CIA Retirement Board Meeting 14 Septebmer 1965

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 50
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 18, 2005
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: September 14, 1965
• Content Type: MIN

Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
Iii ..W i.T
The 20th meeting of the CIA RETIREMENT BOARD
convened at 2:00 p. m, on Tuesday, 14 September 1965, with the following
present:
25X1A9A
25X1
25X1
Mr. Emmett D. Echols, Chairman
bDP Member
, DDP Member
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Roger G. Seely, DDI Member
George C. Miller, DDS&T Alternate Member
Alan M. Warfield, DDS Member
DDS Member
John S. Warner, Legal Adviser
Inance Adviser
xecutive Secretary
Recording Secretary
MR. ECHOLS: Messrs. Critchfield, Borel and
absent today. George Miller is sitting in for
0
Are there any additions or corrections to the Minutes of
the 19th meeting on 24 August, or the Minutes of the 2 September meeting?
(No response.) If not, the Minutes are accepted as presented.
25X1A9A
wishes to come in and present some information relevant to that case. So I
would like to go to that one promptly, so as not to hold him up.
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
We have two appeal cases here today, and I am advised that
Then could I just read a letter here before
letter is signed by
25X1A9A
the Board members.)
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
at this point . . . .
case first, you say? 25X1A9A
then read this letter to25X1A9A
joined the meeting
John, I have just read your letter
25 Sac REV CATS
'RIG CUSS : PAC: S 5 REV CUSS .S I U PUT
~- III
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
SECRET
25X1A9A
of the 16th abou I think the Board may have some questions to
ask you.
25X1A9A
All right, sir.
is fresh in my mind. I didn't get your argument as to why
MR. ECHOLS: One question, if I may, right away, while this 25X1A9A
have difficulty explaining her past 16 years of acquired knowledge in the publications
business to her former colleagues who are in that business if she herself tries to
go back into it. Wasn't her cover employment ample excuse or explanation
2
as to how she had kept up in the publications business?
MR. ECHOLS: I thought she was working out at the other end of
the line.
25X1A9A No. That would be a different matter - -
and certainly then she could.
MR. ECHOLS: Does anybody have any specific questions before
25X1 we invite
Ito add anything-
MR. WARFIELD: She would be forced, in fact, to represent
herself as having worked for CIA for 16 years?
25X1A9A
That would be the only way she could, I think,
satisfactorily account for having kept up in this field of endeavor. In other
words, she has kept up in it, but in order to explain that satisfactorily she
would have to explain the background for having been able to keep up in it.
MR. WARFIELD: Would there be any objection to that from the
standpoint of Central Cover?
25X1
You mean associating with Radio Liberty?
Approved For Release 2005/04/27c ? 78-03092A000200020001-4
5X1
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
SECRET
MR. WARFIELD: No -- simply saying: For the past 16 years
I have been an employee of the CIA and my duties were concerned with publishing.
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
_ _.... _ . Radio Liberty all right--
25X1 C4
25X1A8
25X1 A9A
25X1 C4a
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
said in 25X1A9A
this letter -- this would then make a complete bridge between CIA and the two
projects she has been associated with -- and that is, of course, one thing we have
been seeking to avoid -- I mean, so as to give direct evidence of the connection.
MR. WARFIELD: In other words, that would not be acceptable.
As you well know, these are two big
projects, and there have been many assertions that CIA was connected with them,
but, at the same time, we have always followed the practice of making our denial
plausible by keeping the whole thing well compartmentalized, so disclosure of the
connection she had with CIA all of this time would break down that compartmentation.
25X1A MR. GEORGE MILLER: In other words, she is associated with
D
One thing that doesn't appear in the
record, has she had a cover legend all this time?
time. In other words, she has been back in Headquarters for approximately
ten years.
25X1A9A
Then does she identify herself to certain
people as CIA, and other people not as CIA?
25X1A9A
Not for all this time -- only during the overseas
To the best of my knowledge, only to a very
limited number of people -- mainly, people who work here in the Agency -- and
Approved For Release 2005/04/2" E~19P78-03092A000200020001-4
 25X1A
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
, EI
MR. WARNER: So with an x-number of people in Liberty itself
she is not associated with CIA.
25X1
25X1
but I don't know whether it strikes anybody else this way, but it strikes me that
we are going to have to ask her to come in herself and ask her some questions,
because, obviously, I think she is the only one that has the answer to it. There-
fore, I just question the propriety of going on any further today -- whether we
shouldn't just stop where we are now and ask her to appear. I submit that for
your consideration.
MR. ECHOLS: I think that sounds quite reasonable. After all,
the individual himself, or herself, can best describe the circumstances and any
future plans -- which may enter into this if, for example, she is planning to
retire or would like to retire early, and with future employment in mind then her
That is right.
Emmett, excuse me for interrupting,
second point becomes more binding than it is otherwise, you see.
252 X1 A9A
I agree with you, Gerry, but while we have Mr.
here I'd like to get something a little clear, er.
her supervisor?
25X1
25X1
Right.
25X1A9A
you are
It seems to me there is an appeal here on two
different counts. One is the nature of her work has been such that it would be
difficult for her to get good employment elsewhere. And then the stringency
of the security restrictions under which she operated -- which is a little bit
separate from-- Now there may be some very good arguments under the first
one, but I'm trying to address myself to the second one. She is a CIA employee
like most of us, and, if I understand you correctly, she had no cover story,
just "I am CIA", in her normal, day to day social relationships ?
25X1
That is right.
'm not quite clear why she had to stay away from
all her former friends and associates, why she couldn't say "I'm CIA", without
5
Approved For Release 2005/04i 7c; RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
getting into detail that nobody would expect her to go into. I'm not quite sure
25X1A6A of why she had to crawl into a shell. I see the situation
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
I think you are getting into questions,
very honestly, Harry, she ought to answer herself.
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
those trips I assume she had to operate under an assumed name -- but under the
other relationships why could she not have a normal relationship?
I
and her majoring in international communism, Soviet affairs, and so on, and the
people she would normally deal with are previous friends and acquaintances who
are also Soviet experts. And if she has kept up in this field - well, how did she
keep up? with whom did she work? where did she get all of her expertise in this
field? how has she kept up? and so on -- which I think would lead back into the
area in which she is working, as far as the knowledge that she has.
But I wonder - anymore so than anyone who works
for CIA? I mean, I don't know about the rest of you, but everywhere I go
people sort of assume if you work for the State Department or CIA you are an
expert in foreign affairs. I just don't, on that aspect, quite understand.
It would be difficult for me--
Okay.
MR. ECHOLS: If we were to accept this argumentation, though,
would there not be many others in your Branch, for example, who, on equal
grounds, would be equally valid cases?
I'd say at the present time not many, because
I have only four others in the Branch -- I've had a series of departures. But
25)(gAe would be two or three others, I believe, that would be in this same category --
6
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : &tR i.~ 8-03092A000200020001-4
I think this is partly as a result of her background
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
25X1
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
MR. SEELY: Is there any prospect of her going overseas again
either on PCS or a series of TDY trips?
56 or 57 I doubt if she would have anymore PCS tours -- although it is possible.
MR. SEELY: We don't have -- or do we? -- a record of how much
overseas service--
Certainly there is as far as TDY -- but at
Eight months and 23 days.
we close this discussion. I notice she came into OPC in 1948. This was at a
time, I know very well, when individuals' cover stories were left largely to their
own devices -- and frequently they have never been registered -- but strange as
it may seem, by limiting their associations and really restricting the area of
their social activity many of these people have been able to maintain, essentially,
a cover legend even though it was fabricated by themselves and had no real
backstopping at all. If this is what she did, and if she has been in fact successful --
I mean, there aren't many of these cases, but I've run across them before, where
people are confident that they have preserved the secrecy of their affiliation with CIA.
MR. ECHOLS: Any other questions of
Thank you very much,
I would just add one more thing before
(No response. )
left the meeting at this point .
MR. ECHOLS: I'd like to make just one little observation here.
This dawned on me today when I was looking at this case. I for one, at least,
have sort of assumed that at age 60 this problem that people might have of not
being able to disclose the breadth and depth of their experience, ceases to be a
problem -- in other words, I assumed and have sort of been taking it for granted
that if the Agency sets 60 or 62 as the retirement age, that if a person has survived
Approved For Release 2005/04/$? JDP78-03092A000200020001-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
SECRET
that long this problem ceases to exist. But I know that isn't true, when I stop
to think about it, for the very reason that we are busily engaged in helping retirees
find employment. We realize most people are going to have to seek supplemental
employment, and this impairment thing may easily go on after age 60. This
is an observation that occurred to me -- I was a little bit off in my own thinking.
25X1A9A
This gets horribly complicated sometimes
when people have used a cover story amongst their own family - their children,
for instance.
25X1A9A
to come to our next meeting, is that right?
25X1A9A
I think that is the only fair thing to do,
to get the full flavor of what she is driving at.
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
MR. ECHOLS: So we will table I ase in the meantime.
Does the same thing apply automatically to this next case -
- or can we hear this case?
No - - to my mind the
really quite open and shut. I don't think she has performed qualifying service,
really, by any stretch of the imagination.
