dental expenses, not to exceed the cost by common carrier, as prescribed by Section 3.5b (2) of the Standardized Government Travel Regulations, over the most direct route for all persons officially traveling therein. Should your dependents travel separate and apart from you, expenses will be allowed under the same conditions as above.

Very truly yours,

J. EDGAR HOOVER, Director.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
Washington, D.C., October 5, 1964.

Mr. JAMES P. Hosty, Jr.,

Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Dallas, Tex.

DEAR MR. HOSTY: Further consideration has been given to the facts relating to your handling of your duties in connection with an Internal Security case which was assigned to you in the Dallas Division and it has been determined that your shortcomings in this matter was most reprehensible. An unwarranted delay occurred on your part in reporting certain important information and the investigation you conducted in this case was completely inadequate. Your failure to conduct an interview of the subject's wife was inexcusable and your judgment with respect to this phase of the investigation was very bad. In addition, it should have been apparent to you in view of certain information developed, that the subject required a status which would have insured further investigative attention. Furthermore, during subsequent testimony regarding the case in question, you made certain statements which were entirely inappropriate.

In view of the above, you are being suspended without pay from the close of business October 6, 1964, to the close of business November 5, 1964, and placed on probation. It will be necessary for you to carry out your future assignments with greater efficiency and more consideration for the Bureau's interests if you are to continue in the service.

The Federal Salary Reform Act of 1962 provides that before a within-grade increase can be granted, a determination must be made that the performance of the employee is at an acceptable level of competence. Although you have completed the required waiting period for such a salary increase, it is not possible to make a favorable determination regarding your competence at this time in view of the circumstances set out above.

Very truly yours,

J. EDGAR HOOVER, Director.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
Washington, D:C., October 8, 1964.

Mr. JAMES P. HOSTY, Jr.,

Federal Bureau of Investigation,

Dallas, Tex.

DEAR MR. HOSTY: Your Special Agent in Charge has forwarded your letter of October 5, 1964, in which you request that your pending transfer to Kansas City be changed to a metropolitan office with a warmer climate and that the transfer be deferred until a later date because of family problems.

The reason for your request is understandable and this matter has been very carefully considered. However, I must advise that favorable action cannot be taken and you should arrange to report to the Kansas City Office in compliance with your transfer orders as soon as public business permits.

Sincerely yours,

J. EDGAR HOOVER, Director.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
Washington, D.C., October 9, 1964.

Mr. JAMES P. HOSTY, Jr.,

Federal Bureau of Investigation,

Dallas, Tex.

DEAR MR. HOSTY: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of October 6, 1964, in which you have offered your services during your period of suspension.

Your kind remarks have been noted and have been made a matter of record. I regret to inform you that it will not be possible for the Bureau to utilize your services during your suspension period.

Sincerely yours,

Suspend without pay for a period of 30 calendar days beginning at the close of business 10-6-64, and ending at the close of business 11-5-64. This action is being taken in view of his failure to perform his duties in a satisfactory manner.

To: SAC, Dallas (100-10461).

From: SA James P. Hosty, Jr.

Subject: Lee Harvey Oswald, aka IS-R-Cuba.

The following are answers to questions as set forth in the memo of SAC Shanklin to the file, 12/5/63, at the request of Assistant Director James H. Gale.

82-629-77-10

(1) The Dallas Office did not recommend Oswald for the Security Index during period that he was in the Dallas Division because the subject's activities while in the Dallas Division did not fit the criteria for the Security Index as set forth in the Manual of Instructions.

