(UNTITLED)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 48
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 1, 2001
• Sequence Number: 4
• Content Type: TRANS

Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : Cl1W 92A000100100004-3
The 10th meeting of the CIA RETIREMENT BOARD
convened at 2:05 p. m. on Thursday, 27 May 1965, in room 5E62 Hq., with the
following pr e s gnt:
Emmett D. Echols, Chairman
25X1A9a
Paul Borel, DDI
25X1A9a
Alan Warfield, DDS
25X1A9a
MR. ECHOLS: May we convene, gentlemen?
Are there any corrections or additions to our Minutes,
which is Item 1 on our agenda. (No response.) You will note in paragraph 3,
as was requested, we specifically rescinded our previous approval of a public
relations ceremony. Okay, if the Minutes are acceptable to everybody, we
accept them as submitted.
Item 2 on the agenda was supposed to be a review of a memo
to the DCI requesting a delegation of authority to the Director of Personnel to
arrange retirement dates, within a stipulated time period, but we just haven't gotten
25X1A9a
that ready yet. I'd like to ask a question here. as going to give
us a legal opinion as to whether or not he thought this was legally possible, but we
haven't heard anything on this score, either. I personally think that I shouldn't
ask for this authority for a period in excess of six months. It would seem to me that
anything beyond this period is really an extension of employment by the Director in
cases of mandatory retirement, and so on, whereas up to six months could easily
be an administrative delay, let us say, as opposed to an extension of an individual's
service -- and I'd like to get some consensus as to whether this seems a reasonable
4111080breaking point as between administrative action and extension of service.
25X1A9a I think that from the point of view of the CS,
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12: CIA-RD000100100004-3
there was some concern about that, because the man was overseas, he might have
hit age 60, and all that sort of thing. But is there any reason you can't extend
that and instead of making it six months say up to or less than a year? I can see
situations where we might have gotten an individual to go out and replace a man
maybe before he had finished a tour of duty and then something might happen to the
individual back here that would upset all of these administrative plans. So I think
six months could be a little too short a period.
MR. ECHOLS: Of course in future years before you ever send a
man 58 years of age out on ask tour of duty you will recognize that his retirement
will be coming up in a few years, and if you want him out for three years or four
years you would get an extension from the Director, on a timely and orderly'basis,
I presume.
25X1A9a
It has been a long time since I have had any
experience with that sort of thing -- but unless there is some compelling reason,
can you hold it off until we see what Jim and Gerry's experiences have been with
that? - whether six months might be a sufficient-
25X1A9a Of course, even with that ruling, it would still be a
very little problem to get a one-year extension. I think the DDCI has been delegated
all of the authority of the DCI. So I don't think there is any question that he could
sign off on a year. But I still think the wording in there -- I'm sort of worried
about after you leave (indicating Mr. Echols) -- I still think the wording in there
25X1A
should imply with the consent or at the request of the Career Service.
MR. ECHOLS: Oh, it will, indeed. To cite a Regulation that is
comparable, in our present- our old. Regulation, you will find in X1A
Regulation a provision where, after the Director says "This man shall go", you
will find a provision in there that I have the authority to negotiate with the Deputy
Director concerned a convenient date -- but nothing else.
25X1A9a
Okay, let's skip this and go on to Item 3, which is the
Employee Bulletin. This is revision of our original draft. He
has done some things which I think probably strengthen the Bulletin a great deal.
2
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12: CIA-R 6 I TA000100100004-3
He has built a little more philosophy into this thing and has attempted to differentiate,
on a more clear basis, between the normal employee of the Agency and those who are
engaged in more demanding, more esoteric type of duties, and so on.
How many of you have had a chance to read this?
25X1A9a
I had one real fast go around.
MR. ECHOLS: We all know that time is very important -- and I
don't know how many bootleg copies of our regulations have been smuggled out to
the field, but I suspect a lot of TDY travellers have not only taken the regulations out
with them but have already taken copies of the original draft of the Bulletin, and if
we wait too long this thing is going to be obsolete.
25X1A9a
The way I feel about it, I'd like to give you a few
written comments and then say whatever you and Jim agree to is all right with us.
I don't think we will all sit around here and agree on the exact same words --
unless somebody has a basic difference--
25X1A9a
MR. ECHOLS: Does anybody have any major objections to this thing?
There is some question in my mind -- sometimes I
think he is mixing apples and oranges here. On page 2, paragraph 5, "Early
Retirement Under the CIA System" -- he titles this "Early Retirement" but he's
talking about terminated employment. I'm not sort of arguing so much with the
context of what he is saying as the way he is tieing it in here. In other words, the
National Security Act of 1947 is something on its own which gives the Igo"
Director, regardless of early retirement, the ability to terminate anybody. I don't
see how it fits under early retirement. I obviously know what Jim's motives have
been all the way through, to try to explain to people: you are not losing anything,
because we could always get rid of you, regardless of which system. So really what
I'm saying, I question the placement of this under early retirement.
25X1A9a That is just an introductory paragraph. He does go
on into it from paragraph 6 on, in which he gives the new picture against this little
background.
25X1A9a
I think it's another subject all of its own, is what I'm
saying -- the explanation of the National Security Act of 1947, or whatever the heck
you wafiT orovedlFnr Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-BDP78-03092A000100100004-3
QUPFT
 QRET
Approved For Release 2001/07/12: CIA-R 03092A000100100004-3
25X1A9a
Isn't that introductory to getting aroundto talking
about retirement at 50, whether it's voluntary or--
25X1A9a Yes, but he is tying it to termination.
The whole idea was to play that down without covering
it up, as I saw it, and I think he has obtained this objective admirably in this draft.
25X1A9a
Let me ask you this: If the Director wanted to terminate
somebody under the terms of the National Security Act of 1947, can he do it and then
say: You are involuntarily retired under our Act? I mean, aren't they two
separate approaches? Isn't it either one or the other?
MR. ECHOLS: He could certainly separate a person under 102(c), and
if the individual was entitled to benefits under the retirement system, he would, get
them.
25X1A9a I don't know. Joe?
He would get them. He would go the additional step
of citing--
25X1A9a
But he doesn't need the National Security Act of 1947
to involuntarily retire him under our bill.
MR. ECHOLS: There is a difference between involuntary retirement
and involuntary separation, Harry. The latter is far more(embracive) of reasons
and causes and so on, than the former.
25X1A9a
Okay. I guess I'm not making my point, and maybe
I'm not clear. I thought it was two separate concepts: if he wants to implement
the National Security Act of 1947 to separate, that is one thing -- if he wants to
4- involuntarily retire somebody under our Act, that is another thing --
but that the Act itself is not part of our retirement system.
25X1A9a
stated, Joe?
id you find any legal problems in the way this is
Not in the short reading I had of it.
Well, it does sort of imply this is an integral part of
our retirement thing. 44
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-763T92A000100100004-3
25X1A9a
I'll be frank, in my quick reading of it, the
way I read it I thought here is a rather clear exposition of the strongest management
tool we have.
25X1A9a -
I'm just talking in the context of our retirement system--
But in my reading I wasn't putting the emphasis on the
authority already existing in the 1947 Act, I was putting it on the fact that here is a
termination concept clearly stated insofar as it could be applied by the Director
either under the 1947 Act or
25X1A9a
.... (inaudible) ....
Could the Director separate a man now under the
Security Act of 1947 and then have him get Civil Service retirement?
25X1A9a MR. ECHOLS: Yes indeed.
That would be a plain involuntary separation--
But every agency has the right of using the involuntary
separation provision, but not for cause, under Civil Service.
25X1A9a
Ours doesn't have to be for cause. Ours can be
for cause or no cause, as long as the Director--
25X1A9a
Civil Service retirement.
25X1A9a
That is right, but he couldn't always be covered under
If the individual was otherwise eligible for retirement --
normally if he had 25 years of service -- that is the prerequisite -- at any age --
then he would automatically--
25X1A9a
When the Director gets ready to act on somebody, it
would seem to me -- let's say our Act is now in being, and he wants to get rid of
somebody -- he can do it as an involuntary retirement under the new Agency Act,
he could do it under the involuntary provisions of the Civil Service Act, or he could
implement section 102(c) of the Act of 1947. He wouldn't mix them up, would he?
MR. BOREL: Isn't it reasonable to assume he is going to use
whichever system the man is a part of. He's not going to shove him back and forth
between systems. It would be under the system in which he is a member. Then
you go to the next step--
5
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : C'E~092A000100100004-3
25X1A9a
A point of clarification on that. There is no
termination authority for the Director under the Civil Service Act. He only has the
National Security Act for his termination authority. Then that ties in with Civil
Service retirement. We are not under the Classification Act, so our people do not
have the appeal rights which would be found in the Classification Act. Here we come
into a new system in which the system itself contains both voluntary and involuntary
separation authority. But I don't think we have any involuntary--
25X1A9a
... (inaudible)...
We can fire them and put them through the procedures
by adoption -- but I don't know of any case where we have used it.
25X1A9a
No, and we don't use it anymore. Under any other
agency if an employee is involuntarily terminated and he has the age and length of
service to get an immediate annuity under a discontinued service annuity, he gets it.
The termination authority is not in the Civil Service retirement system, the provision
for the annuity is.
MR. WARFIELD: Well, is it necessary that these things be this
crystal clear in this Employee Bulletin? I thought the purpose of this was simply
to explain the program, to relieve some fears, and to really sell it, rather than be
a document to which you could refer for a detailed legal interpretation.
25X1A MR. ECHOLS: You are absolutely correct here, but, as I understand it,
25X1A
it's belief that employees of the DDP, particularly because of the
.experience, are particularly fearful about this involuntary retirement, and he is
trying to put it in the proper perspective -- so it's not a technical document so much
as to put the thing in perspective.