25X1A9A
MR. ECHOLS (Continuing): --dated 12 July 1965. Shall we take
a few minutes here to read it?
. . . . The Board members then read the
following memorandum:
12 July 19 6 5
MEMORANDUM FOR: Clandestine Services Career Service Board
25X1A9A
SUBJECT:
MR. ECHOLS: The entire story is here in her memorandum--
Well, the consensus here is to invite
Request for Voluntary Retirement
Secretary
REFERENCE: Your Memorandum dated 23 June 1965, entitled
CIA Retirement and Disability System
1. The following additional information is submitted for your con-
sideration in reviewing my request for/wluntary retirement under the Agency's
Retirement and Disability System (Public Law 88-643, dated 13 October 1964.)
8
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 :fCl~ 78-03092A000200020001-4
SLUac
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
25X1A
SECRET
3. I have followed the progress of the Agency's retirement bill
with great personal interest, expecting to retire under its provisions when the
time came for me to leave Government service, knowing I would have to leave
before I would be entitled to normal Civil Service retirement. When I must
return to my home in Minnesota, which will be in the very near future, all my
Government experience will be of no value in seeking other employment.
4. As indicated in my memorandum of 3 June 1965, my request for
voluntary retirement is based entirely on personal circumstances. My mother
is reaching the age when she will no longer be able to live alone and take care of
herself (she'll be 80 in September). She has no relatives and my sister has a
bad cardiac condition so my mother's well being becomes my responsibility. I
feel very strongly that children should not abandon their aged parents. Although
my mother is otherwise in good health, she does have high blood pressure and the
doctor says she should not be living alone.
5. I have tentatively computed and compared the monetary advantage
of retiring under the Agency's bill with retiring under Civil Service and find the
difference considerable, more so if at age 55 I must take the 5% deduction,
assuming I could remain that long. Since retirement income is a fixed income
and there are proposals for salary increases for Government employees over the
next several years, it would, of course, be to my advantage to continue to work.
Were the decision dependent on my wishes, I would, of course, choose to work
for many more years. Since I will shortly have no choice in the matter, having
even a fixed income is preferable to no income at all.
6. Having devoted the greater part of my Government career to
the intelligence field, specifically to Soviet CE/ CI, which by its very nature does
not qualify me for other employment, and having met the requirements of age and
years of service, I request that further consideration be given to my request for
voluntary retirement.
/Signed/
25X1A9A
MR. SEELY: I think she misunderstands something here, because
in her second paragraph she says, "All my service with this Agency, and much of
my earlier service, appears to meet the criteria for qualifying service... " She
appears to assume that non-Agency service can be considered qualifying service.
9
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 I F fI "T8-03092A000200020001-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
SECRET
25X1A9A
MR. ECHOLS: Gerry, do you want to be the proponent here?
Yes.
Well, there is no question about it, this lady has been an
effective and good employee of the Agency since OSS days. At the same time,
she bases her claim to qualifying service on the basis that the duties she has
performed for CIA are not marketable outside, and can't be described in enough
detail to make them marketable. I don't believe it has been the consensus of
this Board that this does in fact constitute qualifying service -- a4 east, as far as
any of our decisions to date.
MR. ECHOLS: You don't know when she is planning to retire, do
you?
25X1A9A
No. All I know is what she says in
her letter here, that she is under pressure to return to her home.
MR. ECHOLS: I notice she has very close to 30 years' service,
at which time -- well, at 55 she can exercise her option--
MR. WARFIELD: This 29. 7 just be an error. I see her Federal
employment began in 1937 -- and was interrupted by 6 months when she was not
employed -- 1946 to 1947 -- so she would have to go to some time around 1968
for 30 years, if this statement is correct.
MR. ECHOLS: Well, from what I see here I don't see any basis
for finding her eligible, but I get a sort of a feeling that I want to send a very
warm, personalized rejection to her, somehow or other.
25X1A9A
It's a good case, because if her service is such
that she can't talk about it and isn't qualified for anything else, then it's hard to
believe we're going to run into too many others who will ever qualify under that
condition -- because what I think we're saying here is that she just has to go out
and say, "I have worked for the Government for many years in classified duties",
and try to get a job in whatever field is available to her.
MR. SEELY: In cases like this, of course, aren't there usually
Approved For Release 2005/04/2E8A_
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
SECRET
unclassified aspects that can be described? - for example, "I edited material"
or "I prepared the make-up for publications" --
25X1A9A MR. ECHOLS: It's a rare case where you can't come up with
something--
25X1A9A
I agree with the decision -- I'm just sort of
reenforcing my own thinking--
MR. GEORGE MILLER: I think there are doggone few people in
the Agency who wouldn't be in the same position she is in -- so you're opening it
up to everybody--
We had a couple of weak ones -- one was ours,
where the fellow was a supply clerk, really, and IBM operator. In this case
I think we are reenforcing our position.
Gerry, just as a procedural thing, I think it's very helpful
when the CS Board sits in judgment on these things and gives its opinion -- which
means that those of you who are closest to the situation discussed this. I notice
25X1A9A
this didn't happen in the Ocase. Is this going to be a standard. procedure?
25X1A9A
25X1A9AYou say we have not considered
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
for or against.
Well, I'll just have to check up on that --
because it may be that the CS Board has not considered her case.
Yes. I thought we had considered it.
Well, I don't see it here. There is no recommendation
It would seem to me to be very helpful. if the
pros, so to speak, sat on this thing and said that in their considered judgment--
If she has not appeared before the CS
Board, then before we ask her to come up here we will consider it. And
thank you very much for calling that to my attention, because that fact completely
escaped me.
MR. ECHOLS: Is the consensus on thel
25X1A9A Any disagreement? (No response.) So be it.
case negative?
11
Approved For Release 2005/04/275
78-03092A000200020001-4
ffiff
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
SECRET
The next group of cases - three in number - are those
who appear to meet the basic criteria, have 15 or more years of service, are
subject to mandatory retirement, and their Career Service has stated they do
not intend to request extensions beyond the dates indicated -- which are short
term dates, and within the authority of the Director of Personnel to effect.
25X1A9A There is
25X1
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
II
I
MR. ECHOLS: How much less?
MR. GEORGE MILLER: (14.6)
MR. ECHOLS: Then this review would be for both purposes -
a review for participation and a review for permanent status, is that right? -
if he's within six months--
What does that mean,
He is not up for the 15 year review. He has less--
It certainly could be, yes, sir, and perhaps
MR. ECHOLS: If it's agreeable, I'd like to recommend that --
because there is no sense in looking at him again six months from now.
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
That's less than six months.
25X1A9A
He is in the review cycle right now.
When is he going to retire? - 31 January?
He won't hit the 15 years.
He will never hit it, then.
So it doesn't really matter.
MR. ECHOLS: Okay --
25X1A9
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
an asterisk before one name
I move we designate them.
Support it.
. . . . This motion was then passed . . . .
Approved For Release 2005/04/29 "&I"RbP78-03092AO00200020001-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
SECRET
25X1A9A
MR. ECHOLS: They will have to have had one year under Civil
MR. ECHOLS: Group C, employees who appear to meet the
basic criteria for designation and have 15 or more years of Agency service, and
will be vesting designations.
MR. SEELY: A few of these are going to be rather close to
benefitting from the Civil Service system more than the Agency system whe n
retirement time comes around.
MR. ECHOLS: Because of their number of years of Federal service?
MR. SEELY: Yes.
MR. ECHOLS: They will just have to be on our watch list--
D
Service, should that be to their advantage, and their choice.
There are three of them, and we do have our eye
MR. WARNER: May I ask a question about the
25X1A9A
his contract service being included.
I
There is attached to it,
25X1
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
dated 29 October 1956, which is the main thing by which we could substantiate that
period of time -- because it is creditable for Civil Service retirement purposes.
MR. ECHOLS: Any further discussion?
just as happy to pass it- -
Nobody is concerned about the longevity. I'd be
I have a couple of questions on some others--
May I ask on what basis
I don't know,
other than the fact that this 25X1
was acceptable for Civil Service retirement purposes -- and apparently it's the
only documentation that the Agency could come up with as to what he was doing
during this period of time. Now I do have another memo here, signed by
dated 15 October 1956 and addressed to the Chief, Contract
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 icIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
25X1
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
'pV..i
case? I think we have discussed this one before, and there is no question about
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
T
tic
SEC
25X1A9A Personnel Division -- probably in support of this memo from
25X1A9A
25X1A9A undoubtedly was the primary factor under which
25X1
( Mr.
then came out and
credited that period of time for Civil Service retirement purposes -- which,
for our purposes, it would be hard to say it wouldn't be accepted as creditable
service under our system.
MR. WARNER: Well, I would prefer, I think, for record
then read this memorandum to the Board members.)
assertion -- not based on facts -- and you are confronted with a record that
shows a contract agent status which is inconsistent with the assertion. I know
this is just being very technical, but I just think to protect the individual against
questions--
25X1A9A The only other piece of evidence I could find in
support of that period of service being acceptable for our system is his contract,
dated 22 September 1949, paragraph 5 of which states: Employment as a
staff officer after termination of this contract will be considered on the basis of
the quality of work performed during the period of this contract.
25X1A9A
MR. WARNER: Do you have the contract there?
independent contractor. So I think the whole thing seems to follow.
