The Foreign Service Journal, September 2005

Ssshh! … Rule Change in Progress At the halfway mark of my assignment, on June 28, 2001, a department notice, “Additional Requirements for Reporting Contacts with Certain Foreign Nationals,” was finally released — six months after the refer- enced changes were imple- mented in 12 FAM 262.1(b). These changes added a new contact reporting require- ment for nationals from a country with a critical threat (counterintelligence) post — a direct contrast to previous 12 FAM 262 assurances that there were “no restrictions on relationships.” Absent any briefings or awareness cam- paigns it would be impossible for any employee to keep up with this bureaucratic “shell game.” Later, while assisting AFSA with research on the sub- ject, I discovered that no instructions had been issued to posts concerning contact and travel reporting policy for almost a full decade. The lag between published changes and implementation was highlighted in a May 10, 2005, Government Accountability Office report: “In December 2003, State revised its Foreign Affairs Manual to mandate and improve implementation of per- sonal security practices. In May 2004, State notified posts worldwide on use of a Personal Security Self-Assessment Checklist to improve security outside the embassy. However, none of the posts we visited were even aware of these and other key policy changes. … In explaining why posts were not aware of the new personal security regula- tions, DS officials noted that posts were often over- whelmed by work and may have simply missed the cables and changes in the Foreign Affairs Manual. They also noted that changes like this take time to be implemented globally.” While this rationalization was being offered to the GAO, DS was ruthlessly persecuting me for not being fully versed in all 12 FAM regulations, chastising me for a “callous disregard for security.” Nor did DS merely withhold information about changes to regulations. When I was scrutinizing docu- mentation that I received from the Office of Personnel Security and Suitability, a peculiar entry caught my eye. The adjudicator had slyly changed the wording of 3 FAM 629.2–1 from: “Report any relationship (not only continuing relation- ships) with a national of a com- munist -governed/allied coun- try; such relationships should be reported at the first oppor- tunity (see also 11 FAM 236.3)” to: “Any relationship (not only continuing relationships) with a national of a criteria country - governed/allied country: such relationships should be reported at the first opportunity.” (Italics added.) On Sept. 28, 2004, I alerted DS to this obvious manip- ulation of the Foreign Affairs Manual, a baneful effort to bolster the case against me by citing non-existent regula- tions. Yet the bureau has not retracted or even explained this unlawful statement, which remains part of the official record to this day. DS’s Failure to Consider the “Whole Person Concept” The case against me is permeated with prejudicial and pejorative wording. In direct contradiction of the stan- dard “whole person concept,” which requires adjudicators to evaluate all “available, reliable information about the person, past and present,” the resulting Summary and Analysis was based entirely on a single three-page docu- ment, the Report of Investigation covering a single month of my life. That document omits any mention of my con- tributions to the federal government over a 29-year career, including 16 years as a State Department commu- nications officer (during which State has given me numer- ous awards). Discarded, too, was the content of six lengthy interviews DS conducted with me that presented a wealth of exculpatory information. The adjudicator called no witnesses, would accept no evidence and would not speak to me even though I was physically no more than 40 yards away at any given time. In fact, I did not meet the adjudicator, nor was I allowed to see any documents related to my case until almost two years after my curtailment from post. Demonstrating disregard for even the most basic investigative standards, the adjudicator states as “estab- lished fact” that I am married and remain so “to the pre- sent” even though I have been divorced since 2003, an event duly routinely reported to the State Department’s 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 69 During my 29 years of government service, I have never received a security infraction. Yet my clearance has been suspended since February 2003.