(UNTITLED)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-03092A000200100001-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 20
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 15, 2001
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: January 4, 1966
• Content Type: MIN

proved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200100001-5
SECRET
. . . . The 27th meeting of the CIA RETIREMENT BOARD
convened at 2:05 p.m. on Tuesday, 4 January 1966, in room 6F25, with
the following present:
Mr. Emmett D. Echols, Chairman
DP Member
25X1A9a DP Member
DDP Member
25X1A9a Mr. Paul A. Borel DDI Member
DDI Member
DDS&T Member
25X1A9a Mr. Alan M. Warfield, DDS Member
Member
gal Adviser
ance Adviser
ecutive Secretary
Recording Secretary
MR. ECHOLS: I would like, before we start, to make
a confession -- which they say is good for the soul. At our last meeting
I don't know what got into me but I think I really got way off the beam in
stating, or indicating -- I don't know which I did -- that at the time of
designation a person did not have to meet all of the criteria for designation.
I was really wrong. I knew we had been over this point before, but I
had forgotten about it -- and I think that is why this policy booklet we're
preparing is so important. But in retrospect, I can't read the
regulation without seeing - point blank - the specific requirement that at
the time of designation the person must meet all of the criteria, including
that all-important one about be serving on a career basis in a field which
normally requires the performance of qualifying duty as an integral part
of a career in that field.
I think we had cases and the question came up last
time as to whether certain people were currently serving in a field which
would or might call for further qualifying duty -- and I think I made the
pproved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-3092002001
 Oproved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200100001-5
SECRET
mistake of indicating that wasn't important, but it IS important on initial
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
designation. And I think Jim made the point that at some earlier meeting
we had agreed that if a man at the time the legislation was passed, at the
time it went into existence, was at that time in a qualifying field but
maybe in the intervening months - in a few months - had changed, we
would consider his status at the time that he first could have been con-
sidered for the system if we could have moved quickly enough. Is that
roughly right, Jim? was that your point?
I think that also was if they had
over 15 years at the time the legislation was passed, and was now out of
the field but otherwise qualified, could also be admitted to the system.
That is a pretty important addition, I
think, that Jim just added there: if he had finished 15 years. Because
I do think we brought quite a few in on that basis.
MR. ECHOLS: Yes, I know we have.
So, I stand corrected.
We have gone through the Minutes of all of the
meetings and have prepared the beginnings of a policy book that has,
roughly, from "A" through "P", the basic findings of the Board, if you
will. I want to read it thoroughly once more before we submit it to the
Board to see if you all agree that these are indeed the policy points that
we have already reviewed and established a posture on. So this will
be coming out very shortly, and will be a good reference source as to
what our past actions have been.
MR. BOREL: Mr. Chairman, going back to your
earlier point, is it likely, then, that we have admitted people into the
system that were not qualified?
EM0200' 00001-5
ITT
pproved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP7
 proved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200100001-5
SECREL'
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
MR. ECHOLS: No, it is not. At the last meeting I
think the only question that came up was whether some of the people were
currently in a field of work which would be qualifying, and after the
meeting I looked through the cases and there were four in question and
they were all FDD cases, and I verified that these people are indeed still
X
very, very much So I don't thinjc w
e
have made any mistakes because of that momentary digression on my
part.
MR. BOREL: I was thinking in the case of the DD/I where
a man is not now in a career field but had five years and was automatically
brought in, I don't recall whether the 15 year provision was examined at
that time.
MR. ECHOLS: If there is any doubt, I can go back and
review -- but I think up until now we have been pretty thorough in looking
at all aspects of these cases to make sure they qualified, with the minor
deviations that we have agreed to on the over 15 years group.
For my edification, if I may: Does the
Board still consider that it is still in the initial review, as far as
determination as of the date of the passage of the Act, or have you passed
into a second phase of your examination of cases? Would you still pass
a case that was qualified and properly serving at the time the legislation
was passed but is not now serving in that same qualifying service?
Again, I think it would depend upon whether
the man has less or more than 15 years' service. Isn't that right?
Well, on our initial review, it would
occur to me at the moment, just on this very limited conversation, that had
his name come up with the others some three months ago, or five months ago,
3
pproved For Release 2001/07/12: CIA-RDP7O*100200100001-5
 proved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200100001-5
SECRET
25X1A9a
he would have been passed automatically -- now he would be denied on the
first review. This would be the man who had five years prior to the
passage--
MR. ECHOLS: A man who has 60 months and the 15 years
would never have to be reviewed again or face the risk of being thrown out.