MR. WARNER: Yes. I'm not at all questioning the determination --
25X1A9A just think
Yes. This does not represent him as an
memo would have a little more guts to it. This is an
should have put a little more flesh on the bones, if this is
going to be, in effect, the record document.
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
I have a couple of questions on
Does this memo of yours mean that he is now out on leave without pay and that
he intends to resign at the end of that year?
Of course, that's not
MR. WARNER: I'm not picking on
I have no further questions.
25X1A9A
I'm picking on the issue.
MR. ECHOLS: Are there any other questions?
Approved For Release 2005/04/27: CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
SECRET
25X1
25X1A9A
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
SECRET
Following is the memo referred to by
I :A
25X1A9A
26 Aug 1965
MEMORANDUM: FOR: Chairman, CIA Retirement Board
b U BJECT: Nomination of as a Participant
25X1A9A
1. Attached is the Nomination and Designation of Participant, 25X1A9A
Form 3100, on F- I I am forwarding it to you with the cover
memorandum because of the unusual aspects of the nomination.
25X1A9A
2. has been with this office since 18 June 1949 and 25X1A9A
presently has adequate service for nomination. The complicating factor is that
I have granted Leave Without Pay for one year to begin 30 August. I
have granted this Leave Without Pay for compassionate reasons. F -J
during the last five years has, for the most part, been confined to a mental 5X1A9A
hospital in this area. doctor believe that Mrs. 25X1A9A
I F
will improve to some extent if she is returned to her home in Boston
As
.
of this writing she has been released from the hospital and is in the process of 25X1A9A
moving.
25X1A9A
3. I Ihas talked informally with members of the Retirement
Board secretariat who have advised him concerning a possible deferred annuity at
age 62 and of the fact that he will receive additional time toward retirement while
serving in a Leave Without Pay status. I plans to apply for a deferred
annuity if he is designated a participant in the CIA Retirement and Disability
/Signed/
Director of Communications
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
Maybe.
25X1A9A I I think that is the big question here.
ou see, when the time came, I was awfully tempted
to just let this one go through, but I had to sign a statement which says, "Based
on his career assignment and past and prospective performance of qualifying
service, this employee is recommended for designation. " Well, his
prospective employment really didn't allow me to sign that statement without
qualifying it, because there is a big question mark on this prospective employment.
As you see, he has more than adequate qualifying service, and he has the 15 years --
but, as explained in this memo, this was one of these cases that fell under the
compassionate category of leave without pay. And what he is saying - - and I
couldn't begin to tell you all the problems this poor guy has had -- trouble followed
Approved For Release 2005/04 C14-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
I h H
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
SECRET
him wherever he went -- the major one being his wife, who has a serious mental
problem, and all the children have one type of a problem or another. And what
he has now said is: If you will give me leave without pay, I'm going to work for
an electronics-type firm up in New England, but I won't take it unless you give me
this leave without pay for a year -- and if it works out and if my wife sort of does
all right up there, then I'm going to quit, but if it doesn't work out then I want to be
able to come back, because my expenses are just too enormous for me - -
This is the whole dialogue that is going on, you see. All right, we made a
command decision to put him on leave without pay and give him this opportunity.
Now he is saying -- and this is where I found this thing out the other day -- he has
19.6 years of Federal service -- so he is saying, "I'll get 6 months' credit for
retirement during the year of leave without pay -- and, in any event, I'll then be
eligible for this program, but on a reduced annuity basis when I reach age 62" --
that is all he is reaching for here.
25X1A9A
The thing that bothers me about it is if you mean
what you say in that last sentence he plans to apply for a deferred annuity if he
is designated a participant in the CIA Retirement System -- it sounds as though
right from this moment he knows that he is not coming back and that he intends
to apply under that - what do we call it? - discontinued service benefits section--
MR. ECHOLS: Oh no, no--
nr_\/4 nnn
25X1
He intends not to come back, is the way I read
this -- and if he intends not to come back, does he meet the six requirements for
being designated a participant?
25X1
MR. ECHOLS: Anybody can get that when they reach age 62.
Then this isn't very clear, here in the memo,
because there is a question mark on whether he will come back or not. If he
was just retiring, he would resign, and that would be it. I mean, the only reason
he is on leave without pay is because there is this very definite question mark as
to whether he can pack it or not.
16
Approved For Release 2005/04R rDP78-03092A000200020001-4
#JLU
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
SECRET
25X1A9A
MR. WARFIELD: I thought leave without pay created a hiatus
in your service.
MR. ECHOLS: No -- and you can get six months' credit with-
out contributions, I might add, for extended LWOP for a year.
MR. GEORGE MILLER: Does that count in your high-5?
MR. ECHOLS: No -- you earn no salary during that year. You
have to be in a pay status for it to count toward the high-5.
It's also six months in any one calendar year.
MR. WARNER: Six months out of a year is the maximum on the
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
This deferred annuity he speaks of here would
apply to either system. The eligible age for any deferred annuity where there
is a break in employment, as far as eligibility for any retirement, is still age 6Z.
It's the same under either system. All he is
really saying is: Since I have sort of done everything you have asked me, I'd
like to be part of this system -- and if I come back, fine, and if I don't then
I'll retire and take a deferred annuity.
If I had read this memo in the same light as
25X1A9A
your present description of it, I don't think I would have raised the question, but
it sounded to me like he knows right now he is not coming back -- he wants that
extra year, at the end of which time he never intends to come back, and, if so,
then I think he does not meet one or two of the criteria for designation as a
participant.
MR. ECHOLS: If so, Mike, I don't think the LWOP would have
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
been an excusable action--
our giving it.
If he had come to you and said: I don't know,
I want to stay with the Agency but this depends on my wife's health -- could you
give me this LWOP? -- it may be in six months she will be all right and I'll
That is right -- and we were pretty judicious in
come right back to my job--
17
Approved For Release 2005/04/27SE -11 Yr78-03092A000200020001-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
SECRET
25X1A9A
For example, he said if she died he would come
right back. He wants to be with the Agency. She is the problem. And he is
saying: Give me a year and if I can work this out I'll quit and stay, but if
anything happens to her -- which is very possible -- he would come right back
here. We had explained to him, "Even if you resign, and then you want to
come back, we can do that." But it took an awful lot of discussion -- as a matter
of fact, if we wouldn't give him leave without pay he would-have stayed on with us,
and we just felt this was sort of unfair to him and that we ought to give him this
chance.
So, to answer your major question, he is not leaving here with
25X1A9A
25X1 same feeling I did regarding
Did any other member of the Board get the
MR. WARNER: I got a different impression from
than I did from the memo. His explanation helped a great deal.
2B 1A9A
purposes of the record?
25X1A9A
0
story 25X1
could you change that memo , for the
signed it but I didn't write it. Okay.
Then I think he meets the requirements for
designation -- which is what we are trying to do right here - trying to designate
him.
MR. WARNER: That is really the only issue. is just
trying to be real honest.
MR. ECHOLS: I think since this is a matter of the record, the
record should be a good clean record.
Any other questions on cases in this group? Do you all
agree to acceptance of the entire group?
MR. WAR FIELD: I was just wondering --
25X1
Felt that if he 25X1
really did not intend to return he probably should not have been put on leave
without pay. Now let's forget about this particular case, but just in principle,
18
Approved For Release 2005/04/2FCTP78-03092A000200020001-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
SECRET
25X1A9A
25X1
25X1A9A
if a man goes on leave without pay, and it was at that time justified, then whether
or not he comes back doesn't seem to make any difference as far as his eligibility --
I mean, I think you could quarrel with putting the man on leave without: pay who
didn't intend to come back, but I think that would be more the objection than
whether he is eligible under this act or not.
MR. ECHOLS: Under our regulations the granting of LWOP is
only justifiable in the event of mutual intent to re-enter into active employment.
MR. SEELY: But for the actual designation, he meets the criteria
now for designation--
have sailed right on through.
Yes. If he had waited a few more months this would
u s right, really - - I was sort of being
overly honest, in that it was hard for me to sign this thing saying that his
prospective employment will keep him in this category, when there is a little
question in my mind whether there is prospective employment. But he has met
it in the past.
MR. WARFIELD: I think the record ought to show that a new
memorandum should be submitted to justify his being placed on leave without pay--
We justified that with the Director of Personnel--
MR. WARFIELD: Then the Act doesn't come into it--
25X1A9A
In terms of the Board, this was the Office of
Personnel with whom we discussed this in great detail and sort of had their
blessing that this met the compassionate leave without pay criteria. And there
is a good chance this man may come back. Okay, then if we assume the LWOP
was legitimate, then there isn't very much question about the Board action.
Okay. I'll rewrite the memo.
MR. ECHOLS: Just for your information, we had a case recently -
25X1A9A who went on LWOP for two years, and she did come back. But
she had a real personal problem that demanded her presence elsewhere, and so
we twice gave her a year of LWOP -- and she is back on duty.
19
Approved For Release 2005/04/2. P78-03092A000200020001-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
SECRET
Okay, so much for Group C.
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
In Group D we have one person -
will have 15 years of service in March, 1966. Is it the intention here that
this be the one and only review, Phil?
Right.
