(UNTITLED)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 43
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 19, 2005
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: February 8, 1966
• Content Type: MIN

Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
. . . . The 29th meeting of the CIA RETIREMENT BOARD
convened at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, 8 February 1966, in room 5E62 HQ,
with the following present:
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
Mr. Emmett Chairman
I DP Member
Mr. James Critchfield DDP Member
Mr.
Mr.
DDP Member
Paul A. Borel, DDI Member
Roger G. Seely, DDI Member
, DDS Member
Mr. John S. Warner, Le al Adviser
Ichnical Adviser
k ecutive Secretary
Recording Secretary
GUEST: Mr. Thomas H. Karamessines, ADDP
MR. ECHOLS: Tom (Karamessines), as I understand,
you would like to give the Board some flavor of some of the special
problems that you see in our administration of this domestic qualifying
duty. And we certainly would appreciate a little help and guidance in
this area.
MR. KARAMESSINES: Well, we in the Clandestine
Services Board have gone over this ground many times, for many hours,
and we have tried to hear the proponents of various approaches to this
problem. The results of our deliberations were embodied pretty much -
and I think rather faithfully - in the paper that we sent up. And I have
since been told that this Board considered that the paper that we sent up
was too broad in its criteria, that they were far too permissive, and
therefore generally inconsistent with the thrust of the specific terms of the
legislation and the subsequent regulation, and'also inconsistent?with the
spirit of that legislation and the intent of the legislators who produced it.
This is all right with us -- we are quite prepared to consider alternative
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : rQK 3092A000200 3Q(Q$'+ ~,t~matfcI
DDS&T Member
Warfield, DDS Member
25X1
25
X1
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
formulations of the criteria that we sent up.
I must say that this is about as difficult a piece of
business in the administrative side of our activity as I have ever come
across, and I have yet to meet the single individual, either among us in
the Clandestine Services or elsewhere in the Agency, who has all the
answers to this one -- and I don't believe we are likely to produce such
an individual in the months to come. I think, therefore, that what we
are going to have to come up with, probably, in the beginning, is going
to have to be a piece of paper which is relatively restricted in its criteria,
and we are going to have to be guided by experience in the application of
the terms of that paper -- and perhaps some day in light of that experience
we will be able to seek a reformulation of the legislation, if indeed that
kind of reformulation is advisable.
Now, to get down to specifics. And let me hasten
to add here that I don't know how you got the word that I wanted to appear
before this Board, but that just isn't the case. I was advised by a fairly
reliable individual - colleague - that the Board would be interested in
hearing anything we might have to add to the Board's current understanding
of the problem before the Board came through with an alternative set of
criteria -- is that about right?
MR. ECHOLS: Yes,
MR. KARAMESSINES: Now Id like to go back a little bit
into the history of this thing, because it is only that way, I think, we can
get to a better understanding of where we are today.
The history is fairly well known. This was a dream
on the part of some of us in the late 40's and early 50's -- there was much
talk about the idea of early retirement legislation. When it finally
2
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA 1092A000200130001-2
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
became evident that we might get such legislation, there were many of us
who felt that we wouldn't stand a chance of getting it unless it was pegged
to a fairly restricted group and unless the arguments and the reasons which
we were prepared to advance to the Congress for the legislation were
(restrictive) and were deliberately restrictive in their definition.
Just before the appearance of General Carter and our
distinguished legal representatives before the appropriate Congressional
forum I happened to have a chat with General Carter, and I had this at my
request, because I had gotten word -- and I believe this might have been
from Mr. Warner himself -- but I had gotten word, in any case, that
suddenly, because of the activity of some staff member or other, the thing
looked like it might go right down the drain -- and this was after we had,
quite appropriately and properly, been led to believe that we were going
to get it. So it looked like the thing had suddenly taken a dramatic turn
for the worse, and I hastened upstairs to confer with the General and to
urge the General to approach the Congress on as restrictive a basis as
was needed to get us the legislation, arguing with the General that if we
once got the legislation then in the course of subsequent years, in the
course of experience during those years, we might well stand a chance of
enlarging it to more appropriately suit our Agency requirements, but I
thought that to go in for a broader concept at the very beginning would so
endanger our chances, in lightof the information that we had gotten, that
it would be, I thought, unwise. The General agreed with this, but he
said - and very specifically he said that he wanted to be sure that there
was reserved unto the Director - unto the Director personally - the
utmost flexibility in the application of whatever it was that Congress
produced. He said that he understood the point I was making and that
Approved For Release 2005/04/27: CIA-F(3j92A000200130001-2
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
he agreed with it, the only condition being that over and above that point
he wanted to be sure that we neither said anything or did anything which
tied the Director's hands with respect to anyone in the Agency whom the
Director might want to retire early either for cause or for some kind of
outstanding performance along the lines of our Clandestine Services'
activity.