Have you something to add, Mike?
25X1A9a
I was just going to add to that that he was in effect
saying he already has this right under another Act, so the fact that he has it under
this Act does no harm to anybody but it's even better for people because he can do it.
And if you are trying to alleviate that fear, which I know exists in some places in the
CS, I don't see how he could have said it any better than he said it here, If you're going
6
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12: CIA-RDP ET0100100004-3
to bring in that feature, he has the right to terminate at any time, anyway.
25X1A9a
I have no objection to the statement but I think it belongs
somewhere else than as a statement of termination procedure. But I'm not going to
belabor it anymore, if I'm alone on this.
MR. ECHOLS: If I read you right, Harry, it's the fact that we have
a caption here - "Early Retirement Under the CIA System", and then the first few
sentences after that talk about something which has nothing to do, per se, with the
CIA Retirement system--
25X1A9a We are supposedly comparing two retirement systems.
MR. ECHOLS: I personally think the transition from this paragraph 5
to paragraph 6 could be smoothed over a little bit.
Paragraph 5 is background.
The Director has this authority to separate people, in his judgment, for any of many
reasons. Such persons if separated are entitled to whatever benefits they may have
acquired under the Civil Service retirement system. However, under our system
should the separation be for early retirement - Bingo! - they get so much more.
25X1A9a That is right.
You would have to move your caption down to
precede paragraph 6 rather than 5, and give 5 another caption.
25X1A9a This is still a retirement system.
Paragraph 7 is a little conti nuation of this same attempt
of Jim's -- and again, we all know what he is getting at, he is trying to remove this
worry everybody has. He is talking about early retirement -- you can do it if you
have the 15 years. Here again it seems to me he is switching concepts from early
retirement to termination, all in an effort to hit this one point.
MR. ECHOLS: I personally found paragraph 7 very fuzzy. I didn't
know what some of the words meant.
25X1A9a I had to edit it a little bit (to understand it).
So I'm saying it needs a little more working on --
and I'll be glad to provide some comments and then just say you work it out.
25X1A9a I had another point on that same section, with respect
7
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 ? 8-03092A000100100004-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12: CIA-FE2A000100100004-3
to the first complete sentence on the top of page 3, particularly that part of it that
says: "This study revealed that these problems tend, in most cases, to become
acute beyond the age of 50, that the skills and experience acquired abroad are not
readily utilized in any quantity in headquarters... " I doubt if this is borne out by
our experience in the cases that we have considered so far. Certainly the cases
we have been considering are people who are useable in either situation. SO I
wonder if that point is very well taken.
25X1A9a
Isn't it really a misstatement? It's not the skills
and experience that are not readily utilized, it's the numbers of people.
25X1A9a
I have one last comment, and it's again in the same
vein -- again Jim is beating away at this point. This is paragraph 8 -- "... permit
the Agency to maintain an appropriate age balance in the career groups performing
the service related to this Act. " And then I think he is really reaching when he
says, "The provision for involuntary retirement under the Act simply extends and
makes explicit in context of this Act the special authority of the Director originally
set forth in the 1947 National Security Act. " Well, this I think is overstating
the case a little. I mean, it's true- -
25X1A9a
It's literally true. But that doesn't qualify your
statement that it overstates the case.
MR. ECHOLS: I think in terms of the subsequent sentences, Harry,
I couldn't quarrel with that. This is a factual statement, I think. Do you
think this oneI single statement tends to minimize or slur over what
is happening here--
25X1A9a
I think it almost works the wrong way. It says what
we really got out of this Act was the ability the Director formerly had under the
1947 Act to fire anybody for cause, is now specifically spelled out in this Act. Now
this to me is sort of working against him. I think it tends to emphasize that we got
this Act so we could extend this ability to get rid of anybody. Aren't we trying to
sell the Act more as early retirement voluntarily--
MR. ECHOLS: Yes.
Approved For Release 2001/07/12: CIA- F?7 3f92A000100100004-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
SECRET
25X1A9a
Well, that's the way it hit me on this fix fast reading,
that - Boy! this is overstating it.
MR. BOREL: You don't really need that sentence, because that is
what you have said earlier. Just knock it out.
MR. ECHOLS: That sentence could come out very nicely -- the
preceding one and the one following $ flow right together.
25X1A9a
As a matter of fact, couldn't you possibly tie in better
these 1947 Act statements that he made under a separate heading of some kind where
he is trying to make this point.
MR. ECHOLS: I might say that Jim made it very clear that he had
not had time to polish this thing in any way.
MR. WARFIELD: Is this a statement of fact, Emmett: "A choice
to remain in the Agency System automatically places him in a category from which
a higher rate of early retirements, whether voluntary or involuntary, will occur. "
We are limited to 80 a year. Don't we retire more than that under Civil Service?
MR. ECHOLS: No--
25X1A9a
Not at age 50. ... (inaudible).... this
being a whole section on retirement at an early age.
MR. WARFIELD: Okay.
MR. ECHOLS: Are there any other significant comments on this?
25X1A9a
One point I wanted to look for -- and I haven't gotten
to it yet -- is does it make clear the concept that if you have 15 years and 5 you elect,
and if you don't have 5 years of qualifying service when you reach your 15th anniversary
you are out but that subsequently you can get it? This one seems to me to be
causing the most confusion among our people.
25X1A9a
MR. ECHOLS: I'm not sure whether this is covered or not.
(Reading) "...will not be designated to the System
until he has completed his five years... " -- I guess that makes it clear. This is
on page 8. No, then it goes on -- it doesn't make sense -- "Once this
requirement is met... " The first sentence sounds all right -- if he has
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : fitwrf 8-03092A000100100004-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
SECRET
15 or more years but he doesn't have the five he can't be designated until he has
completed his five years of qualifying service. Then he goes on to say, "Once
this requirement is met, the notification of his designation to the CIA System will
coincide with the occasion on which he must exercise his choice... " -- there is
no more anniversary dates?
MR. ECHOLS: That is true. And it's not just automatic that he
will go in -- he still has to be designated a participant and meet the other criteria
as well.
25X1A9a So there is no automatic occasion -- I would think
it's up to the Career Service or the individual to point out the man is now in his
50th year and has finally gotten his five years.
25X1A9a
I think the second sentence of paragraph 15 needs
working over, but I don't think we want to attempt it now.
MR. ECHOLS: I would disagree completely with that first sentence
in paragraph 15: "Normally, designation of an employee with less than fifteen
years of Agency service to the CIA System will be largely an automatic administrative
action on the direction of the Director of Personnel, who acts on the recommendation
of the head of the individual's Career Service. " Quite to the contrary, it requires
a very positive determination by both the individual, as to his service obligation,
and by the Career Board that this is his career field -- and unless that is done it
just won't happen.
25X1A9a Isn't that true, though?
MR. ECHOLS: Yes, but the action of the Career Service is the
very significant one, and this tends to understate it.
25X1A9a
I think he was trying to be responsive to people who
say, "What do I have to do?" "Really, you don't have to do anything -- the
Career Service recommends, and the Retirement Board--
25X1A9a
MR. WARFIELD: They have to sign a Service Agreement, don't they?
Well, almost everybody in this category should have
signed one. Yes, I agree, they have to sign a Service Agreement. Incidentally,
10
Approved For Release 2001/07/12: C19I3092A000100100004-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
SECRET
are you going to keep this Career Service thing going? I notice we still get the
paper saying, "Do you recommend this fellow for the Career Staff?"
25X1A9a It doesn't say "Career Staff" -- I think it says "for
career employee status" or something--
25X1A9a
I thought maybe the fact that he was recommended
for this system would replace it. That just gets him off the probationary period,
MR. ECHOLS: Career employment in this Agency has a legal
significance in our appointment structure. A man prior to that point has been a
provisional employee. Quite to the contrary, rather than have it disappear
we are going to try to strengthen this process of being in a provisional status --
try to make it more a meaningful -- have special Fitness Reports, and
keeping it before the Career Services at all times that this man is provisional -
provisional - provisional, and that that judgment to make him a career employee
is a meaningful one. And we are taking steps to do this right now.
25X1A9a
And I assume that nobody who is not in a career
employee status could be designated as a participant in this system, even though
25X1A
he has over three years of service.
25X1A9a In paragraph 9 shouldn't this be
instead o 25X1A
25X1A9a Yes.
There are a few words here and there that could
stand maybe a little clarity. For example, at the top of page 5, the first line:
"It is clear that precision in defining 'qualifying service' will grow with experience
in applying the Act and the Regulation. " I have my doubts that we will ever
get anything that will approach precision. I think you mean something like equity,
or a reasonable definition of qualifying service. I was puzzled by "precision" --
because I think the more we go into it the more we find that we are not going to be
at all this precise.
25X1A9a I've just gotten to paragraph 16 for the first time--
11
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : Cl lEL . 3092A000100100004-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
SECRET
25X1A9a
MR. ECHOLS: Would you hold that for a second, Harry?
I agree with you, Karl, on that precision in the definition--
And I was a little bit bothered by "exceptional" in
the second line of paragraph 5 -- to say this authority is exceptional to normal
Civil Service employment. My understanding was that it wasn't even a part of
normal Civil Service employment.
25X1A9a
MR. ECHOLS: We are not even a part of the normal Civil Service.
Again, I think we are raising these points, Eck, so
that in the final review of it you would take a look at them.
MR. ECHOLS: It may be exceptional in the Federal service, or
something like that.
25X1A9a
It's the summary and broad nature of the f authority
that is exceptional in government service.