(2) The case on Marina Oswald was opened on a specific recommendation of this writer on 7/19/62, at which time it was noted that she fell within the criteria of the SOBIR program (Manual of Instructions, 105-E). By letter to the Bureau dated 7/25/62, Bureau was advised on a UACB basis that in view of the pending investigation on Lee Harvey Oswald this case would be put in a pending inactive status, to be reopened at a later date for consideration or advisable action. This case was reactivated and in March of 1963 it was determined that the Oswalds had just moved from their apartment on Elsbeth. It was determined that Lee Oswald had been drinking to excess and had been beating his wife on numerous occasions. There had been many complaints from other tenants concerning this. The Oswalds were located at another location on West Neeley Street and a letter was sent to the Bureau advising the status of the case. Upon careful review of the Manual of Instructions, Section 105-E, it was noted that it would be necessary to utilize a friend or sponsor of Marina Oswald for interpreter and that the atmosphere of the interview would have to be conducted in such a manner as to not cause any undue emotional stress or strain on the person being interviewed. In view of the reported marital difficulties between the Oswalds, it was decided to wait a suitable period to determine whether the domestic situation had been sufficiently clarified, so as to permit a proper interview as desired in Section 105-E of the manual. Upon recontact of the subject in May, it was determined that the subject had moved, leaving no forwarding address. Later, when the subject was determined to be in New Orleans, origin in this case was transferred to the New Orleans Office. Dallas Office obtained the forwarding address of Marina Oswald on 10/28/63, and on 10/29/63 verified her residence at 2515 W. 5th, Irving, Texas. One of the primary purposes of the interview of Mrs. Ruth Paine on 11/1/63, was for the purpose of laying the neces sary groundwork for interview of Marina Oswald; however, in view of the allegations concerning Lee Oswald's contact with the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City, it was decided not to conduct this interview until Dallas had been made origin in both the case on Marina Oswald and Lee Harvey Oswald, so that the Dallas Office could be certain that we were in possession of all facts concerning both Marina Oswald and Lee Oswald. Change of origin was not received by the Dallas Office until 11/21/63, and not received by this writer until 11/22/63.

(3) This phase of the investigation was handled solely by former SA John W. Fain.

(4) This phase of the investigation was handled solely by former SA John W. Fain.

(5) This phase of the investigation was handled solely by former SA John W. Fain.

(6) In accordance with SAC Letter 62-48E, results of investigations in Espionage and Nationalistic Tendency cases may be recorded in memorandums to the SAC. It should be noted following the submission of Dallas letter to the Bureau, 3/25/63, such a memorandum was placed in the file covering the investigation conducted in Dallas in May of 1962, also setting forth leads to contact relatives and neighbors within the Dallas-Fort Worth area. It should be noted that subsequent investigation has determined the subjects left the Dallas area in May of 1963. In July of 1963, the New Orleans Office determined that the subjects were residing in the New Orleans Division, and origin was changed. After it had been determined that the subjects had left Dallas, the lead to determine Lee Oswald's employment appeared unnecessary at the time. It should be noted that the subjects were not active in any subversive organizations at this time and had done nothing to arouse any undue interest. The sole purpose of the investigation at this time was to locate and interview Marina Oswald in accordance with 105-E, Manual of Instructions.

(7) After Marina Oswald moved to New Orleans Office, and serials furnished to that office, it was left to the discretion of the New Orleans Office how and when Marina Oswald should be interviewed.

(8) On 11/1/63, following the interview of Mrs. Ruth Paine, a teletype was sent requesting a change of office of origin from New Orleans to Dallas. The Dallas Office had previously received information that Oswald had been in contact with the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. For this reason, the Dallas Office was awaiting a change of origin so that the Dallas Office would be in possession of all informa

tion before attempting an interview of the subject. It should be noted until such time as origin was changed the Dallas Office could not be sure that we were in possession of all information and it was felt until such time this was certain, any interview would be decidedly premature.

(9) The information that Oswald subscribed to The Worker on 9/28/62 was received prior to the time this case was assigned to the writer and it was initiated for file when the case was closed. This case was not re-opened to the writer until 3/25/63, at which time this information was reported.

(10) The information concerning the whereabouts of Lee Oswald was obtained in the later afternoon of 11/1/63, a Friday. This writer did not return to the Dallas Office until after 5 p.m. All security information must go Registered Mail. There is no Registered Mail sent out of the Dallas Office after four o'clock Friday and before the following Monday. This airtel was rough-drafted on 11/1/63, but could not be mailed until 11/4/63.

(11) The Dallas Office received the WFO communication re contact with the Soviet Embassy in Washington, D. C., on 11/22/63. This communication was never routed to this writer.

(12) The Dallas Office determined on 5/27/63 that the subject had moved. Subsequent investigation reflects that they actually moved on 5/11/63.

(13) The information concerning Oswald's contact on 4/21/63 with the FPCC was not received by the Dallas Office until 7/1/63. The New Orleans Office was in receipt of information on 7/5/63 showing contact with FPCC in New York, by letter dated 7/5/63. At the time of the receipt of the information that Oswald had been in contact with the FPCC on 4/21/63, it was known that Oswald was no longer in Dallas and the primary concern was his location so a report could be submitted.