Now, he did cite the case of a senior officer in the
Clandestine Services who has been very active in the very essence of our
clandestine activities, who is one of the key people in the Clandestine
Services, who has seen many years of service abroad, but not the
requisite five since September 1947. And he said to me: Now you don't
argue for one moment that the Director in his discretion couldn't grant
this man early retirement if he chose to. And, he said, I want to make
sure that the legislation is so phrased that that type of case -- and he
didn't say that type of exceptional and unique case but by implication it
was clear that was how he was characterizing it -- he said he wanted to
be sure that that kind of case would be covered.
Now, subsequent to that time we have had the
legislation and we have gone about the business of trying to administrate
it. We do recognize that here in the States there are certain categories
of activity which commend themselves for consideration as qualifying
service under the terms of the legislation and the regulation; there is a
second category which clearly falls outside of such purview; and then
there is a third and in my view hazy, gray category in which it is very
difficult to decide. I think in all of these cases -- and certainly the
Clandestine Services Board feels strongly this way -- I think in all of
these cases we will have to deal with each case on its merits. I don't
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA3 092A000200130001-2
IIII-T
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
really think it's possible for us to make a blanket inclusion or exclusion.
I don't think, actually, that it would be wise for us to produce a paper or
produce minutes of a meeting, or to do anything else administratively, on
the record, which would reflect an approach that consisted of some kind
of blanket action -- and I'm talking now even about cases that are clearly
within the purview of the legislation or that are clearly not within the
purview of the legislation. I think that the record should reflect an
individual consideration of each case.
25) 1 C
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECREI
X1
Now I recognize that it's hard to write this into a
set of regulations -- it's extremely hard to do this -- because once you put
this type of thing on paper there are any number of individuals who will
feel that this must refer specifically to them. I don't know how the
Board will address itself to this -- I consider this the Board's responsi-
bility -- I can only wish the Board luck in coming up with the kind of
formulation that will do the job. I would suggest that the Director and
his overall authority might be the answer to this one, that these cases be
treated as individual, specialized cases, and I conceive of situations in
which these cases will occur in directorates other than just the Clandestine
Services directorate and don't confine it to the Clandestine Services
directorate. That is about as far as I am prepared to go at this moment.
I'll be happy to answer any questions that might arise.
6
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-U
#2A000200130001-2
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRELLI`
Is this kind of observation what you wanted from
MR. ECHOLS: Well, I appreciate this very much, Tom,
because I can endorse everything you said -- and I'm sure John (Warner)
can -- I'll let him speak for himself, however.
I would add a couple of things. I think we have
preserved to the bitter end, in our legislation and in our regulation, the
authority of the Director to place any person in the system and
involuntarily retire him if he meets the conditions set forth in (11)(c) of
our regulation -- this is a very broad thing but quite specifically related
to a career in intelligence operations. So we have succeeded in
preserving that. We did lose the ultimate authority of the Director to
appoint anybody to this system, but did retain this one thing in the event
the Director found it in the best interest of the Government to retire
somebody who had made a career in intelligence operations. Again
historically, we did lose at one time and it looked like we had hopelessly
lost completely the authority to bring about involuntary separations
(with a) discontinued service annuity. We did lose it completely, and we
had to go back and re-argue the case, and we won out, finally --? so that
is still in the regulation.
I certainly endorse your comments that we sold the
case all the way along that we were going to have to make a substantive
judgment about each individual's career and not just blanket into this
thing -- and I think that is being demonstrated daily in our considerations.
This indeed is our problem area. So I don't have
any questions. I appreciate completely the flavor that exists in these
career cases that the DD/P has and perhaps other Career Services as well.
7
SECRE.