25X1A9a
Then the purely editorial things I would suggest
simply turning our comments over to you and letting you take them for what they're
25X1A9a
I'd like to raise one point. I think among the people
who have had 15 or more years of service and are now qualified, there will be a
sizeable group who have expected to retire at age 62 and have planned on that, and
now they find that they are eligible for designation under this system, which would
put them out at age 60. They are going to calculate that by working two more years
they get a 4% more pension, and they're going to get a higher pension by remaining
under the Civil Service system and working until age 62, as they have intended to do
right along. I'd say this would come somewhere under this heading, "The CIA
System and the Individual with 15 or more years of Agency Service. "
25X1A9a
paragraph 16
This is the comment I was going to make under
I know, as a matter of fact, that under our Career
Service this is going to be one of the first questions asked by a number of people.
12
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIS g"3092A000100100004-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
25X1A9a This is under paragraph 16 -- ... exempt from
designation as a participant in the CIA system would normally be for cause
resulting in permanent disability to meet the obligations of the Service Agreement.
25X1A9a
I was going to make the same statement here that you (indicating are
making, and that Mike has made on a number of occasions, that there are people
25X1A9a
who plainly want to stay until 62. Our who is up for consideration
today - he has 36 years of Federal service, and he is not real interested in getting
into this system. He is about to go overseas on another tour, and when he comes
back he will have 39 years of service. He's saying: I'm better off under Civil
Service.
25X1A9a Even the man who has less than 30 would get a
larger pension by staying until he was 62--
MR. ECHOLS: With the understanding two more years will mean
four percent--
25X1A9a And two years at full salary.
MR. ECHOLS: So those people will probably elect not to go in to it,
and it will be to their advantage to do so.
25X1A9a
But that is sort of ignored in paragraph 16, because
it implies that normally it would only be for cause resulting in permanent disability.
MR. ECHOLS: I think we ought to add to it: or in a few cases
it would be to the advantage of the individual--
25X1A9a
--it would be in the case of a man who could stay
--his advantage could be nothing more than his
desire to stay under Civil Service because it was a government-wide administered
service rather than'a limited Agency one.
25X1A9a What I'm saying is he can elect when he gets to the
15th year to get out,, and if he does it's because of some advantage to him.
25X1A9a I read the sense of this paragraph to be he is either
going under this system or else -- unless he .... (inaudible) .... Then this
is much stronger, I' think, than was intended.
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RWP78-03092A000100100004-3
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
SECRET
MR. ECHOLS: We have established previously in this Bulletin that
the CIA system is generally more favorable and more advantageous, generally --
but here I think we ought to make provision for those circumstances where it is
not to his advantage,.
MR. BOREL: But you do have the word "normally", which explicitly
indicates there are 'other situations. I don't see any trouble with that. If
you have an abnormal situation, then we're going to hear the facts.
25X1A9a
You are saying the bulk are going to be for disability,
and I'm saying the bulk will be because people will want to work for two more years.
25X1A9a
That is what I think. I know we will have a lot of
such cases - a heaver percentage of such cases among our people over 50 now.
25X1A9a
Now, as a Career Service, Commo, or even the DD/S,
I don't think we have quite faced up to what are we going to do when a fellow who we
would like to have stay in this system and get out at 60, he says, "I don't want to. "
I have heard the immediate reaction of Red White: What the hell! - they would
get a pretty lousy assignment. Would we take punitive action when a fellow--
MR. ECHOLS: Let's not take that up here.
25X1A9a
We in Commo are sort of saying: What do we do
when a fellow says, "Hell, I want to stay another two years" ?
25X1A9a I would say the answer to that question would depend on
whether an agreed date has been specified. If an agreed date has been established
already, I think it's: an act of bad faith to pull the rug out from under the man.
MR. ECHOLS: Whether there is an agreed date or not, Roger, for
the next few years there will be people who for the past five years at least have known
these are the rules of the game - 60 with 20, 62 with five or more -- so in effect
this is an agreed upon date. So if you suddenly changed the groundrules on these
people, it would be kind of rough -- and I don't think we should unless we have to.
This problem will disappear, I think, in a few years.
25X1A9a
Now you may have the man who says: "Well now, fine,
if I may go back to the agreed date -- in spite of what you say, I have been told I will
14
Approved For Release 2001/07/12: CIAAR
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
retire in 1968 -- I have agreed to this -- now, can I not go under the system and
get the full two percent for every year, including the two additional years of
employment -- because the dates have already been agreed to? " I would say "no
there, but this is going to be asked.
MR. E,CHOLS: It seems to me it would be more equitable, Roger --
these are people who are qualified for this system - they have served in this type of
duty, and so on - right? You have presently agreed: You will retire at such and
such a date, at which time you are 62. If this is the case and if you would like
to live up to this obligation and you would like to let the individual exercise his
option, why not go to the Director and get an extension for this man to that date --
and then he can stay under the system and get the benefit of it, and you can fulfill
SECRET
your obligation to the employee. Why penalize even that 3. 75%?
MR. BOREL: I don't see that, myself. If they have made a deal
... (inaudible)...
Now you don't always need to apply ....
when you don't want him to stay--
25X1A9a
This is one that is really bugging me. And I
certainly understand people wanting to stay until 62. We are beginning to run into
people 55, 56, and so on -- we haven't really sat down with them yet about early
retirement -- but if they say, "Gosh" -- and let's assume they have 15 and 5 --
"If I say yes I'll have only four more years to go, so just on that basis -- and I would
rather work until I'm 62, getting a full salary -- so I'm not going into this system. "
Now really we would prefer that they get into this new system and get out at 60.
They're not bad enough to get rid of ahead of time, but you're not particularly
interested in carrying them for another two years. I think our hands are tied a
little bit by this law--
25X1A9a That is what Congress intended. It's up to you if you don't want them separate them -- try to take some action with the Director.
But the Congress intended to give them the right of election. Now we can't sit here
and take it away from them.
MR. ECHOLS: You're not going to get the maximum utilization out
15
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA
7 I092A000100100004-3
.0 r4
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
SECRET
of this system that you might like, in some cases.
25X1A9a
25X1A
You stated the rule in reverse that we used in
trying to get this system -- that is, we wanted to have honorable retirement, rather
than using-
25X1A9a
I'm saying Congress intended he should have
this election, and it gave it to him. Now we can't sit around here and try to
figure out gimmicks to take it away from him.
25X1A9a
I often wonder, though, did they use the words they
meant to use? Didn't they really want to give the man the right to say, "Boy! I'm
in this system, and you can never throw me out. " Did they really mean we want
to give this man a right to get out if he wants to?
25X1A9a
They said it specifically at the hearings -- so
he would have a choice, and if it were to his advantage to OW retire under the
other system, he could take it. And that is the only benefit they really gave to
him -- and when they were talking about that they were talking about cutting down
the Director's authority -- in that one place only.
25X1A9a
25X1A
I believe stated it this way: that there
ought to be some point in an individual's career where he could be sure from then
on he wasn't going to get this transfer in and transfer out treatment, and know from
then on what was going to happen to him, and that led up to where this 15 year period
was finally agreed on.
MR. ECHOLS: I'm afraid we're stuck with it -- I really think so.
Are there any other comments?
25X1A9a It seems to me the inference is erroneous in one
word in paragraph 4 on page Z. Right in the center of the paragraph there is a
sentence: "At the time of his 15th anniversary in the Agency the individual will be
able to exercise a choice -- provided that he has completed 5 years of 'qualifying
service' and renews his service obligations -- of either reaffirming his desire to
remain in the CIA System for the remainder of his career or to request his return
to the Civil Service System. " I disagree with the term "reaffirming" -- the use of
16
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIAEC092A000100100004-3
 17 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
SECRET
the word "reaffirming" implies that he has had a chance to say something previously,
which he has not.
25X1A9a think Jim is talking about that Career Service agreement--
Up to this point he has had no choice -- he merely
indicates which way he wants to go.
25X1A9a
If you think in terms of the agreement he has signed,
that he will go anywhere, and so on--
25X1A9a
This specifically says "reaffirming" his desire to
remain in the system.
MR. ECHOLS: When he first was put into this system he affirmed,
for the first time,that he wanted to be in the system and that he would accept the
service obligations, so at the 15th anniversary Jim is calling for a reaffirmation
of his desire to stay in the system and acknowledge his service obligation -- isntt
that correct?
25X1A9a
Jim has made this statement here, that in terms of
management he would like to call a man in at the completion of 15 years and say,
"Look, are you still ready and willing to live up to your service obligations?" In
that sense he would be reaffirming--
25X1A9a
The inference I got from it was that he might have
the opportunity to say whether he wanted to go under the system or not. I think
it is pretty well settled that he has no choice originally.
MR. ECHOLS: We notify each individual when we first put him in,
and tell him of his right to appeal that -- but if he accepts it he is doing two things:
he is affirming that he wants to be in the system, and doesn't want out - because he
didn't appeal it, and he has accepted the service obligation.
25X1A9a
rather than "reaffirming"?
25X1A9a
Why couldn't it be rectified by saying "affirming"
I can give you an analogy that might help. Your
certification to the Bureau that an individual is nominated by the Director
for Civil Service retirement requires that he certify, in addition, that if the
indiviciJrQeoIlaageOQ~(/~ZC~~3~(~AQ~1s0~~~3 onerous type of
17 SECRET
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
SECRET
service he had previously and at his age this should not be required and he should
be allowed to retire. In this reaffirmation you are now stating you are going
to continue performing the same type of service you have always been under, as
well as your desire to stay under the retirement portion of the program -- it's
the workload or the type of work and type of service that is important, rather than
the system -- so you are reaffirming the service, rather than reaffirming the
desire to be under this retirement system.
