Daily Archives: May 3, 2021

FSGB Case: Revocation of Top Secret Security Clearance and Separation

May 3, 2021 By in Diplomatic Security, Foreign Service, Grievance, Realities of the FS, Security Clearance, State Department Tags: , , , , ,
The life of a blog has no certainty. In most cases, a blog has a lifespan better than that of a mayfly. A day. But most blogs do not make it longer than winter bees (six months). We have to-date survived through 26 winter bee seasons! So that’s amazing! Whatever is in the horizon, we are thankful to all of you who made these seasons possible. We are on the last few days of our eight-week annual fundraising. We are grateful to over 400 readers who pitched in since we launched a few weeks ago. If you care what we do here, and you are able to help, please see GFM: https://gofund.me/32671a27.  We could use your support.  ❤️❤️❤️ D!

 

Via FSGB Case No. 2020-002:

Held – The Grievance Board found that because the security clearance of the charged employee had been revoked after final agency review, the Department of State established that the proposed separation of the charged employee was for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the Foreign Service.

Case Summary The charged employee, a Diplomatic Security Special Agent, was notified that his Top Secret security clearance was suspended for failure to cooperate in certain medical assessments. The charged employee’s clearance subsequently was revoked. The charged employee appealed the revocation to the Department’s Security Appeals Panel, which sustained the revocation after consideration of the written submissions of both the charged employee and the Department. Because a Top Secret security clearance is a condition of employment for the charged employee and because the revocation of his clearance was final, the Department proposed to separate the employee for cause. After a hearing on the issue, the Board concluded that the Department had established cause for the separation and evidence that the separation would promote the efficiency of the Service.

Background

On July 11, 2014, the Director of the Office of Personnel Security and Suitability, Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS/SI/PSS), notified the charged employee, via memorandum that his “continued access to classified information was not clearly consistent with the interests of national security.”1 Accordingly, his Top Secret security clearance was suspended pending the outcome of “ongoing Department medical review.” 2 The charged employee held a position as an FS-02 DS Special Agent who required a Top Secret security clearance to perform his duties.

On October 7, 2015, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Domestic Operations notified the charged employee by letter that his Top Secret security clearance was revoked. The employee was afforded 30 days to request a review of this decision. It appears that a review was requested because on March 13, 2019, the Principal Deputy Legal Adviser, on behalf of the Security Appeals Panel (Panel) notified the employee by letter that the Panel voted to sustain the decision of DS to revoke his Top Secret security clearance. This letter noted that the Panel had convened on February 19, 2019; that the charged employee had appeared and answered questions; and that the Panel took into account his responses, as well as written materials provided by the employee, his private counsel, DS.3

On August 20, 2019, the Director General notified the charged employee that the Department proposed to separate him for cause, under Section 610 of the FSA as amended, in order to promote the efficiency of the Service. The separation proposal stated that all Foreign Service positions require a Top Secret security clearance because all FS positions are “critical sensitive.” 4 Thus, because his security clearance had been revoked after all final reviews, the charged employee could no longer maintain a condition of his employment.

The charged employee responded by email on September 3, 2019 to the proposed letter of separation, stating, “Separating me from the Department does not seem right to me.” 5 The charged employee offered no other written or oral response to explain, rebut, or mitigate the separation proposal.

On January 6, 2020, the Department submitted the transmittal containing the separation proposal to the FSGB. On February 25, 2020, the Board conducted a pre-hearing conference (PHC) with the parties by telephone, during which the Board, the charged employee and the Department agreed upon procedural ground rules and a schedule of events prior to the hearing.6

The Department indicated at the PHC that beyond the documents submitted with the Department’s separation file in this case, the agency did not intend to submit any other exhibits or call any witnesses at the hearing. The charged employee indicated that he did not wish to call any witnesses or submit any documentation to the Board at the hearing. Thereafter, the parties reached an agreement on joint stipulations of fact to be presented at the hearing.7

On April 2, 2020, a hearing was convened by the Board on the separation proposal. The hearing was held telephonically, due to the CoVid 19 coronavirus pandemic, the President’s order to maximize the use of telework and the Governor of Virginia’s “stay at home” emergency order. At the start of the hearing, the Board advised the parties that it had determined that there was no need for a video-conferenced hearing because the parties had advised that they intended to offer no witness testimony. Neither the charged employee nor the Department objected to the use of a telephonic hearing process.