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
MR. KARAMESSINES: I think the worst thing we can do - -
this is something I might add, if I may, ~- the worst thing we can S AT
do is start out with a kind of liberal interpretation of all this legislation
and the regulation which will boomerang on us if the way we are
administering it gets back to those Congressional groups which gave us
the early retirement legislation in the first place. Now I think much of
the problem we are discussing this afternoon will in a matter of a few
years become almost academic if what I read in the columns is right
about the Federal government moving daily more and more in the direction
of earlier retirement under the regular Civil Service. But I think we
should be careful in our early administration of this to preserve what
we've got and to make the gains we want to make very deliberately.
MR. ECHOLS: As I told the Board last week, I have made
an attempt to recast the paper that your Board came up with, and put it in
a different format, perhaps, where it might be more useful to the Career
Services as guidance and to individuals as guidance as to their possible
eligibility. But before I toss this out I'd like to make sure that anyone
having any questions of you, Tom, gets a chance to ask them, or to bring
out anything else they want to say on this subject.
MR. WARNER: I might ask some questions, Tom. I
want to make' sure I understood what you thought this Board felt about the
criteria that you sent forward. If I understood you correctly, in essence
you were saying that you had the impression the Board felt that these were
a little broader when contrasted against the general thought and intent of
the Congress. Well, I for one disagree with that. I'll let the Board
speak for itself. I think the criteria as stated are well within. the bounds
of what we discussed with the Congress. The problem that I saw in
8
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : Ck4rP
,4W78-03092A000200130001-2
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
those -- and I don't know the answer to it yet, Tom -- is how you apply
this, because depending on how one reads these words -- and we have
already seen subjective application of criteria to one's own case and
saying, "Gee, that is me. " So I just want to make this point, that I
believe those criteria - the way I read them - are well within the bounds
of our discussions and good faith with the people that we got this legislation
from.
MR. KARAMESSINES: Well, perhaps the Board was
having the same difficulty that you're having, in that they maybe felt that
the criteria were technically and literally within the purview of the
legislation but that the Board couldn't see its way clear to the admini-
stration of the criteria.
MR. WARNER: I think that is a very important distinction.
. . . Mr. Borel joined the meeting at this point .
MR, ECHOLS: I think you will see, Tom, that I too think
that the criteria that you bring out are indeed clearly within the scope of
the legislation, but I tried to put it in a different framework so as not to
invite unwarranted applications, you might say. If it's agreeable to
the Board, I would like to throw this out in the open here for a follow up --
and we can perhaps measure this against the situations exposed by Tom.
. . . . Mr. Echols then distributed copies of
his paper regarding qualifying service
MR. KARAMESSINES: If I may ask a question, in
9
an,
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-Q
L0#092A000200130001-2
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
paragraph 9 I notice you have used the words "retire an individual
involuntarily. " Do you mean to limit the import of paragraph 9 to
involuntary retirement?
MR. ECHOLS: Yes.
MR. KARAMESSINES: Then where do you deal with the
situation we were discussing earlier in which the Director would choose to
exercise his authority in a very exceptional case which didn't fit the specific
criteria?
MR. ECHOLS: Let's take a staff officer of some type in
the DD/P who perhaps had never served overseas -- maybe a specialist
of some type -- and yet if this man is separated from the Agency by reason
of the sheer specialization for many, many years in an esoteric field of
work he would be at a real handicap in seeking other employment. This
would come under the conditions of (11)(c) - an individual who has performed
duty "on a continuing basis which would place the individual at a distinct
disadvantage in obtaining other employment either because (1) the skills
and knowledge are unique to the clandestine activities of the Agency and
are not in demand elsewhere, or (2) the duties are so highly classified
that his experience cannot be described in sufficient detail to demonstrate
his qualifications adequately to a prospective employer. it
Actually,
both of those conditions would probably prevail for that type of man - a
specialist in CI, or something like that, that you might have.
MR. KARAMESSINES: So it's under that clause-
MR. ECHOLS: This clause was clearly written only in
contemplation of the actual breaking off of a man's career relationship with
the Agency -- and I think under this condition the man just prior to his
retirement involuntarily could be put into the system and retired thereunder.
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 :Q78-03092A000200130001-2
4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
And this was reflected in the Employee Bulletin which we previously
issued on the subject -- although we see a need to clarify, amplify the
Employee Bulletin.
