◆ SpookStack

Seam: irda of Proof, . It was pointed out that what 19 sufficient proof is doternined by many ‘factors and thot fre-uently the failure to comply with rules of © * sufficiorcy of evidence is caused by administrative necessity. It was: eorceded that the ideolorical convictions of a person MAY be dirtientt ¢ to tO prove especially when there is @ desire to conceal thon. ‘Furthermore, the ' OSA investigators do not interview the apslicant and report only. such routine : ' dtens as backrround information, ete. ‘he revlowera, like tre investigctors, ’ base their determination on the str gagth of the inferenge. concerning ap: roval. | or disapproval for emloynent . an nie ne CON and the Security Comattes have atteapted to : assume ‘tn eases | an inference of Corrmni st Party membership, or its evnivalent, from facts whit ch arg clearly subject in experience to an equal or stronger inference of innocence Tous foreien acents would naturally avoid opinion and not associate with organi zetions under fire and conse uently ponetrate the Department as a result of - { aiversion created by the application of this beste . : : 1 Ir the hypothesis sugzosbed by ble ambiguous cyidence is onc or actual apensy on beialf of a forcign governnent, the hypothesis ahculd be capable of | proof if sufficient investigutive evfort was ap: lied. The detcetion problem is difficult but not insoluble, The standard of proof mst be higher where the individual is an - enployee than where he is merely an ap. licant. There nay be additional : _- gonsiderationa of personnel policy which call for a greater investigative etfort . and competence in certain types of applicants than otheree - Adainistration Congentration of Effort - he same standard of proof was apolied t to high and low ealeried {ndividuals where itens of ideology and affiliations with "front* orcanizations "were duvolveds In many cases the problem scamed to be one of personnel policy _ rather than departmental security. The lack of sufficient personnel, etc, call - "" @ practical distinction between types of cases and, therefore, between standarda of proof, It may be desired, $n order to achieve 4 maximum concentration of eff on important cases, to reject “out of hand" applicants in certain categories . where the record contained unsolved issues bearing on eecurity, ‘This type of pa would consist of new a plicante for employment in positions that could easily ; pe filled by other applicants of e us] ability without Praising questions of publ a ee ey Sole ~ poltey, each as peel 3: elerical Reps obse: s o's a eg bite cee a