The Board found that a Top Secret security clearance is required for the employee’s position; therefore, the agency established that the charged employee failed to maintain a mandatory condition of employment. The Board concluded that the Department established cause for the separation on a single charge of Failure to Maintain a Condition of Employment and that separation of the charged employee will promote the efficiency of the Foreign Service.

3 According to the Principal Deputy Legal Adviser’s letter, “the Panel focused in particular on concerns relating to guideline I (‘Psychological Condition’). … [T]he Panel took note of the fact that [the charged employee] did not appear at the medical evaluation which [he] had agreed to undergo, [his] email of November 2, 2018, and [his] unwillingness during [his] appearance before the Panel to offer information that it could use to determine whether DS’s concerns had been mitigated.” The record does not reveal any additional information about the predicate for the security clearance suspension or revocation.

###

 

 

On #WorldPressFreedomDay, Congrats to @StateDept For Holding Itself Accountable

May 3, 2021 By in 71st Secretary of State, Blinken, Blognotes, Functional Bureaus, Huh? News, Media, State Department, Trends Tags: , , ,
The life of a blog has no certainty. In most cases, a blog has a lifespan better than that of a mayfly. A day. But most blogs do not make it longer than winter bees (six months). We have to-date survived through 26 winter bee seasons! So that’s amazing! Whatever is in the horizon, we are thankful to all of you who made these seasons possible. We are on the last few days of our eight-week annual fundraising. We are grateful to over 400 readers who pitched in since we launched a few weeks ago. If you care what we do here, and you are able to help, please see GFM: https://gofund.me/32671a27.  We could use your support.  ❤️❤️❤️ D!
On May 2, 2021, Secretary Tony Blinken released a statement for World Press Freedom Day. Excerpt below:

Tomorrow, the United States joins the international community in celebrating World Press Freedom Day.  Information and knowledge are powerful tools, and a free and independent press is the core institution connecting publics to the information they need to advocate for themselves, make informed decisions, and hold governmental officials accountable.  The United States advocates for press freedom online and offline, and for the safety of journalists and media workers worldwide.

Freedom of expression and access to factual and accurate information provided by independent media are foundational to prosperous and secure democratic societies.  Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, freedom of expression includes the right of all individuals “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
[…]
The United States is committed to working in partnership with members of the media, the private sector, non-governmental organizations, and other concerned governments to support access to information and defend freedom of expression and the brave journalists who face intimidation, harassment, arrest, and violence in exercising their rights.