If I were to make an observation as to one of the
stumbling blocks I think this Board has had, I think we have tended perhaps
to concentrate a little too much on whether or not the individual has that
magic 60 months of qualifying duty, when actually our first zone of
consideration should be: has this man indeed been making his career in
a field of work that is involved in overseas intelligence activities and
operations. That should be our first consideration. And if a person is
only casually -- perhaps somebody spent the first five years of their Agency
career as a secretary overseas and after that five years went elsewhere
in the Agency and was completely divorced from any career in intelligence
operations again. Now I don't think that mere five years that she spent
overseas at a very early stage in her career should forever after qualify
her for this Retirement System. It wasn't designed for the casual transient
who went in and out of clandestine operations for a few years -?- which is
why in this paper I tried hard to - on a negative basis - indicate that these
transients, these casuals, if you will, aren't the people we are really
concerned about, but the people whose careers for ten or 15 years, at
least, were in this type of duty or field of service which calls for this
kind of exposure on an intermittent basis.
I agree with the
philosophy you are expressing but I'd like John (Warner) to tell us whether
we could sustain this position in light of the wording of the legislation.
particular example you
STAT
AT
might be able to, because at the time you look at it she is not in a career
field normally requiring the performance of qualifying duty -- a criteria
11
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
which is in our regulation and may well cover this. But in other situations
where you pick up the minimum through various assignments, you might
be hard put to knock them out just because they have got a bare minimum.
So I don't think I can answer that one categorically, Tom. But I do
think we have considerable leeway in the kind of case that Emmett was
specifically dealing with -- because they are not now in the career field.
However, this Board agreed they would attempt to be rather liberal about
that where they had already fulfilled the minimum requirement at the time
the law came into existence, and they had the 15 years -- I think that is
correct -- but where we look at this in the future I think it will be well
within our discretion in terms of policy.
MR. ECHOLS: Are you concerned, Tom, about people who
have spent let's say most of their career in the Clandestine Services but
today happen to be in a non-qualifying--
MR. KARAMESSINES: No, really, I wasn't concerned
at all -- and I agree with your observations - - I just wanted to be sure that
John Warner would indicate that the case you put was one that we could
sustain under the specific terms of the legislation, a case in which somebody
had spent five years working in one of our installations overseas, as a
secretary or whatever, and then after awhile had transferred to some other
activity within the Agency which had really nothing to do with our business --
will it support the exclusion of that kind of a case? And John's answer,
in effect, is: Yes, it will.
MR. ECHOLS: We have this very case. We have a woman
who is a secretary in NPIC, who did spend five years abroad as a contract
employee because her husband was over there -- and now she is back here,
and she has no connection with the Clandestine Services and it's not
anticipated that she ever will be involved in this type of activity again. If
l2
Approved For Release 2005/04/27: CIA-1 I 92A000200130001-2
161
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
you just concentrate on the 60 months, you might say - "Well, we should
put her in the System. "
MR. CRITCHFIELD: We have had, as I'm sure you are
aware, several long sessions on this point, and I thought we always came
back to agreeing that any individual who had spent several tours that added
up to 60 or more months abroad in Agency duty of the appropriate kind
and thereafter continued to sign a service obligation to serve anyplace,
any time, anywhere, would automatically be accepted -- as the minimum,
these two conditions being prevalent.
MR. ECHOLS: I appreciate that the minutes of our last
meeting indicate, as you say, we have come to that conclusion.
MR. CRITCHFIELD: Now the other point is that in
reading your draft (indicating Mr. Echols) here I detect a slightly increased
restrictive character of your interpretation -- which I have no objection to,
but I believe it will raise questions of whether an individual serving abroad
in a strictly overt capacity -- as to whether we consider all overseas
service as qualifying.
MR. ECHOLS: I didn't say that in this paper--
MR. KARAMESSINES: Well, do we consider all overseas
service--
MR. ECHOLS (Continuing): - -for all practical purposes we
had, but we admitted there might be types of overseas service that we would
not consider qualifying.
MR. CRITCHFIELD: It seemed to me there were several
places in this paper where you did not say it but it seemed to me you were
moving back to a more restrictive application.