MR. ECHOLS: He has 102 months of qualifying service, and is
currently overseas.
What have we said? - six months leeway we give
MR. ECHOLS: We are required within six months -- are we
not, John? -- required to make that review?
MR. WARNER: That is what the regulation says -- six months
before completion of 15 years' service with the Agency.
Well, it's sort of close. I don't know whether
we just defer action on this for a few meetings -- or are we meeting the
regulation?
MR. WARFIELD: I'm in favor of designating him--
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
I don't know what the question is on
the six months. We are within the six month cycle. I don't know what the
question is.
MR. ECHOLS: So the question is withdrawn.
Okay, are we all agreed to the designation of 5X1A9A
Okay, so be it.
In the next group, Group E, are those who appear to meet
25X1A9A
the basic criteria for designation.
I
There is one case in here -- that of
that we will have to watch quite carefully, because he will have some 39 years
of service at age 60.
25X1A9A
Approved For Release 2005/04/,4DP78-03092A000200020001-4
Oh, we are? I'm sorry, I didn't realize that.
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
SECRET
MR. ECHOLS: Any discussion on any of these cases?
I move we designate them.
Second.
This motion was then passed
21
Approved For Release 2005/04/2 6 fDP78-03092A000200020001-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4 c
SECRET
25X1A9A
CIA RETIREMENT BOARD MEETING - 14 Sept 1965
Agenda item: Retirement Service Credit for an Annuitant under Contract -
MR. EC HOLS: I'd AM like to turn now to the second item on
25X1A9A
the agenda, the retirement service credit for an annuitant under contract - Mr.
This case came to my attention as the result of an inquiry made
25X1A9A
of the General Counsel's Office, and this is from
WH Support. (Reading)
26 August 1965
25X1A9A
1. (GS-15) will be 65 years old on 1 JanuaryINOW
1966. Under the provisions of the CIA Retirement Act it will be mandatory that
he retire at that time. The WH Division desires to offer him contract employment
outside the continental U. S. with appropriate offset against contract employee
salary of his retirement annuity. Contract employment would be effective the
day following the date of retirement. At the date of retirement he will have
14 years 9 months of Government service, all with CIA, of which almost 7 years
was overseas.
2. It is requested that we be advised if he will be entitled to contribute
to the retirement fund while a contract employee and earn additional service
credit to increase his retirement annuity following termination of his contract
employee status. Due to the time element involved we would appreciate an early
reply.
/Signed/
25X1A9A
Chief,
Chief
WH Support
25X1A9A
The issue here revolves around the point thati ill be
65 years old on 1 January 1966, and, ergo, must be retired. Not only that, but he
is beyond the age of extension, so the Director cannot extend him. Although I
might hasten to point out that the legislation gives the Director the right to recall
any retired annuitant under this System, apparently without regard to age - 60, 70,
80, or 90 -- but I think in this system the intent of the law was that extensions would
Approved For Release 2005/04/2sE4P78-03092A000200020001-4
1
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
ECRET
continuation of
only be granted if/the services of the individual were deemed to be in the best
25X1A9A interest of the government. I think theoretically
25X1A9A
could be designated
in the System, could be extended to age 65, could automatically be retired at 65,
and could be recalled by the Director. Would you agree with that, John?
MR. WARNER: I think so -- although I'm not fully satisfied on
that, Emmett. The Foreign Service say they have done it. But aside from
the lift technical things, I have some other points on that issue.
MR. ECHOLS: Another point that is involved here is if this
individual is retired as a staff employee on 1 January 1966 can he then be reemployed
under contract and continue to participate in the System to the extent of building up
credits - additional creditable years of service, or can we merely apply an offset
of his annuity to his salary under the contract without any further accrual of
retirement 111111 IM01 c r edits ?
MR. SEELY: In that latter case, when does he retire? - does he
retire again two or three years hence at the age of 67 or 68?
MR. ECHOLS: In that latter case, in my opinion he would retire
under one system 1 January 1965" - our System -- if he becomes a contract employee
he would do so under the Civil Service Retirement System, and if he works long
enough as a retired annuitant I believe he could get a supplementary Civil Service
annuity - correct, John?
MR. WARNER: I don't know how you bring him under the Civil
Service System--
MR. ECHOLS: I believe as a contract employee of the U. S.
Government he has to be under some system, by law--
MR. WARFIELD: Is he already eligible for Social Security? You
don't know that?
MR. ECHOLS: Well, then, under Social Security, but he would
have to be under some retirement system.
Off hand, without quarreling with the right to
hire him again as a contract employee, it almost seems like a device to circumvent
the mandatory retirement, to go through this almost a facade and then bring him
back intoA :Fb s Sb0 t LYW p856M2439M00020001-4
SECRET 2
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
SECRET
25X1A9A
The question is not bringing him back
into the CIA Retirement System at all, is it?
MR. ECHOLS: Yes, it is -- (reading) "It is requested that we be
advised if he will be entitled to contribute to the retirement fund while a contract
employee and earn additional service credit to increase his retirement annuity
following termination of his contract employee status. " Obviously, they
propose, then, that he be retired under the CIA System and yet continue in our
employ as a contract employee, and they want to know whether he can continue
to develop credits under the CIA Retirement System.
25X1A9A
couldn't he?
annuitant- -
As I recall, an annuitant -- what do you call them? - a retired
Now this he could do under Civil Service,
MR. WARNER: No. What you're thinking of, I believe, is that
if he chose to go from Civil Service status -- under the Civil Service Retirement
Act as a staff employee if he chose to go into a contract employee status for some
reason, with no break in service, you could then continue him under the Civil
Service Retirement System.
25X1A9A
Well, I understand,
Well, we have a
25X1
number of these employees who have retired--
MR. WARNER: But when you call them back it's a different situation.
25X1A9A
The very next day we bring them back under
contract -- there is no break in service -- but because they are called retired
annuitants they get the difference in the salary, that is all -- plus their annuity --
but they are contributing toward additional retirement credit under Civil Service.
So if they work for us under contract for three years--
MR. ECHOLS: I don't think so, I believe I know what you 25X1
are getting at, though. If a person retires under Civil Service and then is
reemployed under some other category, if he works for a stipulated period of
time, or longer, he can then go back and have his annuity recomputed and derive
a larger annuity.
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIJS?I
Wn
E-13092A000200020001-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
SECRET
25X1A9A
25X1
I think this is where the retirement actually
stops the payment of the annuity ceases, because the man is reemployed and he
can receive the full salary of the position, subjecct to withholdings which go into
the retirement system, and at the time he again departs employment his total
annuity is recomputed on the basis of this extended employment period. He is
a reemployed annuitant, really, with the annuity ceasing during this period of
reemployment, as distinguished from the payment of an annuity and then the
reemployment salary being minus the amount of the annuity.
MR. WARNER: I am (in complete disagreement) with the
conclusion you reached) based on the set of facts you gave--
Well, we better look at that carefully, then --
I mean in my shop -- because it is my understanding that for the first two years
and 11 months, or almost three years, you have to continue to work, at which time
you exhaust the amount of money that you have paid into the fund -- yet, for that
period of time you don't pay into the fund on the amount of your annuity, but after
that, then you pay. For instance, if a person's regular salary was $7, 000 and
he was retired at $4, 000 -- he gets that annuity and we pay him the difference -
the $3, 000 under the contract under which he is working for us. For the first
two years and 11 months, or three years, he does not pay into the fund on the
$4, 000 annuity but he does pay on the $3, 000. After that three year period then
he pays on the entire $7, 000 -- but he is able to extend or to improve his annuity
when he quits the contract or when we tell him that his contract is completed
subsequently. But his annuity increases. That is my understanding of it. But
we are paying him now only the difference between his annuity and his former
regular salary--
Am I right in that statement?
25X1A9A
25X1
That is what I understand -- they don't -- and
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-R-3092A000200020001-4
MR. WARNER: I don't think you are -- but the mere fact that
you don't seem to be right--
MR. GEORGE MILLER: They shouldn't be paying anything on that- -
g
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
25X1A9A
'S -I. U' A ET
it usually takes about two years and 11 months to exhaust--
MR. WARFIELD: Why are you retiring him if you're hiring him
again right away?
Well, under Civil Service our retirement age
O
in the CS is age 62, but we have a particular project that may be for just six
months -- it may terminate and will terminate of itself maybe within two years.
So we want to get him back. These are experienced people in the low grades
that we couldn't get to do this job. Actually it's a conversion to our electronic
machines, and as long as that is in session - and it may be for the next two
years - we need these people.
MR. WARFIELD: How about extending them?
25X1A9A
The point is you don't know how long
they are going to be working -- and having faced up to retirement I think our
policy is to go ahead and let them retire.
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
MR. WARNER: That might be it. I don't know.
But it still wouldn't bear out loom
I wonder if there is an element of confusion in
your reference to paying on the income and this terrible word that we use
sometimes - called "taxes". The annuity the man receives is tax exempt for
this period of two years and 11 months, approximately, but he is paying taxes
on the additional salary that he is receiving from the beginning, and then at the
end of this two and a half to three year period, when he has received in total
his contributions, then he pays taxes on the full annuity - the full salary. This
is the only thing that I can relate that comes anywhere near the circumstances
you are relating that might be implied by this payment or this contribution.
case 25X1
that a part of the man's salary is from his annuity and some of it is his contract
salary--
25X1A9A I I A part of his salary is tax exempt--
But this wouldn't even be brought into play if he
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : G~~L,D$-03092A000200020001-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
6.
wasn't getting his $4, 000 annuity and then in addition getting the $3, 000 as a result
Let me ask this: Couldn't this man leave here and get
employment in some other agency?
