The Foreign Service Journal, September 2005

had corresponded with her for several months on the Internet prior to meeting her.) DS has to date refrained from clarifying or even defining just what a “contact” is. I had assumed that it meant a face-to-face encounter, but it is now suggested (even though no person has officially stated this) that any communication with any person at any time constitutes a “contact” for reporting purposes. In any case, without being provid- ed briefings or information covering this crucial topic, I could only act based on personal experience that tended to fall short of high DS expectations. In concluding that my contact with two foreign nation- als made me vulnerable to coercion, DS ignored signifi- cant issues concerning my impending divorce, which were well-known to post administration and staff, including the RSO. Instead, DS relied on uncorroborated anecdotal “evi- dence” from a single source. This disregard for mitigating evidence opened up a universe of unlimited speculation that DS heartily em- braced and exploited. Innocent, mundane actions (such as having a cup of coffee with a female foreign national with whom I had a pla- tonic relationship) were interpret- ed in the most wildly salacious and licentious manner possible. Furthermore, information I had provided freely to the RSO on a contact report form (DS-1887) became “evi- dence” that was obtained through a “debriefing.” Yet more than two years later, DS continues to claim that I failed to submit such a report —even though CI acknowl- edged receipt of it in January 2003 and quoted freely from it in the subsequent Report of Investigation. F O C U S S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 5 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 67 DS’s techniques do not appear to be geared toward ascertaining the truth, but are instead focused on ensuring my security clearance is revoked.