The Foreign Service Journal, March 2014

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | MARCH 2014 11 classified material [i.e., unlike at every other airport on the long itinerary], so a second courier is sent from Bangkok ahead of time to act as a cleared escort. …The escort has to be joined by a U.S. Transportation Security Administration employee planeside.” Is a commissioned U.S. government courier who is cleared to handle top- secret documents really not trusted to stand next to the plane and retrieve the classified pouches he has brought to Guam? Think of the expense required to have a second courier sent from Bangkok to carry out that task. And even this second courier needs a minder from the Transportation Security Administration? I find that difficult to fathom, espe- cially since it is a regular occurrence with the same limited group of couriers—all of whommust already be known to TSA personnel in Guam. Has the State Department even tried to rectify this nonsense with the Department of Home- land Security? Harvey Leifert FSO, retired Bethesda, Md. A True Story I enjoyed James B. Angell’s article, “The Island Hopper,” in the December Journal . However, his characterization of Unbroken as a novel (p. 26) is an error. Surely Mr. Angell knows that this grip- ping account of Louis Zamperini’s life from the 1930s and 1940s is all too true. That is what gives it its power. Samuel V. Smith FSO, retired Arlington, Va. Barriers to Equity on USAID FS Evaluations AFSA USAID VP Sharon Wayne deserves praise fo r her December AFSA News column, “USAID Needs a Transparent Promotions Process,” which advocates for clear agency communication on the promotion process. Like many other Foreign Service officers at the U.S. Agency for Inter- national Development, I have often wondered about the number of promotions given, how the cutoff was determined and how many FSOs were considered. Transparency and commu- nication about the process would give employees a sense of equity, but barriers are not limited to the promotion board process. As stated in USAID Human Resources Automated Directive System Series 300, appraisal committees—involved in every aspect of the Employee Evaluation Program—are responsible for ensuring evaluations are equitable and objective, while principal officers form and select the members of those bodies. Overlooked or ignored in this is the supervisor who evaluates an employee of the same rank and backstop, creat- ing a culture of competition (instead of mentorship) for finite promotion oppor- tunities. The promotion board may not be aware of the supervisor’s rank (the annual evaluation form only includes the employee’s rank), even though appraisal committees and principal officers have access to that information. As a recently retired contracting officer, I can still remember my supervi- sor—who was the same rank as I—tell- ing me, “Chris, you need a mentor, but