MR. ECHOLS: Anything else on this? (No response.) Well,
we will get together with Jim as soon as he is available, and if we can shape up
something in which we are mutually confident, is it all right with you people if we
go ahead with it?
25X1A9a Yes, sir!
Other Board members indicated in the affirmative . . . .
MR. ECHOLS: Now, this comparative chart, are there any
25X1A9a
I didn't give the members copies of it. I didn't
know if you wanted to go into that.
MR. ECHOLS: Are there any significant changes in this chart
since they saw it last?
25X1A9a No.
25X1A9a MR. ECHOLS: If you don't mind, we will just Oft skip this chart.
May I make one quick comment about an addition?
There is nothing in the chart that points up the continuation of either FEGLI or
Health Benefits insurance. They are substantially the same under both systems.
This might be one added item, just to be sure it's not overlooked by the individual.
MR. ECHOLS: I think that is an excellent idea. Okay. Anything
else? (No response.)
Now, we have 14 cases today, all of which I think are going
18
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CI&l j 13092A000100100004-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
SECRET
25X1A9a
fairly easy. Under Tab A we have an individual who has been proposed as
meeting the basic criteria, has 15 or more years of Agency service, and who has
already applied, in writing -- and I have it here -- for voluntary retirement,
which request has been approved by the DD/P. Her name is
This is for voluntary retirement, and the desired date of retirement is as soon as
by
possible or/July 1. I have her request here. (Mr. Echols then read this
letter.) This was submitted in October, 1964 -- so she does wish to retire as
quickly as possible -- and it was approved on 21 May by the DD/P, so I would
assume we could waive the 30-day notice provision, because she obviously has(hac
notice, and she could be retired 1 June.
I might call attention to our new summary form here. You
will often find discrepancies between the periods of qualifying duty and that which
we have positively verified, so on our summary form we are putting the word
"verified", so you will know at a glance that this has been verified by our staff
;J after it was submitted by the Career Service. And on the nomination form
we have totalled this all up so you don't have to engage in mental arithmetic. Then
on the bottom of the summary form we have given the details of our verified service
and we show the date of the computation down below. And the years of Agency
service in all cases will have been verified by us if it's on the summary form.
We can't verify positively the Federal service, because there may be more than
that claimed, but we don't necessarily have the records in the Agency to conclusively
verify that service. A person may have some qualifying service which we have no
record of, or no knowledge of.
25X1A9a
Well, obviously you have to before you retire--
MR. ECHOLS: Yes, but this would have to be done by a search
of records, and in some cases the individual is going to have to pay in some money
to get credit for the service.
MR. WARFIELD: But it's not likely to be less than is stated here?
MR. ECHOLS: Oh no, it won't be less than this, because this does
Approved For Release 2001/07/12: CIAO
i -3092A000100100004-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
SECRET
come from our records.
25X1A9a Are there any questions about
shall we approve her--
25X1A9a
I so move,
. , . . This motion was then seconded and unanimously
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
passed. . .
MR. ECHOLS: In Category B we have one individual,
who will be subject to mandatory retirement immediately upon designation.
is age 63, a GS-14, has had 24 years of Federal service, 12. 10 years of
Agency service, and 76.15 months of verified qualifying service.
25X1A9a
Again, there seems to be no question--
25X1A9a
MR. ECHOLS: is going to be retired under Civil Service
on June 30th, but if we move quickly enough we can retire him under our system.
I would suggest on the same date -- any objection to that? Any reason why he
couldn't be--
MR. BOREL: What is the reason for using up a good slot for this
MR. ECHOLS: For the simple reason that he appears to have
qualified and to have earned it, and I think that we decided not to discriminate--
MR. BOREL: I think in these cases where Agency policy has been
waived and the guy has gotten some benefit, it seems to me that might be an
extenuating circumstance. This guy is about a year overdue now.
25X1A9a
MR. ECHOLS: I think we AMM decided, though, as a matter of policy--
We did earlier on sort of say that, right or wrong,
that anyone, whether he was eligible for Civil Service or not, we would allow in.
I assume there will only be a handful of them.
25X1A9a
You mentioned 1 July instead of 30 June. What is the
20
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : ClA @ - 1 092A000100100004-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
SECRET
MR. ECHOLS: Under our law retirement takes effect the first
day of the month following -- the annuity takes effect.
25X1A9a
I asked that because we have a case -- Paul, as you
know, we are required to be down to a specific on-duty figure by 30 June--
MR. BOREL: (Laughing) I'll give you a few day's grace.
Because this will cause us to be one above what
25X1A9a
we otherwise would be on 30 June.
MR. ECHOLS: Roger, he can be separated as of 30 June and his
annuity can start 1 July -- so you won't need that day of grace. (Laughter)
Under Tab C we have three people, none of whom will be
eligible for immediate retirement but who have 15 or more years of Agency service
and therefore will be called upon to immediately exercise their option to go into
25X1A9a
the system or stay out. The first one is
who has 63. 01
months of qualifying service, 21 years of Federal service, 17. 8 years of Agency
service -- he is currently on an overseas tour, so actually he has a total of
77 months of qualifying service. Any questions or discussion, or objection?
(No response.)
25X1A 71.07 months of qualifying service. He
is very much of an overseas careerist and I rather imagine he will be serving
one or more additional tours overseas. Any comments, discussion, or objection?
(No response.)
Alan M. Warfield. Would you care to reaffirm your
25X1A9a
willingness to meet your service obligations? (Laughing)
MR. WARFIELD: (Laughing) I not only reaffirm, I volunteer it.
You're not the only member of this Board whose case
is going to come before it.
MR. ECHOLS: Any objection to any of these three cases? (No
response.)
25X1A9a Under Tab D we have one case -
getting very, very close to the 15 year point. I don't quite know how to handle this.
21
Approved For Release 2001/07/12: CIA ffily092A000100100004-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
SECRET
We coula stall it until July and not have to look at it again. He's really no
different from the three preceding ones, or won't be any different two months
from now.
25X1A9a He's got the qualifying service.
MR. ECHOLS: He has 75.24 months of qualifying service -- and
again, I would say, very much of an overseas careerist -- ready to go, and likely
to go. Any objections to this one?
(No response.)
Under Tab E we have eight cases. These are employees who
have something less than 15 years of Agency service, but all of whom have been
proposed and who appear to be qualified.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a I might add on the first one,
25X1A6a
he definitely wants to retire -- and, really, he has extended for the third year in
- -- and he can do the job for us, so I don't mean just for that -- and that
will give him the full five years. So while he has 45 now, at the conclusion of this
tour he will have the 60 months.
25X1A9a
MR. ECHOLS: The next one is who has
72-plus months of qualifying service.
25X1A9a
Now Herb strikes me as one who might well elect
to stay out of this system -- but I guess that is up to him to decide. I say that
because Herb has 34 years of Federal service right now, and he's only 53, and if
he expects to stay around until he's 60 he's going to have 41 years.
MR. ECHOLS: I would think if he wants out in the near future he
would go in, and if he doesn't he will stay out. I will have to write him a very
clear letter to make sure he understands what the issues are.
25X1A9a Now I also have -- only because it is a companion
25X1A9a
piece -- and _I let this ride on through only because I figured it
25X1A9a
would be a, good exex.cise. -- but I'm quite sure that- who has 36 years of
Federal service right now, and who is about to leave for them is going to
25X1A6a
elect to stay out -- that is, when he gets his letter from you, he's going to say:
I'll stay in Civil Service.
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CI~QCIQ 3092A000100100004-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
SECRET
25X1A9a
MR. ECHOLS: These are interesting cases, if only for these reasons.
The next one here is a Personnel careerist,
has 64.15 months of qualifying service, and I will attest for the fact that Rex is
ready, able and willing to go at any time, and very probably will.
25X1A9a
Mr. Chairman, in all these cases, we don't
get the rear of the Form a 3100--
MR. ECHOLS: This is an economy measure -- but I can assure you
that in each case we have them here.
25X1A9a
We are getting the statement that they are in
the type of qualifying service--
MR. ECHOLS: Yes, that is on the initial nomination. .
age 50, 22 years of Federal service--
Here again you have one of our types -- and,
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
obviously, within the confines of this room
is a very marginal
employee, and he recognizes it and is very willing to retire. He is so bad we
hate to send him overseas again, but I have come to the conclusion that rather
than keep him for 12 more years we're going to send him over for a 1-year tour
somewhere, so that he can retire.
MR. ECHOLS: That is one reason we have this system. He will
come up and apply for retirement, I presume, a year or a year and a half from now?
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
That is right.
MR. ECHOLS: It won't be an involuntary deal, is what I'm getting at.
No, it will be voluntary.
MR. ECHOLS: The next one is with 71.18
months of qualifying service, and he is currently overseas. I don't think there
is any question here.
25X1A9a
we have already discussed. He has 56.18 months
of qualifying service. How did you say you were going to handle him? He is
the one who is going to stay out anyhow?
25X1A9a
is under orders -- he is leaving within
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-1413P78-03092A000100100004-3
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
JWEI'
the next month or so--
MR. ECHOLS: With 36 years of service--
25X1A9a
He still has -- before he hits his 15th anniversary
he has enough time to become qualified -- he is only short four months, so he
will be able to get that in, regardless.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a He is different than- then. You want him
25X1 A9 a the CIA system and keep him in the system.
Right.
5X1A9a
But this next one - is an interesting one,
to me. He just got back in July, 1964, from an overseas tour. As you can see,
he needs seven more months or so of qualifying service. He has a year and a half,
roughly - 1. 7 years - before he has his 15 years -- so theoretically he is eligible
for designation. Now I know he is not going to go overseas within the next year
or year and a half. So this brings up the question: do we put him in and then take
him out at the end of a year and a half, and send him overseas and put him back in?