MR. ECHOLS: Yes indeed.
25X1A9A
This would be offset--
It would be offset?
MR. ECHOLS: Let's look at the facts of the case. They
apparently wish to continue this man's services not necessarily in the same capacity
in which he is now working. They may be motivated in part by an attempt to get
him off their ceiling. Maybe they have some kind of a contractual job for him
which would permit them to retain his services in a different capacity and be off
the staff ceiling. The correct and normal solution to this thing under our law,
I would say is this. If the man is eligible for this retirement system he should be
put into it. If he is already 65 or will shortly be 65 and beyond the age of
extension, the Director has the option of recalling him immediately after retirement.
So in its simplest form I would say this man should be designated, he shank should
be extended simultaneously to 1 January 1966. At that time he should be retired,
and if the Agency still wants him the Director should recall him. All clean,
above board, and right according to the book.
25X1A9A
Which book, and what section of the book are you
talking about? I'd be interested--
MR. ECHOLS: The law - the statute.
25X1A9A
25X1
MR. ECHOLS: I will real
25X1
Well, I have your HR - - do you want to look at
25X1
But that talks about "in accordance with the
provisions of subparagraph h(9)(b)" - which talks about disability retirement.
MR. ECHOLS: Not necessarily -- there is an "or" there. (Reading)
6
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 :CIA-P3092A000200020001-4
7
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
25X1A9A
"The Director may, with the consent of any retired participant, recall such
particpant to duty in the Agency whenever he shall determine such recall is in
the public interest. Any such participant recalled to duty in the Agency or reinstated
or reappointed in accordance with the provisions of subparagraph h(9)(b) shall,
while so serving, be entitled in lieu of his annuity to the full salary of the grade
in which he is serving. During such service, he shall make contributions to the
Fund in accordance with the provisions of this regulation. When he reverts to his
retired status, his annuity shall be determined anew in accordance with the
provisions of this regulation. "
So, if this sequence of events were to be followed, the question
as to whether or not the man can continue to make contributions to the Fund and
get additional service credit, would be answered "yes. " It is so stipulated
right here.
I
Look at paragraph s. , though. When would
you apply "s"?
MR. ECHOLS: (Reading) "s. REEMPLOYMENT OF RETIRED
PARTICIPANT. (1) GENERAL. A participant retired under the System shall
not, by reason of his retired status, be barred from employment in Federal
Government service in any appointive position for which he is qualified. An
annuitant so reemployed shall serve at the will of the appointing officer.
I assume this means other agencies, completely,
25X1
25X1
Do you think this is talking about other agencies
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
And you don't think that subparagraph h(9)(b)
pertains to anything but reinstated or reappointed -- that is the part that has to do
with disability only--
And you don't think it contemplates whoever is
recalled will be under the mandatory retirement age?
MR. ECHOLS: This is a silent point in the statute.
7
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : Cl UBP9N-b3092A000200020001-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
SECRET
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
MR. WARNER: As I say, we have checked with the Foreign
Service and they have assured us that they have recalled people above the final
mandatory retirement age.
MR. ECHOLS: I should think there would have to be a sense of
urgency for this individual' s services to do that, though - - to make it plausible.
I must admit I thought of it initially as that of a
man trying to stay within the new Agency Retirement System, and that seemed
wrong to me since he is past the mandatory retirement age. But if you're talking
about a contract and he begins contributing into the Civil Service Retirement
System, then it would seem to me that is a right he would have in some other
agency so why couldn't he be given that same right here?
MR. ECHOLS: Because this was special legislation authorized
to a very special agency because of its particular needs. At the same time,
it seemed to me that Congress might clearly -- suppose we had a hot war
situation of some kind, and we had a whole large body of retirees -- they could
be 67, 70, 75 -- and in such an urgent situation the Director shouldn't be
deprived, or the Government shouldn't be deprived of the know-how of these
retirees, even though they had been retired mandatorily under less demanding
circumstances.
I think it would be subjecting this whole thing to
jeopardy, though, to make this case one that the Director had to personally rule
on -- because that makes it a truly outstanding case, and it probably isn't that
outstanding. I think what we are looking for is a more orderly mechanism for
coping with something like this.
I think maybe what he ought to do is
opt for the Civil Service system and continue his contributions--
MR. ECHOLS: But I might add that in terms of timing this would
be quite an urgent case.
25X1A9A By the time he is 65 he will have only 14 years
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 Z_Ra8-03092A000200020001-4
r1
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
: ET
MR. ECHOLS: He would get that 8. 1% increase in annuity if he
retired before 1 December.
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
He wouldn't retire under Civil Service--
You would ask for a waiver beyond 65?
Yes.
MR. ECHOLS: You would?
MR. WARFIELD: I think he would be better off if he would retire
under Civil Service before 1 December and then have his contract include Social
Security provisions, if he's not already eligible for - Social Security.
MR. ECHOLS: Off hand, Gerry, it seems to me this man should
retire prior to 30 November 1965 -- this year -- thereby entitle himself to the
8% increase in his annuity, and then be reemployed under contract and, as you
say (indicating Mr. Warfield), be under Social Security.
25X1A9A
You would have to do the arithmetic to see what he
retires at at 65 under Civil Service -- or he might be better off retiring at 65
under our program -- in other words, weighed against the three and three-quarter
multiplier and the high-5.
MR. ECHOLS: We do have comparative computations here. His
annuity as of January, 1966, under the CIA System would be $5, 200. 00. Under
the Civil Service as of January, 1966, it would be $4, 584. 00 -- but that is without
that (6. 1%) factor -- as of 30 November there will be a difference --? as of
30 November: it will be $4845. 00--
MR. WARFIELD: He's still better off under our System.
MR. ECHOLS: He's still better off under our System.
But this is something we're going to have to move on, Gerry,
and move very fast, for Paul's benefit.
25X1A9A I think he needs somebody to advise
him, because he's got a number of different options -- I mean, who is going to
advise this man? - that is the main thing.
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 :E&&8-03092A000200020001-4 9
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
SECRET
MR. ECHOLS: We will certainly provide him with the computations
here immediately -- these are the three options.
MR. WARNER: I was the one who brought this case to Emmett's
attention, because I felt there were enough issues involved here, policywise, that
the Board ought to at least look at the case and do something about it. Aside
from the purely legal aspect, I would like to make a couple of comments on this.
I would feel that -- and again, keeping in mind our presentation and the way the
Committees looked at what we were after, etc. -- that we probably should have a
very strong case to have the Director recall after age 65. After all, the law
flatly says - age 60 you are automatically off the rolls, unless the Director extends no more than five years -- then after that there is nothing. Now there is a
separate, unrelated provision saying the Director in case of need can recall. Now
this wasn't designed solely to recall people beyond 65, it was designed to pick up
anybody from 50 years old and up, in case of need. And therefore it seems to
me that if we are going to use this power in one case that is beyond even the 65,
it ought to be a very strong case. Sooner or later I expect we may be asked to
review certain of our cases with these people -- they will want to see how we are
administering this thing -- and it should be a very strong case to use this
extraordinary power, in the face of our whole presentation about lowering the
age limit because people burn out, etc., and our first real policy exception, aside
from the legal aspects, is one we're trying to keep in the System after 65. So
these are, I think, policy considerations.
MR. ECHOLS: I agree with you, John. I think the mere fact
that no extension authority is granted the Director after 65, and even then for a
GS-18 only, is certainly indicative of the intent that we would be held to, by and
large, in the absence of a pressing emergency for an individual's services.
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
This man is 65 years old. He would need at
least five years to qualify for the Civil Service. Now whether he would meet
the minimum requirement of five years under Civil Service would be a question
for this particular man at this age.
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIAc1 g3092A000200020001-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
25X1
Irl :CBS
if it is monetarily to his benefit, as it appears to be from these comparative
computations -- should without question be designated a participant in the CIA
System -- and from what I know about his record, and so on, he does qualify.
I think he will have to be retired 1 January 1966, if that is when he is 65. Then
there are two options, as has been pointed out. One, he could be employed
under contract at whatever salary, at whatever job he is going to do, and be put
under Social Security -- and I don't know what
I believe he may have been under Social Security--
25X1A9A
prior employment was, but 25X1
I imagine he would get the minimum
figure, whatever it is -- $50 or $60 a month.
MR. ECHOLS: And alternatively, he could be recalled by the
Director and kept under this system.
Would not the best course of action be for us to give you these
comparative computations and for you to discuss this with him?
25X1A9A
Well, I didn't raise the question,
25X1A9A
0
did, and what he asked is in that memorandum -- "It is requested that we be
advised if he will be entitled to contribute to the retirement fund"--
MR. ECHOLS: The answer would be no, unless (a) he is retired,
and (b) the Director recalls him.
MR. WARFIELD: And I think he also ought to be advised of the
Board's feeling about the use of the Director's recall authority, whatever the feeling
of the Board is.