(14) The information received by the Dallas Office on 10/18/63, concerning the subject's contact with the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City was quite limited. INS, Dallas, merely advised that they were in possession of a communication indicating CIA, Mexico City, identified an individual possibly identical with Lee Oswald was in contact with the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. Because of the third agency, this writer was not permitted to actually see the communication. A copy of this CIA communication was forwarded to the Dallas Office by airtel dated 10/24/63 and received 10/25/63. By airtel dated 10/25/63, received 10/28/63, the Dallas Office was advised of the address on West 5th St. in Irving, Texas. In 10/29/63, it was determined that this was the residence of Ruth Paine, and Marina Oswald was residing there. On 10/30/63 and 10/31/63, background investigation was conducted on Ruth Paine to determine whether or not it would be feasible to approach her. On 11/1/63, Ruth Paine was approached and subject Lee Oswald's whereabouts was determined and the New Orleans Office advised. It was deemed advisable, until such time as the Dallas Office had all pertinent information from the New Orleans Office, to await any further investigation. It should be noted that the subject had previously advised agents of the FBI that he would periodically be in contact with the Soviet Embassy in Washington, D.C., regarding his wife's status.

(15) This office furnished U. S. Secret Service in Dallas, Texas, no information concerning Lee Harvey Oswald prior to his arrest on 11/22/63. The Dallas Office furnished no information to the Dallas PD concerning Lee Harvey Oswald prior to his arrest on 11/22/63.

(16) The Dallas Office has maintained close liaison with the Dallas Police and furnishing information concerning racial matters and individuals belonging to hate and klan-type groups. In accordance with Bureau instructions, no information has ever been furnished to the Dallas PD concerning individuals with subversive backgrounds.

Mr. PARKER. Did you appeal your discipline?

Mr. HOSTY. I appealed it to Director Kelley in October of 1973, yes, sir.

Mr. PARKER. Did you appeal it at any time prior to that at the time it was being imposed?

Mr. HOSTY. No, sir; I felt that would be useless.

Mr. PARKER. Why did you feel that would be useless?

Mr. HOSTY. Because it was obvious that the people I would have to appeal to were the ones that were responsible for the change. Mr. PARKER. What is the appeal procedure?

Mr. HOSTY. Actually, there is no appeal other than to the FBI headquarters, and FBI headquarters disciplines you, you can only appeal their decision with one exception if the individual is a veteran, within the meaning of the Veterans Preference Act of 1964, which I am. If disciplinary action exceeds certain limits, like they cannot separate me, reduce me in grade, or suspend me for more than 30 days without the right of appeal to the Civil Service Commission. If you will note, my disciplinary action came right up to that point and stopped. They came up to the point where I could appeal and then stopped. I therefore had no appeal rights.

Mr. PARKER. Yes. Do you know of your own knowledge of other persons who have received discipline on account of the Lee Harvey Oswald investigation?

Mr. HOSTY. Yes, sir; I do.

Mr. PARKER. Would you tell me who they are, please?

Mr. HOSTY. Mr. Kenneth Howe, supervisor, was reduced from supervisor to agent, and was transferred. He was censured twice, the same as I was, in December and then again in October.

Agents Doyle Williams, William Anderton, and Vincent Drain of Dallas, were all disciplined, twice I believe, both in December of 1963 and again in October of 1964.

The agent in New Orleans, Milton Kaack, was transferred. At least two supervisors in FBI Headquarters were demoted and transferred, and at least three others were given letters of censure, but not transferred.

Mr. PARKER. Do you know of anyone who came in contact with the Lee Harvey Oswald case, including the FBI, who was not disciplined or censured or transferred?

Mr. HOSTY. Mr. Shanklin was not. Jack Quigley, who interviewed Lee Oswald in New Orleans, was not. John Fain had already retired and, of course, couldn't be, but everybody else up through Mr. Belmont was at least censured.

Mr. PARKER. Thank you.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Seiberling.

Mr. SEIBERLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hosty, picking up that point, do you have a feeling that, perhaps, this was a matter of hindsight being better than foresight, that the FBI may have censured you because they thought that in retrospect somebody should have taken Oswald more seriously than they did?

Mr. HOSTY. Well, sir, I might add that the disciplinary action taken against me had to do with my handling of the case in the March 1963 period, 8 months before President Kennedy was even going to come to Dallas. At no time did the disciplinary action ever question my judg ment on not referring the matter to the Secret Service. It had to do with administrative handling of my not interviewing Marina Oswald in November of 1963 and my placing a memorandum in the file opposed to writing a letter to the FBI Headquarters in 1963, in May of 1963.

Mr. SEIBERLING. Now, if they took that dim a view about some matters which, at the time, seemed to be insignificant, what sort of a position would they have taken if they had known about the destruction of the Oswald note and your memorandum relating to it?

Mr. Hosty. I don't know, sir.