MR. ECI-IOLS: It would be far better not to put him in at the present
time, I think.
25X1A9a
I tried to explain that to him -- and he doesn't care --
but he also brought up another thing, that he thinks he is qualified - but he's really
reaching! -- because he is in COMINT -- he says, "In my mind, I'm in that category
where I do something I can't sell anybody anywhere else, and even while I was here
in the United States that is qualifying service, as I read that Act. " I said, "Well,
the time has not yet come for that test case yet. " But he thinks it is, the way he
10 reads the Act. As I say, I didn't submit that, and I don't think it stands
a chance -- but I'm just saying, this is what goes on in peoples' minds.
25X1A9a
If you want to test it, hold him out and let him
appeal, and let him bring up the COMINT side.
25X1A9a
You don't get a nice, clear-cut case for an appeal --
there's even a question on him because he has enough time left to get other qualifying
service. Now I haven't listed it, but if I listed it as qualifying service for the
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : g)'-03092A000100100004-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
SECRET
reason that I think all of his headquarters service was qualifying because he is in
a trade that is not(sellable), or he can't tell anybody about, then we would have to
face up to it. The Board has indicated they would like to keep holding off on
am-
these things until it is really necessary.
MR. ECHOLS: This raises a question in my mind that I would like
to discuss for a minute. Here this man has time enough between the present date
and his 15th anniversary to get the requisite months of qualifying service. But
the Career Service can tell us that in all probability they're not going to use this
man. in such a way during these months--
MR. BOREL: You don't keep him out of the system--
MR. ECHOLS: Shouldn't we go more on the statement of the Career
Service as to whether it's probable that he will do this, rather than put him in and
have to pull him out, with the attendant administrative responsibilities and
confusion--
25X1A9a This is what I'm specifically recommending, that
we not put him in, knowing that we are only building up another case for ourselves--
MR. BOREL: The real question is whether you are doing the
individual an injustice -- and you are not by postponing this case.
25X1A9a It does bring up this point, and I guess it's very
theoretical -- and he is aware of this, although he is not going to get excited about it if he dies within the next year and a half his wife would get a larger annuity if he
was a part of this system.
MR. WARFIELD: Is that true?
I think it i s - -
25X1A9a Its going to be 3. 75, definitely.
Then you should put him in here.
This is the technicality I was waiting on.
MR. ECHOLS: Our regulations don't require that we let somebody
in because there is enough time--
25X1A9a
No, but we have to approach this one that if this man
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA- Q3792A000100100004-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
SECUj
25X1A9a
now comes up with an appeal what would we say are our reasons for keeping him out?
Our reason would have to be that we wouldn't send him overseas within that time but he is saying, "According to the law I am eligible for designation.
MR. ECHOLS: Why does he say that?
Doesn't the law say if you have enough time before
your 15th year--
25X1A9a
It says you must have enough time before the 15th year
to be designated, but the reverse isn't necessarily true, and we would have to look
to the Career Service to tell us that you really expect him to get the service.
25X1A9a
What was the answer given under Section D
by the head of the Career Service in this case? Didn't he say there that he is
serving in a career field which normally requires the performance of qualifying
service--
25X1A9a
He is - - but he's a guy who has been back for one year,
and normally he is going to be here for a 3-year tour and then go out again.
25X1A9a I thought if you could get your qualifying service
MR. ECHOLS: Let me read this Section D to you -- and I think,
Harry, you probably should not have submitted this -- "Based on his career
assignment and past and prospective performance of qualifying service, this
employee is recommended for designation as a participant in the CIA RETIREMENT
AND DISABILITY SYSTEM. " Now let's stop right there. You have looked at
this case, you know the regulations, and you know what your plans are for this man
for the next year and a half, in all probability, so that is his prospective performances--
25X1 A9a If we take one thing at a time, very legalistically,
he is in a service IM where he goes out and comes back -- he just happens to be
back now -- but strictly speaking, answering that question -- I mean, I'm using this
as a bit of a test case, for guidance. My ultimate recommendation would be
leave him out, except for this one technicality.
MR. BOREL: Leave him out and let him appeal -- that is what I
would do.
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-Fi6P78-03092A000100100004-3
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
MR. ECHOLS: I think we should return this one to you, and we
should not pick him up. I think we should notify him as to what and why.
25X1A9a
He won't care.
But didn't you state another ground, too - that he
felt he had other qualifying service?
MR. ECHOLS: I would like to speak to that subject today, if we
have the time.
25X1A9a He happens to be an agreeable type, because he
is saying, in his own mind, "It isn't critical to me whether I stay under Civil Service
or this Act -- I prefer getting out at 60, but by that time I will have five years
of qualifying service and at that point I can elect to come into this system. " So
he is pretty reasonable about it -- but he is curious about all the factors.
MR. ECHOLS: Didn't you also say he was claiming qualifying
service on some other basis--
25X1A9a
Of course, he isn't in a position to claim -- he's
saying, "I feel I have five years within the meaning of this Act, because this is
the way I read it." Well, I couldn't say we have ruled against. that. I have
only been able to say to him, "From the type of things -- you don't stand a
prayer. " But we don't really have any decision that would sweep aside these
things if they're unique -- you know, that third item in the Bill that says you are
engaged in work that is so sensitive, and not revealable, and you can't tell anybody
about it -- he thinks he is under that. I don't.
MR. ECHOLS: Is it the consensus of the Board this man should not
be put in the system in view of the probability that he will not have 60 months
come the 15 year--
25X1A9a I think you better look at the regulation again
"Designation. In
before you say that, because all it says is order to qualify for
designation as a participant.. " Now suppose he appealed. He would say: "I'm
over 25 years of age" -- and then he goes on through these -- and paragraph (f)
says: "Have sufficient time prior to completion of 15 years of service with the
27
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
Agency within which he could complete a minimum of 60 months of qualifying
service... " Now this man can. Now, whether they intend to or not, he can --
and I think the General Counsel's Office ought to be asked-
MR. ECHOLS: But don't the regulations also contemplate the
nomination of the individual by his Career Service?
25X1A9a
again.
It seems to fall right back on his Career Service
Suppose we elected not to nominate him, wouldn't
he, as an individual, have the right to appeal to the Board? I mean, after all,
we're all going by the same regulation. It's sort of a sticky one -- this is
why I am trying to emphasize it. Now this particular man is not going to appeal it,
so the Board would get off easy if you agree "Don't put him in. " But the next
fellow -- there might be another case -- and it's just a question of how long we keep
putting off this decision, or a variety of decisions. In other words, if the man
still has time, be it theoretical or not, he is put in -- the only gimmick being the
death benefit thing -- then maybe we have to put him in. Now if it's just a matter,
of a bookkeeping entry, rna ybe it's not terribly significant. At one point I thought
we transferred the names and funds over to Civil Service, and then took it back,
but I gather this is not now really the case -- I don't know how complicated it is.
25X1A9a
It's quite complicated, believe me. It's not easy.
It seems to me you would have a lot of problems
with this -- because any man coming back from overseas, if youvm want to decide
on the spur of the moment, "He is not going back for three years, because we want
to keep him on the desk here" -- you could say this person is not serving on a
career basis in a field which normally requires -- so you take him out of that. But
another fellow that you know is going back in three years, and you want him to go
back in three years, are you going to say the same thing for him?
,, MR. ECHOLS: I think if in the judgment of the Career Service --
and there is enough time for the man to do this -- if they think undoubtedly in due
course he is going to make it, then why not put him in? Right? But if you think
28
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
for some reason or other, that maybe this guy is never going to go overseas again,
or you are not satisfied with his overseas performance, or something like that,
then I would keep him out.
25X1A9a
Then you are , in effect, on this one subparagraph,
you are saying to him that he is not serving on a career basis in a field which
normally requires the performance of qualifying service as an integral part of a
career in that field.
25X1A9a
to get a legal decision on it.
25X1A9a
We are not saying that. I really think we should try
Let me try one more question. Didn't you indicate
that without any question before he reaches age 60 he is going to have more than
60 months, and he is going to make it?
25X1A9a
I would hate to state that--
I mean, there is nothing against it.
No.
Let me move up 15 months. Now we put him in today,
and 15 months from now he comes up for review on the 15 year provision, and we
have to make that determination now. Is he still--
25X.1A9a According to the rules? Who the hell knows.
I think it really boils down to some five months and some days. He may even get
some TDY. But at that point we don't have any choice -- at that point if he
doesn't have five years he's out.
MR. ECHOLS: We lost most of our latitude here, Joe. We had
a complete exception clause originally.
25X1A9a I think on the basis of this adverse decision in terms
of the man's death benefits, that there should be a legal decision on do we have to
go through the mechanics to protects him during this next 18 months, or don't we?
That is my feeling. Because, as I say, Mike, right now it's a year and a half,
and I'm almost positive he is not going out, but with the next guy it could be three
years, and you're not quite as sure -- or it's two years. In other words, the law
29
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
says if there. is enough time left so he could do it, he is entitled to be a participant.
As I say, this guy will not appeal it, but if he did, I'm not too sure the legal decision
wouldn't be to put him in.
'MR. ECHOLS: We need a guinea pig case -- lots of them, as a matter
of fact. We could play this one of two ways: throw him out and see what happens -
or ask him to appeal; or we could put him in and at the end of the 15 years toss him
out -- and then you would be putting him in again later, probably.
25X1A9a Wouldn't this be a good case to try the IG machinery
and run it through? You have a friendly citizen, well under the control of his
Career Service, who is not at all antagonistic.
25X1A9a
ask you for that opinion?
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
your (indicating
25X1A9a
Joe, just within the family here, why can't we just
I think it would be better not to have the guy appeal.