25X1A9A
I know what my feeling is in regard to
the Director's recall authority. If a man can perform useful service and we can
take advantage of his knowledge and training as a full-time employee, in a
competitive way, I don't see any reason why the Director shouldn't recall him.
MR. ECHOLS: He could, of course, but it seems to me that is
contrary to the expressed Agency policy even with regard to the Civil Service
Retirement System.
' 11
Approved For Release 2005/04/27. A78-03092A000200020001-4
9
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
SECRET
MR. WARFIELD: I think there is a difference between the
Director recalling him, and offering him a contract. I have no quarrel with
offering him a contract, but I think to recall him under this System would be- -
MR. ECHOLS: Now this memorandum that John Warner referred
25X1A9Ato me -- the memo from
-- and I think because of the urgency of this
problem, with the Civil Service legislation being what it is -- this memo still
remains to be answered. A legal question has been addressed to the General
Counsel's Office, and they still have to respond to him. So that is one course
of action - get a response back.
From my point of view, I think we ought to address a memo
25X1A9Aback to you (indicating
on this individual's case, pointing
out the urgency of his decision as to retirement under Civil Service versus the
Agency's system; also, that he be advised and that the DD/P be advised that
come 1 January if this man is under our System he is automatically retired. I
don't even know if this man is in this country -- is he?
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
Yes, he is in this country now.
I still think there is one other course of action
which needs to be spelled out, and the only reason I can't address myself to it
is I don't know enough about WH's desire -- I don't know if it is a full-time job
or something he would be doing in a full-time capacity worth something to the
Agency. If it is a full-time job then I still think bringing him into the system,
requesting a waiver and keeping him two more years under Civil Service also
has merit.
25X1A9A I think it is a full-time job. I haven't
25X1A9A
I think the consideration is to work two more years
as a GS-18 -- for two more years -- request a waiver to work until 67 -- is a
possible course of action.
25X1A9A I If the Panel decides that in his case it would
be better for him to stay under Civil Service because we do need him down in
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 Ca4u 03092A000200020001-4 12
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
SECRET
let's say one of the Islands, and that even though he is 65, we will ignore that
for the time being, then it's up to the Career Service -- they don't have to ask
him to retire--
25X1A9A
They have expressed an intent here to put him
under contract, and I don't know what the contract is--
25X1A9A
That may be because they thought this was the
way out of this situation. But if the Board doesn't feel it has to act on this man's
case and just left it alone, then this man is still under Civil Service as long as we
don't designate him, and the DD/P may then decide for himself that he wants him
on that Island. If he hasn't been designated as a participant in the System he is
still under Civil Service and he can stay on. They don't have to go to the Director
in that case.
MR. WARNER: That is absolutely right,
- - but 14006 tried 25X1
to get it out on the table here because I think the question is really a lot broader
than this specific case -- it brings a lot of questions into play in which I thought
the entire Board would be interested.
25X1A9A
It's a good case. I'm just wondering if we
said in this case that there is a job for this man that the DDP wants done in that
area, and to designate him at this time would be the wrong thing to do because
then he would have to retire at 65, unless the Director himself took steps to
recall him, and that the DDP would like not to designate. Would that
be something this Board would want to consider?
MR. ECHOLS: That is not the Board's problem. But I do think
that this individual must be consulted in this matter, not just ignored. Actually,
there is no action before this Board at the moment. He has not been nominated
by the DDP- -
25X1A9A
been designated a participant?
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't understand -- he has not
25X1A9A No.
LR:fDl Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : C103092A000200020001-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
SECRET
MR. ECHOLS: As I see it, the action is with the DDP. The
timing is critically important, obviously. But I don't see anything for the
Board to do at this time.
MR. SEELY: But clarify one point for me. Regardless of
this particular case - the circumstances in this case, is it possible for an employee
to be retired under the System at 65 and recalled and reinstated as a participant
in the system, thereby in effect becoming a member of this retirement system
after he is past 65?
MR. WARNER: This appears to be so, yes -- as a technical matter
it appears to be so. I'm not fully satisfied on this, and I want to do some more
checking. I was trying to go beyond that point,
by indicating -- 25X1
let's assume for the moment it is possible -- and I do think it is -- I had raised
another more serious question in my mind, and that is the impact of this type
of case -- whether it's this particular case or any other case -- in terms of is
this sufficiently important to warrant what is really a rather exceptional move,
that's all.
MR. SEELY: ... (inaudible)... appropriate case for the
Agency retirement system.
MR. WARNER: Because if the Board unanimously felt this way,
that is pretty good guidance as to how DDP would be thinking about other ways
of achieving their objective. If the objective was utilizing
problem there -- there are half a dozen ways of utilizing
question of which particular method.
25X1A9A
I
25X1
25X1
Let me ask one more question -- and I think
that was a good question Roger had. Then is it all right, then, if the head
of a Career Service, such as in this case, determines that if he were to designate
this person at this time he would have to be separated, and that he himself takes
steps not to designate - not to have him nominated for designation - because he
wants to keep him in another job, or put him in another area, let's say, to do a
QW 14
Approved For Release 2005/04/2778-03092A000200020001-4
-- it's just a
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
SEC.
job for a particular length of time? Is that all right by this Board? or does
this Board have anything to say about it? or does this Board just consider
those cases that come before it?
MR. WARNER: Well, the individual, in effect, has a right to
appeal his failure to be nominated.
I don't think the Board needs necessarily to
dip down into checking cases where no one has raised a question, just because
we happen to know about the case.
25X1A9A
By March of 1966 when he will have 15 years,
could he elect not to be a part of this system for this very reason? We have
had other people say, "I don't want to be part of the system because I want to
work beyond that mandatory age. "
25X1A9A
We may have other cases--
25X1A9A
But if they are not designated how does
this Board ever take cognizance of them?
MR. WARNER: It doesn't, unless there is an appeal.
MR. WARFIELD: I thought everybody had to be given an
opportunity, if they're qualified, to participate.
MR. WARNER: That is what I'm saying -- if he appeals
non-designation, the Board has the case, in effect.
MR. SEELY: He has to be notified of his non-designation, does
MR. ECHOLS: I believe I am responsible for examining the
records of all employees--
25X1
And you sort of said to us, "Designate or red
line" -- and those who are not redlined are those who, for one reason or another,
are not qualified." But he is sort of in between -- he doesn't fall in the latter
category.
MR. SEELY: I suggest this case could be handled by notifying
him that he is not being made a participant, and apprising him of his right to
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
~~ n
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
icfE~
appeal but at the same time giving him the arithmetic on how he would stand if
he were to get into this system versus the Civil Service System, and he can make
his decision on whether to appeal or not on that basis.
MR. ECHOLS: I really think that for those people who are clearly
within the field of employment for which this retirement system was set up
any decision to extend beyond the compulsory retirement age or any decision to
recall should be made by the Director on the recommendation of the Deputy Director
concerned. With all integrity, I don't see how it can be any other way -- and it
should be that way.
25X1A9A
I don't agree. This man is a. member
of the Civil Service System and came here with that as a condition of employment.
Why can't he stay that way if he wants to?
MR. ECHOLS: The Director went forward to Congress and he and
his representatives justified this system for certain elements of service. The
Director himself had espoused an early retirement program or early retirement
system for any employee in the Agency, and the exception to this rule I think
should be approved by him -- and especially where it is provided for specifically
in the law. I think he, and he alone, has these authorities.
25X1A9A
Well, this particular man, except
(he lacks three months)
(for an action in three months) could say, "Pooh! I elect the Civil Service
System. IT
25X1
So why--
He wouldn't have that chance, because he would have
to be out before he had that election.
25X1A9A
F77 : Then do you want to penalize him because
he lacks three months of reaching his 15 years--
MR. ECHOLS: Under the Civil Service System it would require
the Deputy Director to extend this man--
25X1A9A
That is right, the requirement is the
Deputy Director, not the Director -- in other words, the DDP can extend him.
SECRE
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
37
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
SECRET
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
MR. ECHOLS: He can indeed, as long as this man is under the
Civil Service Retirement System, but being under that system is a penalty to
this individual, at least if he has plans to retire in the near future.
I
you have thrown this in here because it has so many considerations -- but we have
gone way beyond what has been asked here. The statement has been made here
that this fellow is going to retire like they have discussed with him, and after he
retires they are going to offer him a contract, and all they're really saying is:
under this contract can he contribute to the retirement system. Right? Now
I think the answer to that, from what I have gathered here so far, is no, we don't
think that as a contract employee after he is retired he could contribute to the
Agency retirement system. He might be able to get Social Security -- or you
name it -- even Civil Service -- but, as you point out, he would have a long way
to go. Now, you know more of the background here, but to me it says he is
going to retire.
MR. ECHOLS: I think General Counsel's Office is going to rule
the man cannot retire under this system and continue to build up credits in this
system- -
employee you have to get Social Security or something. "
MR. WARNER: Again, I don't have blinders on -- I'm trying to
There are a lot
meet the objective, which is to have the services of this guy.
more of those considerations than there are legal ones.
That may satisfy this inquiry -- "No, as a contract
I I am trying to do one more thing than
that and that is to keep him in as favorable a position as he can be kept in, in
terms of his retirement.