But if we put a man in on the basis of less than 15 years who had no
possibility
.... (inaudible)....
25X1A9a
I still don't think this is Joe's point. I
think he is talking about the fellow who doesn't have 15 years, who does
have five years, who now is out of qualifying service, so to speak, but
who was, at the time of passage of the Act, in it, and had we been able to
act the next day on everybody, he would have been included. When are
we through with the first phase of review? in other words, would it be
after we have covered everybody?
MR. ECHOLS: After we have covered everybody, I think,
Joe. And I might say, in this connection, that I think we initially
rather informally set a target for initial review of one year or less --
and as I mentioned at the last meeting, I believe we're all going to receive
a directive to do it in less time than that -- I think with a deadline of
something like 30 March, or 1 April, or something like that. So we are
still in the initial review, and, presumably, we will finish that before a
year is up.
The reason I asked, it would appear to
me that would be a point (which could well be taken up) by the Chairman
in his year-end report to the Committees -- which we will probably be
dealing with before the end of this month.
MR. ECHOLS: I understand that is why we are beginning
to expedite this action, because the Agency is getting alarmed at its need
pproved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03`92 0200100001-5
SE&R L
 proved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200100001-5
SECRET'
25X1A9a
to report the progress to the Committees.
Could we look at the Minutes of the last meeting.
Are there any additions or corrections in the Minutes? (No response.)
If not, we will accept the Minutes as presented, and go on to the cases.
And incidentally, I have looked at each and every one of these cases today,
and I'll bet a half a dollar we don't find an issue.
In the first group are those who have 15 years or more
of service, meet all of the requirements, and who have 60 or more months
of qualifying service. There are 26 such persons -- three in pseudonym,
This will be the first and final, and only, review of these people.
Mr. Chairman, I move they all be
designated.
. . . . This motion was then passed . . . .
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
MR. ECHOLS: The second group are in the same
category, basically -- they meet all of the basic criteria, and will complete
15 years of Agency service within six months so this review will also
constitute their 15 year review. There are 16 such cases.
Mr. Chairman, I move the group
under "B" be designated into the system,
Second.
. . . . This motion was then passed . . . .
MR. ECHOLS: The third group clearly meet the basic
criteria for designation. I think an interesting thing about this group is
5
pproved For Release 2001/07/12: CIA-RDP1EGQIET 00200100001-5
11
 25X1A
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200100001-5
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200100001-5
 pproved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200100001-5
SECRET
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
he had at least three or four years of military service with the Agency before
he converted to civilian status. Has anyone ever raised that question?
MR. ECHOLS: I think it's quite specific in the law that
it is civilian service only. No question about this.
Are you sure it is explicit in the law?
MR. ECHOLS: I would say yes, I am sure.
Because we are beginning to think
in terms of stretching the interpretation to include a number of contract
agents and the variety of other mixed contractual arrangements we had in
the 50's, and one by one these are being examined and, in most cases,
recommended for participation.
MR. ECHOLS: I would qualify to this extent. We have
had some peculiar arrangements in the past years where the Agency
arranged to have people put on active duty, etc. , yet we held the posture
that these people were CIA employees during this entire period -- yet by
law and by military regulations they were entitled to certain things -- and
we have taken some of these cases up, where a real conflict arose, and
on a case by case basis have been able to straighten out that there were
no duplicatory or overlapping rights and so on. So any of these cases
you speak of possibly could be straightened out so that that would be
discredited as military service and possibly could be credited as civilian
service.
You are saying, then, that in the case of
those people who are called to legitimate active duty for which they are
getting military reserve credit, those three years could not be counted as
part of the 15 years of service with the Agency?
MR. ECHOLS: I don't believe they can be without some
7
pproved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78 It,Ec 0200100001-5
1 U16
 proved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200100001-5
SECRET
special action on the part of the Agency. I think I can show you that the
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
law is quite specific--
I may be wrong, but it seemed to me --
and this went through my mind at the time came up --
and I thought
(Reading)
"SEC. 253. (a) A participant who, during the
period of any war, or of any national emergency as
proclaimed by the President or declared by the Congress,
has left or leaves his position.to enter the military
service shall not be considered, for the purposes of
this Act, as separated from his Agency position by
reason of such military service, unless he shall apply
for and receive a refund of. contributions under this
Act: Provided, That such participant shall not be
considered as retaining his Agency position beyond
December 31, 1956, or the expiration of five years
of such military service, whichever is later. "
Now I don't know what "emergency as proclaimed by
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
the President" means.