I'd like to say: If he appealed and it wound up in
I shop, what would the ruling be?
. . . Coffee break . . . .
MR. ECHOLS: Could we go back now and finish up this-case?
The way I see this thing, your Career Service has certified on the back of this form
that based on his career assignment and past and prospective performance of
qualifying service you recommend him for inclusion in the system. You could
Just as easily have not recommended him, it seems to me, and in view of the fact
that you do not have plans for him which will permit him to complete the requisite
60 months by the time he reaches the 15th year, and you know this is going to
generate an administrative problem,. I would suggest that your Career Servic_ and
,ny other Career Service in like circumstances, merely postpone the recommendation
for designation in the system. The only reason for not doing so is because you're
saying the man might die in the meantime. Well, one alternative is for the Career
Service to delay making this judgment until they are a little more sure that the man
is going to continue in this career field and will have a reasonable chance of
30
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
25X1A9a
acquiring the 60 months--
Can't we just table the case until--
MR. ECHOLS: But if we leave the case in, I really think we have
no choice but to probably approve him.
25X1A9a I think that would be the legal decision on this.
MR. ECHOLS: Is this a matter for a legal decision?
25X1A9a
I don't know--
What is the appeal mechanism? I mean, if it
came up here would we sit in judgment again--
25X1A9a
It could be the IG, and the IG would come and ask
the Board why they had not accepted --
MR. ECHOLS: If the Board rejects this over the recommendation
of the Career Service, I think you would have a + factual case which could
be appealed and probably a legal finding reached. But in a case where the Career
Service does not make the judgment which is necessary, but postpones the judgment,
is it then a legal case?
25X1A9a
Of course, it is interesting to note that I did not
specifically go to the Admin people in Commo and say, "Do this. " They, in the
normal course of events, concluded this man was entitled to be designated -- because
that is the way they read the Bill - he has enough time left so that he could. Now
I'm being possibly a little more positive than I should, because a year and a half
is a long time in this outfit, and maybe something will happen in nine months that
will decide this thing more -- but I don't think so, and I'm sort of telling you this--
25X1A9a
an event?
25X1A9a
Is he one that might be used in an emergency, in
MR. BOREL: Well, my current view on this is that if you didn't
lication, then
I think we ought to go by the record and let him in. You shouldn't have let the case
come forward here unless you were willing to back it up.
31
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
25X1A9a
I think we have answered every statement on there
honestly. There is nothing there that says, "Will you swear--
MR. ECHOLS: I quite agree.
25X1A9a
Then I think we have to buy him.
Now maybe we're coming to something which says
on the form - where, if this man does not have time, do you, as a Career Service
head, feel that its likely that he will have it? Well, if we have to answer that
question, that is another question.
MR. ECHOLS: We probably should not let administrative expediency
lead us to hold people out of this system when there are possible benefits to them
by being in it.
25X1A9a I'm afraid to say that that could be the final decision
on the thing.
25X1A9a
MR. ECHOLS: I'm for letting him in.
This is a clear-cut one, but I think that over the next
six months we're going to have many where the fellow has 18 months or so to go,
and you're going to have to run around and say to (ONE) or FDD, "Do you think
this fellow will go out during this period and earn this time?" - and everybody has
to sit down and decide he will or he won't -- and I'm not sure you want to start a
system like that--
MR. WARFIELD: Emmett, maybe if we forced this issue -- we're
really not concerned with this situation now, because he is clearly entitled to be a
participant. Now the 15 year thing has us bugged. Now maybe we could work out
a system where these men could be held in limbo. If Harry has a plan - "Well,
very shortly now we will be sending 10 him back overseas ...... " -- maybe we
could just hold this in abeyance and not transfer him back to Civil Service, and then
at a later date, if he doesn't go, say we would like to transfer him back as of such
and such a retroactive date.
MR. ECHOLS: How about that, Byron? In other words, if
we put him in the system, if you don't initiate any action vis-a-vis the retirement
3Z
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
system until the situation is clarified -- in other words, if you just held this for a
year and a half until the 15th year came up, and didn't bother to transfer his money
yet--
MR. BOREL: Basket leave--
25X1A9a Then he wouldn't be covered by the system.
Yes, he would be fully covered -- he has been designated.
MR. ECHOLS: We designate him but we don't go through the admini-
strative side of this thing.
25X1A9a In this case you are denying the Fund the utilization
of the investment of the moneys we would obtain from the Civil Service Commission.
MR. ECHOLS: True, for a year or a year and a half --
25X1A9a
As this multiplies it becomes a sizeable figure.
MR. WARFIELD: Or, Emmett, you could go one step farther --
you could go ahead and transfer the money and when the 15 year review comes up
not transfer it back to the Civil Service Commission until we have had a chance to
see whether or not he is going to retire, or dies, or--
25X1A9a
This is a point I'd like to make, that are we clear
now -- going the other way --.now it's the 15th ann iversary for this fellow, and he
needs six more months, and I would come here and say, "Gee, I don't think you
ht to take him out, because I can now be equally positive that within the next
six months this man will go overseas and will qualify. " Could we make the leeway
at that end?
MR. ECHOLS: I don't think we have that leeway --
25X1A9a You're sort of saying we don't have any leeway--
MR. ECHOLS: If he is under official orders -- let me read this:
"Unless the minimum periods of qualifying service set forth above have been
performed, the employee will not be eligible to remain a participant unless (1) he
is then serving on an assignment which will satisfy the qualifying service requirement
indicated for the review involved, or (2) he is under official orders to serve in such
an assignment within 90 calendar days... " There is your straightjacket. "or (3) at
33
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
the time of the 15th anniversary review he has sufficient time prior to completion
of 15 years of service with the Agency within which he could complete a minimum of
60 months of qualifying service. " That is not a hell of a lot of leeway.
25X1A9a
Harry, let me ask you a question. Suppose you
had somebody -- and he's really a topnotch fellow -- who just came home. Now you
know that you want that fellow to do a two-year tour at home. You know under those
circumstances he is not going to get his five years in before the completion of 15
years. Would you put that fellow in? You know he is going out in the future.
25X1A9a
would never have noticed--
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
No, I would say his name could have come up and I
Isn't this an individual case you have and you're not
s a GS-15, so I'm pretty close to--
You have to administer it, it seems to me,
uniformly across the board. If you have doubts about this fellow, I don't think you
should sign section D.
25X1A9a
Section D says he is in a Service that normally requires
overseas duty.
MR. BOREL: You haven't finished that sentence -- he is in a field
which normally requires it, but you have said he wasn't -- you haven't finished that
sentence.
25X1A9a
Surely that is the intent -- that he is now serving -
that his career field is that of a person who is going to normally rotate to the field.
25X1A9a hat is his career.
He is now serving in that career. The fact that
he is back at headquarters doesi't mean that tomorrow if a situation arose you
couldn't send him out. I think with that fellow that is his career -- he is normally
a guy that will rotate and you want him to rotate. But you have created a problem
here because you know you don't want this man to rotate -- you are, in effect, saying
you don't want him in this Career Service anymore, and I don't think you should
sign Section D here.
34
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
25X1A9a
I don't think that is true -- you can be in the Career
Service without any specific intent at a given time to send a man overseas.
25X1A9a
I thought you were making the point the other way --
that you sort of want me to perjure myself for convenience -- because the statement
is in a Career Service which normally requires overseas service -- he just happens
to be back home right now.
25X1A9a
No, no -- it goes farther in your case, because
you are not so sure you--
25X1A9a
No, no - that was the other case. This one is a
perfectly good type and we would normally want him to go over again.
25X1A9a I thought it was the previous one we were directing
our attention to here, which was the case where you weren't sure--
25X1A9a We are going to send him overseas to get his five
years to get him out.
MR. ECHOLS: I'd like to put this man in, notwithstanding the fact
we might be forced to move him out again temporarily at the 15th year -- and maybe
we can solve that 15 year problem somehow between now and that time.
25X1A9a
I think probably the most significant thing that comes
to my mind is that if we don't then we are saying that every time a man has less
than 15 years and needs a couple more years of qualifying service that we should be
questioning somebody: Is he or is he not going to make it in that time period? And
I don't think that we can. So even though it hurts a little administratively -- and
I know I'm going in circles a bit, because I said at the beginning if the Board was
really against it, this man was not going to appeal -- but I don't think it's fair as
far as the principle that we are trying to establish--
25X1A9a
MR. ECHOLS: I agree. Any dissents? (No response.) In he goes.
The next case is a Support careerist who
may well go overseas at any time. Any discussion or objection? (No response.)
Okay, is in.
25X1A9a
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
SECRET
MR. ECHOLS: Now, what I would like to bring up and discuss
briefly is that in our Regulations the definition of qualifying service covers three
things, and we have discussed (a) and (b) many times, but we have been silent on (c).
"'Qualifying service' means performance of duty as an Agency employee: (a) under
conditions of employment which include a demonstrable hazard to life or health in
the conduct or support of covert action operations abroad, or espionage and counter-
intelligence activities abroad, or other intelligence activities abroad ... " Now, we
have agreed to interpret this very, very broadly, that generally speaking overseas
service is qualifying service provided that service is related to any one of these
three categories of service. This is page 118. 2 of the Regulation. So I don't
think we are having any difficulties with this provision.
Provision (b) is: "under conditions of employment requiring
the continuing practice of most stringent security and covert tradecraft procedures
to maintain personal cover in the conduct or support of covert action operations
or espionage and counter-intelligence activities abroad. "
25X1A9a
This is in support of actions abroad, as distinguished
from being abroad.