MR. WARNER: Of course. That is perfectly natura:L.
MR. ECHOLS: Well, shall we leave this case now, and go on.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
Eck, I'd like to say one more thing. I realize
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
3 EGRET
CIA RETIREM'ENT BOARD MTG
14 September 1965
25X1A9AAgenda item: Discussion of the
MR. WARNER: I have only five more minutes -- I have an
appointment with Senator Fulbright , and I must go.
MR. ECHOLS: Then let me give you a piece of paper you can
25X1A9A carry with you -- because I had a brainstorm on this case.
25X1A9A
applied for retirement under both Civil Service and the Agency System, whichever
he can get in. He has also filed an appeal to the Director -- I have his appeal
here to the Director requesting that he be placed under the CIA retirement system.
Of course, the Board informally, I think, received from our legal adviser an
opinion that this man could not become a participant in the CIA System. This
individual came in and talked to me asking how he should file his appeal, how it
should be addressed, and I pointed out to him that he had not formally been denied
participation in the System and that I thought I would bring it up at the next Board
meeting, so that if he is formally denied, I shall so notify him, so that his appeal
then would have a solid basis. In the meantime I have come up with some
views on this case which may or may not have legal validity.
You all have copies of his appeal. Are there any questions
or discussion on the appeal or its basis?
you know, has for all practical purposes retired from the Agency.
25X1A9A if what the ANNIUMMINNOW legal adviser has said abou is true,
25X1A9A then if they stalled on
25X1A9A
No, but it makes It me think of this other one - -
until 1 January he wouldn't be eligible to get into
this retirement system, because he would then be in the same--
MR. WARNER: His situation has to be similar, there is no
question about that.
I I
25X1A9A retirement age -- which is the position you have taken ono
MR. ECHOLS: Well, if I may I'd like to read to you some views
Approved For Release 2005/04/27: 4M103092A000200020001-4
--because he would be beyond the mandatory
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
EC ET
S
25X1A9A that I have, which may follow a different train of thought than that of
or the General Counsel's Office -- and these may or may not be valid at all. Let
"I. In its deliberations concerning the implementation of the CIA
Retirement System the Board was faced with cases of employees
who were already eligible for voluntary retirement under the Civil
Service Retirement System. The policy question was whether,
since these employees had already had 'full' careers and had
successfully survived the stresses and health hazards of intelligence
operations, they should be eligible for the greater benefits of the
CIA Retirement System? While acknowledging that the CIA system
in its ultimate objective is both a manpower control tool and a
special benefit plan for the employee who cannot or does not
choose to survive a full working career, the Board felt that the
qualifying semployee earns his benefits even though he does have
a full career. On this premise numerous employees already past
mandatory retirement age have been brought into the CIA system
only to be retired shortly thereafter.
25X1A9A "Z. The case of s identical in principle
excepting for the fact that he is of an age (67) which at his grade is
beyond that to which the DCI is authorized by the statute to extend
the services of an employee under the CIA Retirement System. It
appears to be a legal anomaly therefore to designate an employee
as a participant in a retirement system which in its basic legislation
precludes the continuation of the individual's services to his then
present age.
25X1A9A
"3. Despite this seeming legal obstacle it should be noted that the
statute gives the Director the authority to recall a retired annuitant
'whenever he shall determine such recall to be in the public interest.
he DCI wo
ld
h
---s ---w~
u
L ave t
e authority -co recall
ad he already been retired under the CIA Retirement
System, at age 67, 70 or 75, for that matter.
"4. Without delving into the probabilities of legal technicality or
of Comptroller General interpretation of statute, it would seem
possible that the Director could designate an otherwise qualified
employee as a participant in the CIA Retirement System, making
him immediately subject to mandatory retirement and simultaneously
recall him to active duty.
"5. An alternative solution to a technical legal impediment to the
equitable implementation of the new CIA Retirement System would
25X1A9A be for the Director to simultaneously promote o GS-18
and thereby raise his mandatory retirement age to 65, simultaneously
extend his services to the then current date and simultaneously
retire him. This seems a technically and legally feasible action
but of course is not desirable from both appearances sake and
because windfall benefits would accrue in connection with possible
leave accrual payments.
"6. In summary, I recommend that the DCI agree to the designation
25X1A9A o Is a participant in the CIA Retirement System
and to his retirement on 30 September 1965. "
Approved For Release 2005/04/275 78-03092A000200020001-4 2
L/ Cl)
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
.lET
Now, I'm somewhat concerned about the apparent inequity, if
you will, and disparity of treatment between this man at 67 and a couple of other
people we have had who were ' 62 or 63, only because this one man is beyond
the mandatory extended retirement age. I think there are only two such cases
in the Agency. There might be three or four -- I only know of two. If we could
treat these people alike, if there is any way of doing it without violating the law, I
would think it would be desirable that we do it.
25X1A9A
Isn't this a fair statement of the Board's feeling? --
because I feel the same way, that short of a legal hurdle which we can't jump, the
Board would be for including them in the new system.
MR. ECHOLS: I don't know whether I have come up with a reasonably
plausible gimmick to avoid an out and out legal--
25X1A9A
I think there is a little weakness there in the mandatory
retirement -- one was a Civil Service one which we went beyond -- which is an
Agency-imposed mandatory retirement age -- and the other one is a statutory
mandatory retirement. I guess there is a difference. But it seems like with
only two people involved, and being caught up in this system--
MR. WARNER: Let me address myself to it, because I do have to
MR. ECHOLS: I'd rather not even invite an opinion from you,
John, publicly, here. If the Board agrees that I should further this case, if we
can find some loophole, I'd really like, with your permission, to proceed to try--
MR. SEELY: I'd like to say something. This man has had the
benefit of a full salary from age 60 to age 67, and I wouldn't feel, if he is not
retired under our System, that he had been denied anything, that he has lost anything.
He has had something the average participant in the System has not had, and that is
a full salary for seven years. I feel personally that bringing people at this age
into the System which is basically designed to insure everybody under grade 18 does
retire at 60, is inconsistent with the spirit and intent -- and I don't agree with
his paragraph 8, where he says, "I am convinced that it was not the intent of those
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : COl 171-03092A000200020001-4 3
Z/ r
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
SE
who formulated the Agency retirement system to deprive anyone who had already
reached 60 of the right of retirement when the system came into being. "
MR. ECHOLS: Oh, I disagree with several of his statements. I'm
not debating that- -
MR. SEELY: This isn't the case of a man who obviously has met
all the qualifications for the system and is being deprived of the benefits of it. It
seems to me this is the case of a man who has gotten more benefits, in a sense,
than the average person who retires under the system -- and those benefits consist
of seven years at full salary. Therefore I am not sure in my mind that I feel
that he should be retired under the Agency System.
MR. ECHOLS: On this point,
I would only say this. 25X1
Certainly this man has had seven more years of salary from the Agency than you
and I are going to get, let's say -- but the circumstances under which this Agency
was staffed, and the manpower hunt that was undertaken to find people of competence
to do the job, and the fact that we picked this man, who happened to be a good deal
older than the others, yet he has nonetheless done the job that we wanted done, and
has done, as far as I know, a very effective job, and has earned his pay over these
years -- in fact, they had him in the field on a TDY only a month or so ago --
so the fact he has been on a salary beyond the age that you and I will be on salary,
I don't think militates against his case, really.
25X1 A9A
how would you feel about this case.
The man is 64 years old, for (the next) _ r 364 days. Now that man,
according to the way we have been handling the cases under 65, we would designate
him, knowing the Director of Personnel has to grant that extension -- and we are
doing that as a favor for that individual, because under the law he is supposed to
retire at 60 if he is a GS-17 or below -- so we've gone ahead in that case and said -
Well, the Director of Personnel will extend him that one more day -- and we
designate him -- he can retire at ..... percent -- but if he is exactly 65 years
old, under the law we can't do that. Now do you want to penalize that guy for that
one day?
Approved For Release 2005/04/27: 4
WWfkP48-03092A000200020001-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
SECRET
MR. SEELY: I don't want to penalize anybody for one day. But
here is a man who is 67 -- he's two years beyond the final age--
25X1A9A
I think we have to be fairly consistent, though,
in the 65 and a half, 66, 67 -- if we're going to take one position we ought to stick
to it if he is over 65 -- or if we want to say, then, look for some justification here--
25X1A9A
How would Congress feel if they learned that people
were being retired under this System at advanced ages, such as the late 60's,
when their understanding or intent was that this would be a system for keeping the
Agency youthful - retiring people at early ages.
MR. ECHOLS: I think Congress is quite used to the fact that
implementing any new piece of legislation involving dollars and cents or rights,
somebody is going to get their throat cut by a matter of minutes, or days, or hours,
and that somebody else is going to get a little windfall that perhaps he wasn't
completely deserving of, etc. Lord only knows how they worked us over to avoid
windfalls to people - the five year requirements, ten year requirements. They are
very alert to windfalls, there is no doubt about this -- and I think this is true with
almost any piece of legislation. I think we should avoid, to the extent possible,
odious situations, odious comparisons, where by reason of a couple of days, or a
couple of months, or couple of years, one person does and another doesn't. And
to the extent that this man for a minimum of 60 months did presumably earn these
benefits, since that is our minimum standard I think we ought to go along, if we can.