Regardless of frontier. Well, now, let me tell you a story.
On March 12, 2021, the State Department announced the appointment of former Ambassador Pamela Spratlen as the Senior Advisor to the Health Incident Response Task Force (HIRTF), aka the Havana Syndrome task force reporting directly to the Department’s senior leadership. (See Ambassador Pamela Spratlen Designated as Senior Advisor to Department Health Incident Response Task Force).
On March 13, I sent an email to the State Department asking if I may submit emailed questions for Ambassador Spratlen to respond regarding the Havana Syndrome and the Task Force.
On Monday, March 15, I got a response from the State Department: “Sure you can send along your questions.”
On Tuesday, March 16, I got another email from the State Department: “Yes, you can forward your questions.”
Late on March 16, I forwarded  sixteen questions via email for Ambassador Spratlen. See the questions here.
On Wednesday, March 17, the State Department acknowledged receipt of questions sent via email: “Thank you for sending this along.”
Then crickets.  Then some more crickets.
On April 5, 2021, I sent a follow-up inquiry.
Still crickets.
On April 8, I sent a follow-up to my follow-up.
There was just radio silence.
As often the case, we get an unofficial chirping cricket. Maybe it was the middle of the night, who knows?
No response was forthcoming. Now apparently, “traditionally State has not engaged with anonymous bloggers.”
Whoops! That was so funny I almost died laughing. This blog has been running almost uninterrupted as a pseudonymous blog since 2008. We can tell you for a fact that the State Department has traditionally engaged with this blogger.
Via the Electronic Frontier Foundation:
Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A frequently cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:
Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
[…]
These long-standing rights to anonymity and the protections it affords are critically important for the Internet. As the Supreme Court has recognized the Internet offers a new and powerful democratic forum in which anyone can become a “pamphleteer” or “a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.”
The State Department at another time has respected these rights, and has traditionally responded to our inquiries through the years. We’ve covered Foggy Bottom at the tail end of Rice’s tenure, and through Clinton, Kerry, Tillerson, and Pompeo’s tenures. We’ve been around so long, we have a headful of gray follicles to show for it.
In 2017 during Tillerson’s tenure, State suddenly stopped responding to this blog’s inquiries or request for comments. What happened in 2017? Tillerson and his crew caused quite a mess in Foggy Bottom. On April 1, 2017, we wrote  Inside @StateDept: Leaked Cable Provides Guidance For ‘America First’ Cost Savings Initiatives to celebrate the time honored tradition of April Fools’ Day. Back in those days, we still had some humor left.
Apparently, the State Department’s leadership at that time not only got really pissed but also lost its damn mind over a joke. This blog was sent a take down email which we published.  See Aww, @StateDept Sends Official Take Down Request For April Fools’ Day Cable.
And that was the end of our exciting relationship with the nameless “Senior State Department Officials” who all held office at the Public Affairs bureau. No one from Foggy Bottom’s PA shop ever wrote back to say, we can’t engage with you anymore because my gosh! you’re an anonymous blogger! (For the record, we’re not anonymous, we have a pen name!).
One contact from another bureau eventually told us … so sorry, we’re not allowed to respond to you.
Fast forward to 2021, the new administration came to office. We got exactly one response from the PA shop before the somebodies shut it down and put our emails back in the “do not respond” lock box.
Truth to tell, a non-responsive State Department was not the end of the world. We are not short of unofficial sources, and typically, what we get from our unofficial sources are better information than the carefully crafted PA talking points. Still, there are times when we do need to have the official word of the State Department. There are occasions  when we need to have its officials on record on specific issues, or to be accountable for the government’s actions. As Secretary Blinken message for this year’s World Press Freedom say, “Information and knowledge are powerful tools, and a free and independent press is the core institution connecting publics to the information they need to advocate for themselves, make informed decisions, and hold governmental officials accountable.” 
And here we are, whether Foggy Bottom likes it or not, we’ve been connecting information with the public since 2008. To the 7th floor folks reading this blog — we may not be the newspaper of record but the Havana Syndrome questions  are for this blog’s readers who needed answers to these questions just the same.  Why? Because there are no answers from inside the building. Or worse, folks fear retaliation when pursuing answers to questions like these.
So just one last question. Is the State Department, our great defender of First Amendment Rights and World Press Freedom around the world using this blogger’s pseudonymity as an excuse not to answer questions about its own handling of attacks which resulted in injuries among its employees, and god knows who else? See Havana Syndrome Questions @StateDept Refuses to Answer.

###

 

Snapshot: State Department’s Remote Missions – YAU, VAU, @US2SOMALIA

May 3, 2021 By in AF |Africa, Ambassadors, Foreign Service, NEA|Near East Asia, Realities of the FS, Snapshots, State Department, U.S. Missions, WHA|Western Hemisphere Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
The life of a blog has no certainty. In most cases, a blog has a lifespan better than that of a mayfly. A day. But most blogs do not make it longer than winter bees (six months). We have to-date survived through 26 winter bee seasons! So that’s amazing! Whatever is in the horizon, we are thankful to all of you who made these seasons possible. We are on the last few days of our eight-week annual fundraising. We are grateful to over 400 readers who pitched in since we launched a few weeks ago. If you care what we do here, and you are able to help, please see GFM: https://gofund.me/32671a27.  We could use your support.  ❤️❤️❤️ D!
Via State/OIG – AUD-MERO-21-16/March 2021:

(U) In the event of a natural disaster, political instability, or other security threats, the Department of State (Department) may decide to evacuate an embassy and establish operations in a separate location known as a “remote mission,” often in another country, for an indefinite period of time. Remote missions include the Yemen Affairs Unit (YAU), which is operating remotely from the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; the Venezuela Affairs Unit (VAU), which is operating remotely from the U.S. Embassy in Bogota, Colombia; and Embassy Mogadishu, Somalia, which began operating remotely from the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, but now mostly operates from the Mogadishu International Airport in Somalia.
[…]
To ensure the safety of mission personnel during natural disasters, political instability, or other security threats, the Department may evacuate an embassy or consulate and establish operations in a separate location. Often the new location is in another country, where missionessential functions continue, and the embassy effectively operates as a “remote mission.” Missions that have operated remotely include the Yemen Affairs Unit, the Venezuela Affairs Unit, and Embassy Mogadishu.1