MR. ECHOLS: Correct. And I think, although we haven't gone
into many specific cases or illustrations yet, we agreed that "most stringent" should
be interpreted rather tightly, that by "most stringent" we mean most stringent. And
we haven't even gotten down to specific cases yet--
25X1A9a
I don't think we have even covered the broad type of
MR. ECHOLS: I know some of us have made some statements about
a post of duty in the West which we think is pretty damn stringent -- its isolated,
demanding, and so on -- but there may be others that we haven't looked into yet as
individual cases.
The thing I would like to discuss today, because it hasn't been
discussed, is this provision (c): "on a continuing basis which would place the
individual at a distinct disadvantage in obtaining other employment either because (1) the
36
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : Cl t 3092A000100100004-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
SECRET
skills and knowledge are unique to the clandestine activities of the Agency and are
not in demand elsewhere, or (2) the duties are so highly classified that his
experience cannot be described in sufficient detail to demonstrate his qualifications
adequately to a prospective employer.
Now I can see the average employee - or the average person,
for that matter - reading this provision, and damn near 90% of us, at least, thinking:
Hell, what I do and have done over the years is so secret that I can't really tell a
prospective employer exactly what I've been doing and really get across to him the
importance of my work, and so on -- therefore, all my service is qualifying.
So let me try to put this into perspective immediately, as to
why it's in the Regulation at all -- indeed, why it was in the law, etc. Our first
early retirement program -- our special retirement program, let me put it this way,
was copied after the Foreign Service, and incorporated in the Foreign Service
retirement system is a complete system for discontinued service benefits - which
happens to include an immediate annuity for a GS-18 or above -- happens to include
a provision for an immediate annuity for GS-14's and above, in fact, provided they
have met certain years of service requirements, and also provided for discontinued
service compensation for 15's and below. We were after that complete package
of discontinued service benefits. Now, in order to justify our case, and having
in mind our experience, we had this language in here, considering that should
we have a surplus personnel exercise of some kind -- for example, we would find
- or almost any person, if you will, who had been engaged in
work that he couldn't talk about -- had to be separated as being surplus to our needs,
at the time we decided "This man is surplus, and he should go" we wanted to be
able at that time to look at this man's problem of getting another job somewhere
else, and if he was INAMMUM going to be severely hindered in getting an equivalent
job, for security reasons, or if we in our training over the years or in our utilization
over the years have led this guy into a very esoteric field of work where there is no
commercial counterpart, we felt we should be able to put him at that time into this
retirement system and make him immediately eligible for these discontinued service
37
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CKWE> 03092A000100100004-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
SECRET
benefits. But we didn't get the Foreign Service retirement Bill, and in our own
subsequent Bill the discontinued service benefits of separation pay and that sort of
thing were all stricken out -- nonetheless, it carried some of this old language
forward. We did this knowledgeably and thoughtfully. I don't think Congress
actually knew what we were doing. But we still think it is valid to put a person
into this system who has perhaps never been overseas, who perhaps has never
performed qualifying duty in the United States, if the Director decides to separate
a man who is surplus and if in so doing he is really putting this man over a barrel,
and in rare cases we could put people into this system under this provision, so
that they could retire with the benefits of this system--
25X1 A9a And yet sort of implying a double standard of
involuntary versus voluntary.
MR. ECHOLS: I think the law in its language permits us to do this,
but I think it'sI something that would have to be done on a very, very
restricted basis, and I think the Director is going to have to make the decision with
the full knowledge of what he is doing in every case.
25X1A9a
I'm sure what you say is 100% right, yet isn't it
again one of these things that -"never mind what we wanted, what did we get?" type
of thing -- and it's still defined 4s qualifying service.
MR. ECHOLS: Well, yes, it's defined as qualifying service, in
retrospect, and it's qualifying service only in anticipation of the fact that you're
going to let this man go, and at that point - and at that point only - is he suddenly
faced with the problem which makes it qualifying --
25X1A9a
But the Bill says this is one of three ways of qualifying--
MR. BOREL: If you go back to the legislative intent, it shouldn't
fussy
be in there at all. We have been so/Alft about legislative intent on this and that --
but here you just said all of this was stricken but this somehow survived--
MR. ECHOLS: I can certainly show you in the testimony, and indeed
case histories that we presented of people who - even their field of work
is not unusual, but as we have developed the individual in this field of work for which
38
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CKN,03092A000100100004-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
SECRET
there simply is no commercial 1 counterpart, and we cited this as cases justifying
this retirement system.
MR. BOREL: Well, you started off by saying that Congress threw
this out. Perhaps I just jumped ahead one step too fast there -- but why did they
strike it out? - to keep us from having this kind of a benefit, or for other reasons?
MR. ECHOLS: Of course, this retirement system does have some
discontinued service benefits -- (any age with 25, or 50 with 20), it does provide
for an annuity, and so on. But it does not have the.separation compensation that
was in the Foreign Service Bill, which was in our Bill but was stricken from it. The
reason they struck it out of our Bill is they knew we already had the legal authority
to pay separation compensation, and indeed had done so, and indeed had a regulation
on our books for it -- and they said, "Why seek additional legislation to do what you
are already doing?" But this provision remains in here, which, as I interpret it,
would permit the retroactive judgment, where the man's service had built into it at
the time of separation these handicaps to a degree which would establish qualifying
service. Now, whether this will ever be used or not, I don't know.
25X1A9a Can ou visualize circ t d h'
u
h
ms ances un ex w ic
a person
I
could qualify? I don't see that the field of a man's specialty is necessary as a
criterion at all -- and it doesn't make 4M sense, because it doesn't mean that
has to go out and get a job -- there may bg5axl
25X1A9a
sorts of things that he can do. I don't see how anyone can construct a case that
will be very persuasive to us here. What example would you give?
MR. WARFIELD: I have a couple of examples. How about
ammunition handlers?
25X1A9a Why do they have to be ammunition handlers?
MR. WARFIELD: Because they have to handle ammunition.
I mean once they leave the Agency why do they have
to continue to be ammunition handlers?
25X1A9a ,
can't describe their qualifications.
They cant say that they have been -- they
Approved For Release 2001/07/12: CI 3092A000100100004-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
SECRET
25X1A9a
We have had men who have been professional analysts
all of their lives, and they go out and sell insurance.
MR. WARFIELD: We agree, though, that it is a hardship at age 55
if you have to suddenly change to a new field -- and that is what we are trying to
alleviate.
25X1A9a People do that all the time.
M Eck, arent you saying that the Bill as written has
a voluntary and an involuntary aspect. Under voluntary retirement qualifying
service is overseas service. In the case of involuntary the Director may in his
judgment consider certain types of work as qualifying. But that isn't what we are
left with, unfortunately -- we are left with who can be a participant--
MR. ECHOLS: I have two problems that bother me. I'm afraid
that Tom, Dick, and Harry will read this and say, "Ha! I qualify" -- and it wasn't
the intent of Congress and it wasn't our intent that this should be interpreted so
broadly that everybody who handles classified information can claim qualifying
service.
25X1A9a
Let me make one qualifying distinction: The
intent of Congress ... (inaudible)... but the intent of the Regulation is
what was the intent of the Agency and was endorsed by the Congress. It's not in
the law, so it would be what is intended by the Agency -- it would be our
determination- -
25X1A9a
But aren't you saying this is a determination that
could only be made when the man was practically on the doorstep, practically going
out, and in terms of conditions then you evaluate his career as far as future
employment--
25X1A9a .
There is a big difference -- say a man wants out -
okay, that is his election, he should see if he has qualifying service -- there's a big
distinction between a man you want out, and you're willing to recommend -- now you
say you think we can interpret the Regulation this way.
I think that is our prerogative.
40
Approved For Release 2001/07/12: Cft 03092A000100100004-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
SECRET
MR. ECHOLS: I think for all practical purposes we should pretend
this provision just doesn't exist, in most cases. But it is here, and I think if the
day should come when there are rare cases -- we have had for years
and years on the Agency payroll -- these guys could have gotten jobs at the Bureau
and so on -- they're tops in their trade -- and incidentally, this is a
diminishing vocational field - that is, different processes have taken over -- if
suddenly, after many, many years we decide that we are not going to do this type of
thing, we're going to liquidate this type of operation, these men, who are well paid,
highly paid in their career field, suddenly are out of a job, and the5Agarket for
's not a big one, and certainly not for this -- 1A
are they going to do? And I would say in those cases the Director might say:
I know that our cancellation of this work is going to put these guys to a tremendous
problem in readjusting themselves vocationally, and in recognition of this I'm going
to retire them -- put them into this CIA Retirement system and retire them under it.
25X1A9a But, you see, that is the same way with Harry's guy -
he can say, "I2ve been working in the Commo field all my life, and I can't talk
about it. 11
MR. ECHOLS- That is what I'm saying, that every Tom, Dick and
Harry can't be applying this to himself, but the Agency, I think, in rare cases may
want to do so -- and I say the less we use this, the better.
25X1A9a
But it's in a Regulation which has been circulated,
and people have to get some sort of answers.
MR. BOREL: After you give about ten answers, I think the questioning
will calm down. No problem there. If anybody comes to us we will tell them:
This doesn't apply to you, buddy. "
25X1A9a
I don't think this is good career relations. I have had
people say, "I want a plan for when I retire -- will you count this?" There's a
41
Approved For Release 2001/07/12: CWW03092A000100100004-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
Ei1ET
certain length of time you can keep up this, "We're not going to tell you exactly" --
and if it is the judgment and we would rather say that no service in the United States
will be considered as qualifying service for voluntary retirement -- and I'm taking
the extreme position -- but somehow I think we have to come up eventually with a
little better guidance.
MR. ECHOLS: We might come up with something like this: that
this provision (c) will never apply except in a case of discontinued service. I think
this is the only way it was ever intended to apply -- and maybe the regulation needs
clarification as to intent, but this is my understanding.
