The Foreign Service Journal, September 2005

F O C U S 28 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 5 ating as “point” on every security mission overseas. Guarding the State Depart- ment . Over a generation, Main State and its multiple annexes have moved from walk in/go any- where to a substantially tighter level of protection and exclusion. With coded “smart” picture IDs and punch-in codes, State now has reached the level of security present at the CIA 20 years ago. Entry for officers from other agencies is time-consuming; IDs must be visible at all times; X-ray screening is required for all packages car- ried by visitors, even official ones; employees are issued protective masks. Within Main State and its Washington annexes, virtually every office door is con- trolled. FSO retirees can no longer drop in to their old offices solely on the strength of their retiree ID. A major effort has been made to seal off the basement and first floor at Main State from the rest of the build- ing, limiting activity in these areas to “unclassified” work. The result is, despite efforts to make the system user-friendly, tedious. But most of us have accepted it as an occupational requirement, mindful of the very real prospect of terrorist attacks on Washington. (This past May, an errant Cessna raised fears of a possible aerial biological attack, prompting a panicked evacua- tion of much of Capitol Hill.) DS Cracks Down: Overdue or Overkill? Where DS and other State employees interact less well, however, is under the provisions for security vio- lations and background investigations. Some FSOs see themselves as being disproportionately penalized for isolated infractions whose seriousness is not always readily apparent. These include “pink slips” issued by Marines under DS supervision for an overlooked clas- sified document found among unclassified records; a hard drive left in a turned-off computer behind locked doors; or an open safe in a locked/guarded building. A generation ago, such slips were an embarrassment to the conscientious officer, but a written explanation, accompanied by a few words of counseling from a supervisor or the regional security officer, were consid- ered sufficient admonition. You had to work hard at careless inat- tention before security infrac- tions became a personnel issue. Now the warnings from DS are Draconian. A relatively small number of security violations within a limited period of time (three within a rolling three-year period) will result in a proposal for a written reprimand from the Office of Employee Relations in the Bureau of Human Resources. If an employee commits additional infractions or a full- fledged security violation, the penalty becomes pro- gressively harsher and the likelihood of disciplinary action rises. Although not a career-killer per se for tenured officers, such punishment does affect promo- tion potential. In particular, raters are required to comment on a pattern of security incidents in an employee’s annual evaluation, and the “D” ambassado- rial and DCM selection committees are made aware of the number of security incidents an employee has incurred. Here is the gist of the disciplinary process. HR/ER receives a memo from DS saying an employee has three infractions within three years. HR/ER then pro- poses a written reprimand, which will stay in the per- son’s official performance file until reviewed by one tenure or one promotion board. The employee has the right to a written and oral reply to the allegations. One of the three deputy assistant secretaries in the director general’s office then decides the case. If the person wants to grieve that decision, he or she files a grievance with HR/G and has the right to appeal to the Foreign Service Grievance Board. During this period, if the person has asked for prescriptive relief, the letter does not go in the file. At the end of the process, if the dis- cipline letter is sustained by the FSGB, the original board that evaluated the employee for promotion is called back to review the employee’s file with the letter in it and decide whether to promote him or her. At that point, the employee has the right to put his or her own letter in alongside the discipline letter. If someone accumulates more than three infractions or a violation, he or she may be proposed for a suspen- sion. A letter containing a one-to-five-day suspension Some FSOs see themselves as being disproportionately penalized for isolated infractions whose seriousness is not always readily apparent.