(U) Yemen Affairs Unit (Remote Mission Site: U.S. Embassy Riyadh, Saudi Arabia) – In February 2015, the Department suspended operations at the U.S. Embassy in Sana’a, Yemen, due to deteriorating security conditions resulting from the Houthis’ takeover of the government.2 One month later, the Department established the YAU remote mission at the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, under the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs.3 On October 24, 2018, the YAU relocated from Jeddah to the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

(U) Venezuela Affairs Unit (Remote Mission Site: U.S. Embassy Bogota, Colombia) – In March 2019, the Department suspended operations at the U.S. Embassy in Caracas, Venezuela, due to security concerns and the deteriorating political situation in the country. On August 5, 2019, the Department established the VAU remote mission atthe U.S. Embassy in Bogota, Colombia, under the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs.

(U) U.S. Embassy Mogadishu, Somalia (Remote Mission Site: U.S. Embassy Nairobi, Kenya) – On September 8, 2015, after years of turmoil following the collapse of Somalia’s central government in 1991, the Department formally established the U.S. Mission to Somalia, based at Embassy Nairobi, Kenya. In December 2018, the Department designated a facility at the Mogadishu International Airport as a U.S. diplomatic facility under the Bureau of African Affairs, though some support staff continue to be based at Embassy Nairobi.

(U) Personnel at embassies and consulates usually include a combination of direct hires— that is, U.S. citizens who are Civil Service or Foreign Service employees—and LE staff. LE staff are typically citizens of the host country and are employed under the authority of the Chief of Mission. Following an evacuation or suspension of operations, LE staff may remain in the host country and continue to work, depending on the mission’s needs.4 For example, since 2015, LE staff based in Yemen have worked to support the YAU now located at U.S Embassy Riyadh. Similarly, since 2019, LE staff based in Venezuela have worked to support the VAU located at U.S. Embassy Bogota. Moreover, in some instances, after an embassy’s closure, LE staff may perform their duties while working remotely or teleworking from their homes in the host country. For both the YAU and VAU, some of the LE staff have been either working remotely or teleworking from their homes due to the closure of the U.S. embassies in both Yemen and Venezuela.

###

Ambassador Daniel Smith to be Chargé d’Affaires, ad interim at US Mission India

May 3, 2021 By in Ambassadors, Appointments, chargé d’affaires, Coronavirus, Foreign Service, FSOs, Hotspots, MEDical, State Department, U.S. Missions Tags: , , ,
The life of a blog has no certainty. In most cases, a blog has a lifespan better than that of a mayfly. A day. But most blogs do not make it longer than winter bees (six months). We have to-date survived through 26 winter bee seasons! So that’s amazing! Whatever is in the horizon, we are thankful to all of you who made these seasons possible. We are on the last few days of our eight-week annual fundraising. We are grateful to over 400 readers who pitched in since we launched a few weeks ago. If you care what we do here, and you are able to help, please see GFM: https://gofund.me/32671a27.  We could use your support.  ❤️❤️❤️ D!

 

On April 30, 2021, the State Department announced the appointment of Ambassador Daniel Smith to US Mission India as Chargé d’Affaires, ad interim.
Ambassador Daniel Smith, the Director of the Foreign Service Institute who recently served as acting Secretary of State and Acting Deputy Secretary of State, will be departing for New Delhi to serve as Chargé d’Affaires, ad interim. Ambassador Smith carries the highest Foreign Service rank of Career Ambassador.
Ambassador Smith’s appointment underscores the United States’ strong commitment to our partnership with the Government of India and the Indian people.  He will spearhead close cooperation with India to ensure that our countries continue to advance our shared priorities, including overcoming the global pandemic.
The United States stands in solidarity with India, and Ambassador Smith is committed to working together with India in partnership.

Related posts:

 

###