25X1A9a If I might just rephrase your statement and bring
it into Harry's field, this section has its major application in a termination case --
it will never apply except in--
25X1A9a MR. ECHOLS: A case of involuntary separation.
--that 11(c) applies for the most part to cases of
involuntary separation which had not previously been covered under the system by
the (Board).
25X1A9a
In that case, I take it, you will never be able to
designate -- assuming a man has 10 years before he falls within -- you would never
be able to designate a person to be a participant in the system until you were ready
to put him out.
MR. ECHOES: That is right.
25X1A9a
I wonder -- do you feel a re-reading of the record
of the hearings wouldn't help at all?
MR. ECHOES: I could do that -- I could review all the mass of
material and try to pull together anything that was said that had direct relevancy
to this provision, and the examples we gave, etc., to try to prove the case that
this was intended only for use in the event of involuntary separation.
25X1A9a
Shouldn't we try to head off any inquiry by putting
something in the Bulletin, then?
MR. ECHOES: Has anybody had any inquiry along this line?
42
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA R 3092A000100100004-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
SECRET
25X1A9a
I sure have! And sure, I'll go along with
Paul up to a point -- we are in our infancy here, and, hell, we have other more
pressing problems -- "We just haven't addressed ourselves to it yet, but it looks
grim for you" - but that is not a real answer.
25X1A9a
has a case of a man who believes he
qualifies under that one.
MR. ECHOLS: I know this is going to cause trouble, because Tom,
Dick, and Harry reading this will say, "Oh boy! that is me! "
MR. BOREL: You say cases in the past have been handled by the
Director from time to time by granting certain benefits?
MR. ECHOLS: What was that, Paul?
MR. BOREL: You have had cases in the past where the Director has
exercised his. special authority--
25X1A MR. ECHOLS: Under our- regulation.
MR. BOREL: This is designed to take the place of such cases?
MR. ECHOLS: We used the same language in justifying -- a Board
was set up to review the individual's past record and to decide whether or not that
individual was going to be significantly penalized in trying to relocate, for these
reasons, and if so he could be given separation compensation -- and a great many
people - roughly 100 or so - did receive separation compensation -- on an after the
fact review of their careers in the Agency -- lump sum payments -- the formula
was one month's salary per year of service.
MR. BOREL: This would be more favorable to the employee --
going out under these circumstances would be more favorable--
25X1A9a
MR. ECHOLS: Yes, it would give a man an immediate annuity.
The more I think about the history of what we did
as far as that Committee, I think that is a very fair reading of what this section
means, that this section has its major application in the determination of involuntary
separation cases that had not previously been covered under the system.
43
Approved For Release 2001/07/12: C WJ03092A000100100004-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
ECRE1
MR. WARFIELD: Emmett, if that is the intent shouldn't we crank
a paragraph into this Bulletin?
MR. ECHOLS: That is why I've been trying to get to this point,
because I knew it was going to be a troublesome one.
25X1A9a
Now what about (b) ? It seems to me -- whether
this is the time, or at another meeting -- but we ought to come up with some sort
of at least a black and a white, and then, admittedly,, there may remain a gray--
MR. ECHOLS: I think we all understand that (b) pertains to service
in the United States that is very demanding and special types, as described here.
25X1A9a -
by case adjudication?
Well, is it possible that we can keep that on a case
MR. ECHOLS: I think we should stipulate this refers to conditions
of service as far as the individual is concerned, the actual demands put upon him.
It doesn't mean that all duty will be qualifying.
25X1A6a
MR. BOREL: Didn't we last week more or less agree that the burden
of proof would shift to the individual in that case? - to show why he belongs in the
system -- rather than the contrary?
25X1A9a
Well, again -- I mean, any one of these people --
I get back to the Fund, too, because, you see, under paragraph (c) we are
contemplating a body of people, and maybe it won't be too large, who will go through
their careers until such time as they are made to retire, without any contributions
to this Fund, and then suddenly they will be brought in and retired. Certainly this
is not a good idea, but I think it's sort of the best we can do with that thing. Now
we have category (b), and in a sense the same type of thing is going to happen, because
people right now who might be designated participants even on the basis of five years
of qualifying service,
25X1A6a
made at
25X1A6a
and 15, are going to be held out until the final adjudication is
such time as they retire. Unless we start making cases -- and, as I say,
I have quite a few from
25X1A6a
-- if you could rule-out, we could tell everybody --
or are you saying among the group of people working at-, some will and some
44
Approved For Release 2001/07/12: Cl "ET092A000100100004-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
SECRET
25X1A9a
25X1A6a
base
25X1A6a
MR. ECHOLS: I think some will and some won't.
Or some of our Commo boys at a given
MR. ECHOLS: Supposing you had a training base -- training for
or something like that -- let's say way, way off in somewhere,
25X1A6a
for the fun of it, and it's a 4 hour drive to - or a 5-hour drive, or a 6-hour
25X1A6a
drive -- maybe by boat -- I don't know how you get there -- and you're off with a
bunch of people 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for weeks on end -- no social
life, no rest or relaxation -- separation from family -- deep cover of an extreme
type -- I could see a man easily qualifying - one month, two months, three months,
five months of such service as qualifying service. And why not? it's more
demanding than most overseas service. But that is an individual -- he may be
a radio man, a communicator, and he has been stationed at this place, and maybe
he has two months, four months of such qualifying service -- but that wouldn't mean
25X1A6a
that a communicator in- in connection with this same activity should have
this qualifying service--
25X1A9a
25X1A6a
I couldn't agree more -- but I'm saying that once you
25X1A6ake the decision for, say, then everybody who lives a will
think he's in pretty much the same category -- or once you make a negative decision
25X1A6a
for- then they're all out. I mean, the alternative seems to be to wait--
25X1A6a MR. ECHOLS: I think we should invite the DD/P to look, let's say,
at thu situation, and say do they think that collectively this is qualifying --
25X1A6a
_I hope they say no! -- and then have them look more minutely at-and say
are there any particular duty assignments down there that in retrospect we think
could be determined to be qualifying for anybody who is there -- and, lastly, you
might come down to the individual case of Johnny Jones, who has these weeks or
months of the toughest type of duty, and we think he should be credited for this
service. But I think we should start with the big thing and begin to shrink it down
as rapidly as possible.
Approved For Release 2001/07/12: CIAR7 E1092A000100100004-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
25X1A9a
25X1A6a
We came awfully close last week, where Matt Baird
cited Now, sort of unfortunately for the case, the guy had the 60
months without it -- but suppose he didn't, and he was being designated, we would
have to face up to it.
25X1A6a
MR. ECHOLS: Well, for I think the judgment would
25X1A
probably be - collectively, no -- but maybe there are some types of duty-
MR. WARFIELD: The demolition men you probably want to make a
special case for.
MR. ECHOLS: Not if once every six months he blows up a couple
of firecrackers--
25X1A9a
It would be pretty tough to go into the case histories
MR. ECHOLS: If you were a down thereM&*A
25X1A9a That is hazardous duty! (Laughing)
25X1A
MR. WARFIELD: I believe the trainees on the ops
course VJJW would get qualifying service for that time--
25X1A9a Separated from family -- 18 to 20 hours a day duty --
25X1A
in bush a good part of the time -- hazardous jumping -- they're doing everything
that they're never going to do again - hopefully.
MR. ECHOLS: I wouldn't object, but somehow -- now here maybe
Matt Baird should be the one to come forward to make a case for certain courses
- for students attending certain courses be given credit for this service.
MR. WARFIELD: I think most of this will shake out in the routine
procedure -- if you notify somebody, "I'm sorry, you only have four and a half
years, and this is based on these tours of duty that you had" -- and he says, "Yes,
but how about this other stuff? "
MR. ECHOLS: I agree with you -- I think in most cases we are
not going to be concerned about two weeks here, or two weeks there, or two months --
Approved For Release 2001/07/12: CIA IT092A000100100004-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
MR. BOREL: I think we ought to wait -- not try to answer a lot
of moot questions here, but just JW, take the live cases.
MR. ECHOLS: To get back to the original point, I think probably
in this Bulletin,. if we can, we ought to give some interpretation to this (c) provision
here, and along the line Joe suggested, that this is , intended only to cover
cases--
25X1A9a
Well, could we go sort of a step further, then --
because it's again a key thing, because everybody wants to know what is qualifying
service -- could we say by and large service outside the United States will be
considered qualifying service, and under (b) each case will be adjudicated on its
merits, and under (c) this sort of--
25X1A9a
We have agreed you will go ahead now and issue the
Bulletin without further consideration here? I think that is important -- I think
the Bulletin ought to get into the hands of people, even though it may be imperfect.
The imperfections of the Bulletin I think will begin to come to light as it is used
and read by them -- at which time we may then want to reissue it. I know in our
own situation there are cases on which action is awaiting the issuance of the Bulletin,
and I do think it's important to get it out into the hands of people without undue
delay.
MR. ECHOLS: I agree with you, to get the Bulletin out is far more
important than clarifying every point.
MR. WARFIELD: I think it should have a caveat that this is an initial--
MR. ECHOLS: I would like to say something in here, if only to
indicate this is still a fuzzy area.
Any other business anybody would like to bring up at this time?
(No response.)
Could we do this: instead of notifying you about our meetings
could you just assume there will be a meeting at 2:00 o'clock every Thursday unless
you are notified to the contrary?
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 :
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000100100004-3
25X1A9a
I would find it most beneficial for my office if
we would get positive notice of the meeting.
MR. ECHOLS: All right.
. . . . The meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m.
ON
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-
IDENIIAL
192A000100100004-3