25X1A9A I agree, too - - but furthermore, I think
it was the announced policy of the Board that in applying the legislation initially
we would do it as liberally as we possibly could- -
25X1A9A
25X1A9A
a more liberal retirement, we should.
25X1A9A
And I feel that if we can get
It seems to me on this first go around there is
some justification %, for that type of argument, on the first go around.
25X1A9A MR. ECHOLS: There are just two of these lin the Agency--
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CI iW3092A000200020001-4
4/3
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
SECRE
25X1A9A
Are you sure of that? - you can count them
on your one hand?
MR. ECHOLS: Of course, all of the cases aren't in yet -- we can't
be positive of that -- but have all of the 65ers been taken care of?
25X1
25X1A9A
Hopefully.
MR. SEELY: How old is the other one?
It seems to me the fact we bring them in and
immediately retire them doesn't strike me as something that would offend Congress
as much as a recall of someone after he is past 65. At least we're putting him
right out, and we're just bringing him into this better System before we pitch him
out. I almost feel that had it been thought of it could have been worked into the
bill, to get this thing started, that those who have already exceeded the mandatory
age will be included. It's just one of these things -- you don't think of every angle.
MR. ECHOLS: Does anybody else want a copy of my gimmick paper?
25X1A9A (Mr. Echols then handed
a copy of this paper.) And if any of you
have any ideas on how to improve it -- this is a difficult problem. This man
is employed now -- although (not on the salary) he had before -- so I don't think
his annuity is a pressing problem -- although he has applied for retirement as of
30 September. So I'll work with the Office of General Counsel and see if they
think this thing - if they could say "no legal objections" -- in which case the
recommendation of the Board is that we will try to pursue this case, and get it
adopted. Are you willing to go along with that, Roger?
Mr. Seely slightly nodded his head in the affirmative
MR. WARFIELD: Well, I'm not -- but we've had a divided vote
MR. ECHOLS: Well, let me get the legal opinion first, and I'll
bring it up at the next meeting.
MR. WARFIELD: If there is a change in legal opinion, I would go
along with it- -
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 CP78-03092A000200020001-4 6
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
SECRET
MR. ECHOLS: I'm not going to recommend anything to the Director
that the General Counsel's Office will say is illegal.
MR. SEELY: If this opinion of is superseded by a 25X1A9A
different opinion, I wouldn't object
MR. ECHOLS: Well, we will table this, then.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
SECRET
MR. WARFIELD: There was one more thing, and that was
the Employee Notice, you said you would take up with the Board today.
MR. ECHOLS: This is an awfully complicated subject, but maybe
I can make it short.
The President has on his desk a piece of legislation which
will give increased annuities to the tune of 8. 1 percent to persons who retire
under the Civil Service Retirement System prior to 1 December.
left the meeting at this point . . . .
MR. ECHOLS (Continuing): The 8.1% consists of two things,
a hangover of 2% from the old Salary Reform Act, and a 6. 1% bonus, if you will,
representing cost of living increases, etc. - and salary increases - that have
taken place between the Salary Reform Act and the present day. It is assumed
the President is going to sign this bill. In addition, the bill revises the time
scale for effecting cost-of-living increases in annuities in future years, so as to
minimize the time lag between compilation of the cost-of-living increases and
the implementation of the increases in annuities, and requires a shorter period
of time -- three months, as opposed to a year -- of average higher increased
cost of living.
Now, we have employees right now, some of whom have been
extended for six months, five months, four months, some of whom are planning
their retirement in the imminent future - maybe this month, maybe next month,
maybe three months from now, and so on. CIA has drafted legislation and has
it already approved - the Director has signed off on it, which would give our
retirement system the equivalent of this new provision of the Civil Service
Retirement System. Our committees have told us there isn't a chance in
hell of their taking up this legislation or of it getting on the floor in this session
of Congress. We can hope, of course, that in February, March or April of
next year that this legislation for our system will go through -- and there is no
reason to think that Congress would not accept it, because they have already
Approved For Release 2005/04/27: CIA-RD SA000200020001-4
46
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
SECREA
approved this for the Armed Services and for Civil Service. In case our
legislation goes through, it will have a different effective date, of course, than
the Civil Service. It won't be 1 December, it will be sometime next spring.
They will probably give us 60 days in which to get out the word and let people make
up their minds whether they want to retire immediately or later on.
Now our employees right this moment are mostly under Civil
Service. Some of them are at the bring of a decision: "Do I stay under the Civil
Service System or go under the CIA system? If I go under the CIA system I may
be mandatorily retired beginning 1 January, or 1 February, etc. " These people
may say, "I'd like to gamble -- I'd like to be put in the CIA system and gamble
that this CIA legislation will be passed next spring, and then I'll be indeed much
better off. "
Now, somebody will have to communicate with them and
explain this is the situation, these are the problems. It takes a sharp pencil
to calculate the dollars and cents differences between retirement under Civil
Service -- retirement under Civil Service with this 8. 1% increment -- and the
only way to do this, I think, is to sit down with each and every individual who may
be retiring within let's say the next two years, sit down and explain the facts of
life to them.
MR. WARFIELD:
Emmett, couldn't you limit it further. It
only affects those people who could retire under the Civil Service by ]. December --
so that would be 55 and 30, or 60 and whatever the guidelines are.
MR. ECHOLS: So this is a relatively small group of people. This
is not thousands of people, by any means. But it's probably a couple hundred
people. So I propose to do two things. One, I think we can identify these
people from the rolls, and start getting in touch with them.. But at the same time
I think we ought to publish an Agency-wide notice -- this couldn't possibly answer
all of the questions of these people, but only to alert them to the situation and get
in touch with us if they are contemplating retirement within the next couple of
years, and if they are age so and so, and have so many years' service -- otherwise
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA7i p78-03092A000200020001-4
0) c. L E-
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
SECREt
don't bother us.
MR. GEORGE MILLER: Let me ask you a question. I have
one specific case -- this man, I know, is 59, and he is going to retire early
next year. Now if he is going to retire next year he would get less than if he
retired this year--
MR. ECHOLS: It wouldn't be 8% -- the 2% he gets this calendar
year drops to 1% next year; and, in addition, this special 6. 1% expires -- it's
only for persons who have retired prior to 1 December.
MR. GEORGE MILLER: But can he retire- -
25X1A9A
Has he been designated?
MR. WARFIELD: Does he have 30 years of service?
MR. GEORGE MILLER: I don't know.
MR. ECHOLS: But offsetting this, George, is the fact thatdue
to pay legislation in recent years one's high-5 is going up rapidly, generally
speaking, which will offset, a great deal, this 8% increase.
MR. GEORGE MILLER: There seems to be a lot of inequity
there, because we definitely want to make him retire early next spring.
MR. ECHOLS: Well, if he has the right to retire now he probably
should run, not walk, to the nearest exit.
MR. GEORGE MILLER: Can he retire and get the 1% -?- let's
say 1% -- if he is one year under age 60?
MR. ECHOLS: You're talking about your under age penalty? Does
he have 30 years' service?
MR. GEORGE MILLER: I don't know.
MR. ECHOLS: It's the facts in every case that have a vital
bearing on this.
MR. SEELY: I have a participant in the system who had chosen,
although it was not yet formalized, to voluntarily retire on the 30th of November he is qualified and (above 55). He has now elected to voluntarily retire on
Approved For Release 2005/04/2$EE, 4P78-03092A000200020001-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
SECRE1
25X1A9A
the 31st of November. Both would be under the Agency system. Now he is
all right?
MR. ECHOLS: He has no problem, and I'll tell you why - -
because assuming the President is going to sign this bill then we have every
reason to think that our equivalent bill will go through early next year, and it
will be for those people who have retired previous to the effective date of that
bill.
MR. SEELY: There is no chance it will have the same date as the
Civil Service?
MR. ECHOLS: No.
MR. GEORGE MILLER: I have another one who is overseas, and
he has 32 or 33 years at the present time and should retire in the summer of
1967. Now this would be to his benefit--
MR. ECHOLS: I don't know, because, among other things, of
what value are the two years of salary to him in terms of high-5 and current
income -- what other employment opportunities does he have in mind? who knows?
The individual has to make his choice, if he has a choice.
MR. WARFIELD: And he has to make a guess--
MR. ECHOLS: And he has to make an educated guess, and take
a gamble.
MR. GEORGE MILLER: And does this legislation give you
retirement at 55 with 30 years of service--
MR. ECHOLS: All we're trying to do is get the same cost of
living adjustment--
MR. GEORGE MILLER: 55 and 30 years of service--
MR. ECHOLS: You mean 30 years of service without regard to
It would be with reduced annuity.
MR. ECHOLS: Well, we will try to pull together a Notice
49
SECREL
Approved For Release 2005/04/27,: CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200020001-4
25X1A9A
We were negotiating with Treasury for our
first investment of CIA. Retirement System funds, and the total now is in excess
of one million dollars of available funds. We will be negotiating on our second
investment very shortly. $450, 000. 00 is going in the first time.
SECREE
The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p. m.
50
Approved For Release 2005/04/2t? QP78-03092A000200020001-4