Do these people put their six and a half
percent in during that time on military duty?
MR. ECHOLS: No.
Then it would seem to me they couldn't
get the service unless they contributed to those funds, could they?
MR. ECHOLS: I don't think they can get the service--
(Reading)
"(b) Contributions shall not be required covering
periods of leave of absence from the Agency granted a
participant while performing active military or naval
service in the Army, Navy, Air Force., Marine Corps,
or Coast Guard of the United States. "
25X1A9a
I think that unless the individual
has a military status in which he is accruing time for regular retirement
purposes -- I think throughout the whole Civil Service this is consistent--
8
pproved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDPf1[000200100001-5
 pproved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200100001-5
SECR
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
MR. ECHOLS: Oh, you have another issue here -- for
service which is creditable toward military retirement he cannot be given
credit under either our system or the Civil Service system.
Except for reserve retirement --
that is my point.
MR. ECHOLS: So if the service is either not creditable
toward military retirement or we can arrange to have it thrown out
(under a special case), in either of those circumstances it could be counted
under our system. You can't get it under both -- that is the sine qua non,
as one would say.
Really you need to look at the particular
case, because you have a split, too, on the January 1, 1956 date, with
Social Security credit coming in after 1 January 1956, even for Reservists.
But if basically a man served on military detail from the Pentagon with us,
that service would not be creditable--
As long as he remained in the
regular military establishment. In the case of We finished
20 years -- I just checked his record here -- he finished 20 years and then
elected to retire as an enlisted man, and then joined the Agency's service - -
he decided to forego the
.... (inaudible)....
But if he had resigned
from the military service after 17 years, then I think he could elect,
under all of the laws that deal with military pay, to use that time toward
his Agency retirement, whether it's CIA or Civil Service. This is
quite clear--
But that would still go to the computation
of final benefit rather than to creditable service for inclusion under the Act.
I suppose, but I'm not sure, and I
9
pproved For Release 2001/07/12: CIA-RDPa-000200100001-5
 proved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200100001-5
SECRET
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A6a
wish somebody would raise this--
MR. ECHOLS: Let's try to look that up.
The same as any service prior to Agency
service would be creditable for computation of retirement benefits --
total Federal service -- but would not count as eligibility under the Act
as far as number of years here -- five years or 14 years--
can be inferred from the statement that has been made here.
I thought that was the only question. There
is not much question about using the military service for retirement. In
the 15 years' service with the Agency, while you're in a military status
would that count as part of that 15 years -- and I think the answer there is
negative.
Unless you were serving with the
Agency--
It seems to me it would still count as part
of your service but would not count- -
MR. ECHOLS: We have this requirement in the Regulation:
Qualifying service means performance of duty as an Agency employee. And
under the definitions we have: Employee means a civilian officer or
employee of the Agency. Military service cannot be counted as
qualifying service.
Okay, that takes care of that five years,
but can it even be counted in the 15 years' service with the Agency if you were
legitimately employed by the military even though on detail here?
We had that case -- we had the case of a
chap who for three years was nd he was on complete detail to
10
pproved For Release 2001/07/12: CIA-RDP4Q~Rl000200100001-5
 25X1A
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200100001-5
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200100001-5
 proved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200100001-5
SECRE
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
MR. ECHOLS: Jim's point is well taken. We had a
couple of weird cases. We had the case of a man recalled to active
duty, although he was our employee, and who became disabled, in the
military sense, while he was on active duty and drew disability benefits
from the military although he returned to duty with the Agency on a full
salary. This, obviously, was a weird situation.
The way that situation distinguished
itself was the fact that our Medical people chose to take him back because
they did not find it a disabling disability as far as the Agency was concerned,
whereas the military had found--
MR. ECHOLS: In terms of our Agency service he was not
disabled but in terms of the military service he was disabled. So here
we had a man drawing apparently two benefits from the U. S. Government.
But we finally have gotten these cases straightened out -- and it will not
happen again -- and the military have agreed to the fact that these people
should be our employees hereafter.
Well, we're still on Group C here.
joined the meeting at this point . . . .
The case you referred to earlier may have
been that of - you said one of them had a lot of TDY.
MR. ECHOLS: Yes,
That was the only one I could find.
MR. ECHOLS: Its interesting only to point out that
some of our people probably will perform the preponderance of their 60
months in many, many, many TDYs abroad -- and I see no objection.
