The Foreign Service Journal, March 2015

12 MARCH 2015 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL budgetary reasons; gender and minor- ity preferences that, even if not explicitly decreed, are widely known; shifting personnel definitions and criteria; subtle and not-so-subtle political influence; and more. These are real factors. Mr. Lambrakis, and I, are justified in questioning “up or out.” D. Thomas Longo Jr. FSO, retired Lawrenceburg, Ind. We’ll Take Those Glasses, Sir I had long nourished the thought that my experience with access to State facili- ties as a retiree was isolated, unique and dated. But obviously (based on recent pieces in the FSJ ), little has changed since my experience more than eight years ago. On arrival at one embassy in Africa, my eyeglasses (which I have worn nearly my whole life) were taken fromme by a Marine security guard. I had a most dif- ficult time doing any constructive work without them. When I left the embassy, my eye- glasses could not readily be located. For- tunately, I had another pair at the hotel. About two months after returning home, the confiscated eyeglasses were returned to me—sent in the diplomatic pouch and irreparably broken. Thus, my visit to the embassy turned out to be a costly one. I have since made a point of never again going to an embassy to conduct business as a retiree, but instead meet embassy personnel at hotels. The monetary outlays, not to mention the visual problems, were just too much to bear. Roy A. Harrell Jr. FSO, retired Ozona, Texas Concerning Diplomatic Security Is the U.S. Department of State com- mitted to addressing in a timely manner its policy and operational shortcomings on diplomatic security as documented by the Government Accountability Office? More than six months have passed from the GAO report’s issuance, and all 13 recommendations remain open awaiting State action.