. Hite, John R. Norpel, Jr., and Raymond Loughton. They were identified as backers of the Otepka insistence upon following security rules, they got transfer orders following Otepka's removal from the Evaluation Division and they had to wait for their new job descriptions.

Mr. Hite, in testifying before the subcommittee August 13, 1964, explained that he had been taken out of the security officer seriesand therefore had lost his seniority there-because he had been reassigned as an administrative officer.24 Like Mr. Burkhardt and others, he protested and appealed the decision.

Asked if he knew why he and the others had been transferred, he said it was because "I am a supporter of Mr. Otepka and believe, with him, in his advocacy of good personnel security practices".25 He said it was his opinion that the same applied to the other five men.

He, too, appealed to the Civil Service Commission under the Veterans Preference Act. The result: "Well, the veterans appeals officer determined that, in the opinion of that Office, nothing had been done to us which would permit the Commission to take jurisdiction. That was their reply." 26 Mr. Hite added that the commission, while upholding the right of a department to transfer its employees out of an area or out of a division, also held that the men should not have been transferred out of their security evaluator series.

Mr. Hite brought out that the Department had posted a notice about the reorganization of the Office of Security, suggesting the need of security evaluators.27 Mr. Hite, considering this field his lifework, applied for such assignment, though he had been transferred out of just such a job. He told the subcommittee this was not "awkward" for him but that it might be for the Department.

THE NORPEL CASE

John R. Norpel, personnel security specialist, outlined a similar story in testimony before the subcommittee. He was transferred to the field on the same day that Mr. Otepka was ousted. He termed his transfer as an act of "reprisal".28

Questions from Senator McClellan brought out that he had not known Mr. Otepka before he was assigned to the Division of Evaluations but, after service there, concluded that he was "very competent" and a "good public servant" and a man of "integrity, character, and devotion to the principles on which this country is built." He volunteered to testify for Mr. Otepka.

Mr. Norpel served for 10 years as a special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (1951-1961) before going to the State Department as a personnel security evaluator.

In World War II he served with the Army in the South Pacific in the Infantry and then in Field Artillery. He was a warrant officer.

The Norpel case was presented in depth in the Internal Security Subcommittee publication of an Appendix to part 17 of the State Department Security hearings. One of the points he emphasized was that eventually being assigned to duty at El Paso, Tex., he had been

24 Ibid., p. 1444.

25 Ibid., p. 1444. 26 Ibid., p. 1446. 27 Ibid., p. 1468.

23 Ibid., pp. 1379, 1388.

directed to duties "of a nature that I learned as a novice FBI agent.' Another segment of his appeal includes the following: 30

Toward the end of 1962 Mr. Reilly issued several directives which removed evaluative responsibilities from the Division of Evaluations and he delegated them to the Investigations Division and the Office of Security central file room. I shared with Mr. Otepka his open, honest dissent to these changes.

In April 1963, Mr. Otepka, who had testified earlier before the Internal Security Subcommittee learned that Mr. Reilly who followed him had not only given conflicting information but also had falsely accused Mr. Otepka of derelictions and attacked his personal character. Mr. Otepka asked for my assistance to refute Mr. Reilly's statements by compiling factual data regarding the evaluative services performed under Mr. Otepka.

Through personal observation and data furnished by a very reliable source, it became apparent by this time that Mr. Reilly had placed both Mr. Otepka and myself under surveillance and events indicated he was monitoring my telephone and room conversations with Mr. Otepka by clandestine means. I was invited to see Mr. Reilly in another office and he attempted to persuade me to disassociate myself from Mr. Otepka. He described Mr. Otepka to me as a "nut" and said he (Mr. Reilly) had been sent over to the Department "to do a job" and he was going to do it. Published testimony revealed Mr. Reilly meant to "get" Mr. Otepka.

On June 27, 1963, Mr. Otepka, again suddenly, was assigned by Mr. Reilly from his position as Chief of the Division of Evaluations to isolated quarters to "revise the Office of Security handbook" and "to prepare guidelines for evaluators." A written announcement to this effect relieved Mr. Otepka of his duties as Chief Evaluator and he was replaced by Mr. Belisle. No explanation was given to Mr. Otepka. After Mr. Otepka read his orders, Mr. Reilly immediately led a procession of six security officers to Mr. Otepka's office where all files under Mr. Otepka's custody were impounded and he was "locked out." To my amazement the files in my custody and Mr. Hughes' custody were also impounded without explanation to us. Mr. Reilly ordered Mr. Hughes and myself detailed as investigators to the Washington Field Office to assist in the reduction of a backlog.

I had worked under Mr. Otepka and Mr. Loughton, both professional evaluators of long-standing experience, and they found my services as an evaluator highly commendable. Yet I was now placed under the immediate supervision of Mr. Edward Denton, GS-12, one grade lower than mine, and the general supervision of Mr. Terence Shea, GS-13, over whom I had considerable seniority in the length of time in grade. Mr. Shea, who had me under surveillance, and Mr. Denton gave me only the most routine cases. In his "indoctrination" talks with me, Mr. Denton said I should not personally interview applicants under investigation until I had conducted several interviews in the presence of more experienced (though of a lower grade) investigators. Apparently Mr. Denton did not consider ex-FBI agents to be qualified interrogators.

I spent 7 months in the Washington Field Office, where I can honestly say I received no challenging or complex case whatsoever, while lesser skilled and lower grade investigators did. I was returned to the Division of Evaluations in late January 1964 after I complained to Mr. Thomas Ehrlich, formerly a member of the Legal Division, that my over-all talents were being wasted. Mr. Hughes, in the meantime, was reassigned as an investigator with permanent duty station Memphis, Tenn.

Although the workload in the Evaluations Division was heavy, I was retained there for only 1 month. On March 15, 1964, I was suddenly assigned to the Bureau of Inter-American Affairs (ARA) together with Messrs. Loughton, Hite, Gardner, Howard Shea, and Edwin Burkhardt.

29 Ibid., appendix to pt. 17, p. A54. 30 Ibid., appendix to pt. 17, p. A43.

INDEX

(NOTE. The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee attaches no significance to the mere fact of the appearance of the name of an individual or an organization in this index.)