Mr. Chairman, I move that the
l2
pproved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200100001-5
SECRE
 pproved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200100001-5
SECRET
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
group under "C" be initiated into the system.
This motion was then passed . . . .
MR. ECHOLS: Gerry, would you care to give us a
report on where your qualifying domestic duty report is?
is going through about the 4th or 5th
MR. ECHOLS: Are you making progress? Is it
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
clearing up?
e choose to think it's progress. But
I think we will have something to present here very soon, and we will
probably suggest that the CS Board have a joint meeting with the Retirement
Board. I would say that might take place next week.
MR. ECHOLS: Any other new business anybody would
like to bring up?
I think in connection with your remarks at
the beginning of this meeting about the necessity of being in a career
field which normally requires overseas service at the time of designation,
it may bring up a situation somewhat similar to this situation of defining
qualifying domestic service, in that we have got to have a consensus on
what is a career field normally requiring overseas service. A liberal
interpretation might be the whole Agency, because anybody can be
ordered on TDY overseas at any time; a tighter interpretation might be
only one of those career services where overseas service is a normal
part of their career. I think there is a lot of latitude for interpretation
in this.
13
pproved For Release 2001/07/12: CIA-RDP78-nQ00200100001-5
 pproved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200100001-5
SCRE1
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
MR. ECHOLS: Yes, there is -- and we couldn't define it
at the time, and yet, obviously, when the Agency testified that not more
than a third of its people would be in this system, obviously they did not
contemplate that Agency service would be considered as such service --
this would be a direct contradiction--
Couldn't we possibly -- and this is just a
wild thought -- lick this by saying that a given percentage of the positions
of a given Career Service would have to be overseas to give it qualifying
status -- and it could be a comparatively low percentage. I don't know I'm just thinking - -
MR. ECHOLS: I think perhaps I represent a typical
Career Service with this problem, and I don't think that I could identify
more than say 50 individuals whom I would look upon as being the available
reservoir of people who are ready, willing and able to go, and whom I
would care to send abroad.
Then its not the service but the individual-
MR. ECHOLS: It's not the service, in my opinion, but
that group of people I am going to recurringly call upon to serve abroad
and who have evidenced their willingness and ability to do so. And I
think this would apply to Logistics and Finance, I think the Finance
careerists who are overseas people are quite an identifiable group --
isn't that true?
By and large this is true.
MR. ECHOLS: I think it's done on the basis of
individuals preponderantly in this type of career service.
You might have to change your wording
25X1A9a
This could be carried one step further.
pproved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03g912A000200100001-5
SECRET
 Oproved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200100001-5
SECRET
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
At a given point in time a man who had previously served in an overseas
type of position, subject to such assignment, could be transferred to
Headquarters let's say to an area where you didn't expect him to go
overseas at all, because you wanted a man there, but this doesn't mean
a man would stay there more than two or three years until he would be
back into an overseas assignment again -- so at the moment he might
disqualify himself by sitting in that particular job--
MR. ECHOLS: I don't think his particular job at the
moment should disqualify him, really-
Well, that gets back to your first
statement, then--
MR. ECHOLS: If I have a man who goes overseas for one
tour, or two tours, and he says - "Never again - - I'm through - - I won't
go overseas again" -- I don't care where I assign him, but he won't go
in the system. If I have a man who has had one tour overseas and I
continually look upon him and he looks upon himself as being one of my
overseas people, I would put him in, and I would expect that he would
ultimately prove my projection by actually serving, at the minimum, the
requisite 60 months. I can guess wrong, but that is why we have a
system that will purge out our errors.
One of the problems, of course, in V
establishing any fixed sort of ruling or basis is that the requirements are
going to change so much. That is certainly true of our Directorate --
much of it is just evolving, really. What we say today may not be
true--
25X1A9a 11 It's just a starting point. What you
(indicating Mr. Echols) are saying is the Head of the Career Service
15
pproved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP73{9~00200100001-5
 proved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200100001-5
SECRE
says: I certify this man is of a type that may normally be expected to
serve overseas.
MR. ECHOLS: I think this in fact represents the best
judgment of the Head of the Career Service -- that I think this guy is
overseas material, that he will in due course during his career meet the
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
minimal requirements -- and if I have guessed wrong, he will be purged
out of the system.
MR. WARFIELD: At the five, ten, 15 year reviews.
MR. ECHOLS: So I think it's the best judgment of the
Head of the Career Service, or his Board, whatever it may be.
That would be true if he were put into
the system, but would it be true if he didn't get into the system? -
would he later be considered automatically on overseas assignment?
