and the rights of the employees. 1. The statement of charges against the employee should be drawn as specifically as possible, consistent with the requirements of protecting the national security. In all instances, the General Counsel (or if there is no General Counsel, the top legal officer) of the agency or department should be consulted on the drafting of the statement of charges and his opinion secured to insure that the charges are specific enough to be meaningful to the employee. To expedite the disposition of these cases it is suggested that the statement of charges be given to the employee at the time of notice of suspension. 2. Meticulous care should be exercised in the matter of suspension of employees against whom derogatory information has been received. It is suggested that a personal interview with the employee prior to suspension is helpful in most instances. The General Counsel of the department or agency should be consulted and his opinion should be secured as to the sufficiency of the information justifying suspension. The final decision as to suspension should not be delegated below the Assistant Secretary level. 3. A legal officer should be present at security board hearings to act as an advisor to the board as to procedural matters and to the employee, if he is not represented by counsel, as to his rights under the Act of August 26, 1950, Executive Order No. 10450, as amended, and the pertinent regulations. 4. In order to assure the high caliber of security hearing boards, each agency head should periodically and personally review the list of persons made available by his agency for service on such boards. The Courts have recognized that Congress did not provide, or intend to provide, that hearing procedures under the security program be made identical with judicial processes. But it is our experience that by having persons possessing the highest degree of integrity, ability and good judgment as members of security boards the rights of the Government and of the employee are fully safeguarded. 5. Whenever an agency head proposes to make an adverse security evaluation with respect to a person who has been cleared previously in another agency, he should consult promptly with the head of the other agency to make certain that all relevant information has been given consideration and that the security standards have been properly applied. The objective should be to avoid conflicting evaluations which are not based upon a difference in the sensitivity of the jobs. The Justice Department would be willing to assist in any such consultations. The results should be recorded in each of the agencies concerned. 6. Even though the statute does not provide subpoena power for witnesses, every effort should be made to product witnesses at Security Board hearings to testify in behalf of the Government so that such witnesses may be confronted and cross-examined by the employee, so long as the production of such witnesses would not jeopardize the national security. 7. All violations of law as disclosed in the investigations or proceedings under the program should be reported immediately to the Division of Internal Security, Department of Justice. In this connection I should like to inform you that conferences of the security officers of the larger departments and agencies are being held at the Justice Department regularly. At such conferences extensive discussions are held with respect to various phases of the security program and difficult problems arising in any department or agency are considered. This is serving to improve the operation of the program in many respects. It is now proposed to extend these conferences to the security officers of all agencies. In cooperation with the Civil Service Commission these conferences will be utilized to bring about better coordination of all agencies and departments in carrying out more efficiently the purposes of Executive Order 10450. Respectfully, /8/ Herbert Brownell, Jr. ATTORNEY GENERAL The President The White House THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON March 4, 1955. TO: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL I approve the contents of your letter of March fourth on the Employee Security Program. Will you please take steps to see that a copy of that letter, with this endorsement, is furnished to the head of each governmental Department, independent Agency, and other interested individuals of the Executive Branch? DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER Assistant Attorney General Internal Security Division DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE January 16, 1956 Honorable Philip Young Chairman Civil Service Commission Dear Mr. Young: Your letter of December 6, 1955, to the Attorney General with respect to the provisions of Section 5(f) of the Sample Regulations issued by the Department with Executive Order 10450, has been referred to this Division for consideration and reply. You state that under Section 5(f) of the Sample Regulations a suspended employee has a right to submit within 30 days after notification of his suspension, statements and affidavits refuting or explaining the stated reasons for suspension but that the Act of August 26, 1950, provides in part that a suspended employee shall have the right to submit such statements and affidavits within 30 days after notification of reasons for suspension. You indicate that under the aforesaid Sample Regulations it is theoretically possible for an employee to have less than 30 days in which to submit statements and affidavits rebutting or explaining the stated reasons for suspension. It is the view of this Department that there is an apparent inconsistency between the Sample Regulations and the Act of August 26, 1950, in this regard. This situation would be remedied by amending Section 5(f) of the Sample Regulations to read "within 30 days after notification of reasons for suspension." It is suggested, therefore, that you request all departments and agencies of the Executive Branch to review their regulations and amend them where necessary by inclusion of the above language. 95-901 O-63 (App. vol. 1)–36 Sincerely, WILLIAM F. TOMPKINS Assistant Attorney General DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE June 14, 1956 Honorable Philip Young Civil Service Commission Dear Mr. Young: It would be appreciated if you would circulate among the Departments and agencies of the Government the following memorandum: "In conformity with the opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Cole v. Young, decided June 11, 1956, you are advised that any Government employee holding a nonsensitive position and presently under suspension pending proceedings in accordance with Executive Order 10450 should be immediately restored to duty. 'Pending further study of the effect of the opinion upon the Personnel Security Program, no employee holding a non-sensitive position should be given a statement of charges or be suspended under Executive Order 10450." Sincerely, WILLIAM F. TOMPKINS Assistant Attorney General |