MR. ECHOLS: Would you illustrate with a case, Joe?
A personnel officer has 18 months in
Saigon. He comes back in for three years and then he goes out again
for another 18 months. At that time would he be considered? or only
when he goes back? or ever?
MR. ECHOLS: Certainly if I hadn't put him in at the
very beginning -- which I probably would -- the first time he goes abroad
I would put him in the system, in all probability, unless I knew this
was a one time, developmental tour, period. If he said - "I'll go once
but I'll never go again" - I wouldn't put him in, in that case, but otherwise
I would put him in the very first time I assigned him abroad.
Assume the reverse - that you don't
put him in -- now will he automatically come up again for consideration
upon overseas assignment?
pproved For Release 2001/07/12: CIA-RDP78Sp0200100001-5
 proved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200100001-5
I11
SEC
MR. ECHOLS: I sent him abroad on his first tour, and
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
I didn't put him in the system?
That is right. Then you brought him
back in. And then three or four years later--
MR. ECHOLS: If I were he I would be beating on
somebody's door and saying, "I'm on my second tour and you haven't put
me in the CIA system"--
MR. WARFIELD: I expect after we get along down the
line we will be doing machine runs of non-participants, to see if somebody
hasn't become eligible, won't we?
MR. ECHOLS: Surely.
But it would appear that the same criteria
could hold that man out, in a given case, until he had completed five years --
which would change the consideration for him - that he would have to have
five years to come in -- where other people would come in merely by
their service designation.
MR. ECHOLS: I would think any Head of a Career Service
would want his people overseas to get the better death and disability
benefits that are available with overseas service, so I would think the
tendency--
25X1A9a 11 I'm not questioning that at all - - I'm just
going on the single criteria of whether it is the individual and his
considered availability for overseas. service, or, as Harry stated it, the
career service that normally requires service overseas. They are quite
different things. One is a career service requiring it of all people, and
the other is an individual judgment in an individual case, which could lead
to totally different criteria for the application of two different services.
17
pproved For Release 2001/07/12: CIA-RDP7SQJ00200100001-5
 25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
proved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200100001-5
KUL
MR. ECHOLS: I would still think it's the judgment of the
Career Service with respect to the individual's prospective career that
should determine whether or not you put him in. I don't see any other
valid basis. Does anybody disagree with that?
There are obviously some limiting factors.
No matter what the man thinks, if five years have passed and he doesn't
have the 18 months, you can't put him in, or if ten years have passed and
he doesn't have the 36 months.
MR. ECHOLS: Under definitions we say: Career means
the predominant and long-range orientation of an employee's Agency
service, past and present, as well as plans for his future development and
use. These are matters of judgments that the Career Service must
make regarding the individual.
But I think you're changing this groundrule
a bit -- and I think rightfully -- in other words, you're saying now, I
believe, that you can't necessarily qualify Medics, Personnel, or Finance
under that definition--
MR. ECHOLS: As a category? Oh, indeed, yes. I
don't think that was ever true -- I mean, I don't think we ever contemplated
a total field of employment - saying "everybody in this field is eligible
for this system. "
MR. ECHOLS: No, no, no. This is speaking about the
individual -- "Career means the predominant and long-range orientation
of an employee's Agency service, past and present, as well as plans for
his future development and use" -- again, it speaks to the individual, not
pproved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-O
0200100001-5
ftot
 25X1A
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200100001-5
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200100001-5
 )proved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200100001-5
SEC L .
25X1A9a
to file an appeal if he was not designated a member of the system. I
suggested that he better read the Regulation before wasting time filing an
appeal. But he insists that although he has never been overseas -- and
he has worked in the past for the Directors and Deputy Directors
preponderantly -- that he is working in direct support of clandestine
operations - - which I can't deny, but I had to explain to him that this was
not quite what we meant. But he did bring up the point - he said,
"What happens to me if I get fired -- everything I've learned in the past
fifteen, twenty years wouldn't be worth two hoots in hell on the outside. "
I said - well, under those circumstances you might possibly be declared
eligible under 11(c). So he said he was going to read paragraph 11(c).
And I think this is a classic case of no overseas service and no direct
participation in clandestine operations.
MR. BOREL: (Laughing) Is he willing to get fired to
test the system?
MR. ECHOLS: (Laughing) I don't think so.
Okay. Anything else?
I move we adjourn.
. . . . The meeting adjourned at 2:50 p.m.
. . . ,
pproved For Release 2001/07/12: CIA-RDP78i 00200100001-5