MR. ECHOLS: You will remember that one of the things
you probably have detected about me is that I often change my mind and
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-14DP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
have second thoughts -- and I read the minutes of the last meeting, in
which we came to a beautiful consensus, I think, and I had second thoughts
on it -- I really, seriously did. I had second thoughts on two things --
and I was going to bring this up later on when we discussed the minutes,
but, as you see, it has crept in here. First, our regulations very
emphatically stipulate in the criteria for the designation of participants
that in order to qualify for designation as a participant an employee must
"Be serving on a career basis in a field which normally requires the
performance of qualifying service as an integral part of a career in that
field. "
MR. KARAMESSINES: Well, that clears up our question.
MR. ECHOLS: This appears to be at least a technical
obstruction for the person who in fact is not serving in such a career field,
period. Now the thought occurred to me - I could see people slipping
into this Retirement System merely on the basis of 60 months who were
sort of transients, in and then out of the clandestine intelligence operations
business and thereafter put in a 15-year career somewhere else in the
Agency. And I wondered: Should they go in? So then I began to think
back a little bit and I realized that Congress saw fit to give a person a
vested interest in this Retirement System at the end of 15 years of service
and with the 60 months -- right? -- and we had amply testified to Congress
that this career field of clandestine intelligence was a peculiar one, we had
to make our own, and this was a career service, and you entered this field
young and you learned your tradecraft as you went through it, and all too
often, due to various factors, you either burned out or couldn't be utilized
in the latter part of your career. This was the picture we drew for them.
Notwithstanding this fact, Congress said: Well, we think if a guy has in
f03092A000200130001-2
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CRPM
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
effect put up with this for 15 years he should have the option to have a vested
interest, he should know under what system he is going to retire. In
other words, Congress was willing, apparently, on the basis of 15 years,
saying - "Okay, he has earned it -- give it to him permanently" - even
though thereafter - maybe the very next day he might transfer elsewhere in
the Agency and serve another 15 years. So I thought - well, that is not a
bad standard, and perhaps we could look at people, no matter where they're
serving today, and say: Was this person in clandestine intelligence or
the support of clandestine intelligence - was he in this kind of a specialized
field for 15 years or more, and did he have 60 months of qualifying duty?
And if the answer is "yes" to both of these questions, there certainly is
no violence to Congress' willingness to give a person the benefit of this
System under these conditions -- in fact, it's highly comparable - 60 month
and 15 years.
So if we could create some such guideline which would
be an exception, if you will, to this requirement that he "be serving in" -
and substitute therefor: "Be serving on a career basis in a field, or having
served 15 years or more in a career field" - then I think we could treat
these cases quite easily, quickly, and equitably -- we would be treating
those people who indeed had significant careers - not just casual careers -
in the intelligence business. And I just toss this out because I sort of
built some of that into this paper.
MR. CRITCHFIELD: You're back to the problem now
where you're going to attempt to specifically identify the elements of the
Agency which you want to call a career field. This is why we backed off
from it--
MR. ECHOLS: No, no, we have never come to elements
15
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CI-Eeff T3092A000200130001-2
1116
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
of the Agency, Jim. I think we have raised this many times, that in the
Finance service there is a group of individuals that you and I can identify
as the overseas Funds Officers, and there is a group of personnel
specialists I can identify as my overseas cadre, if you will -- but never,
to my knowledge, elements of the Agency, but rather, groups of people
within Career Services, really.
MR. WARFIELD: Emmett, I would like to know how you
would feel about a specific case here today that we're going to face anyway,
2 X1A9A II
and this isi who has less than 15 years' service and I think
it is improbable - probably impossible - that he will ever have any further
qualifying service. He has 64 months of qualifying service but he only
has 14 years of Agency service. Therefore, if we were to follow your
policy right down the line, this man would be excluded. I think this is
counter-productive -- because I thought we had decided this once that we
would be very liberal in our interpretation of whether a man continues to
perform in a career field.
MR. ECHOLS: He would qualify. You took a particular
case to make an exception of -- and I'll take the same case and come back
at you. At the time this retirement legislation was passed, this man was
then in a qualifying field of work. We have already established that we
couldn't bring this System into effect overnight, and that those who were in
a qualifying field at that time would be treated as if we had handled their
case at that time. So, we would have ruled at that time that he was in --
so there's no problem there.
MR. WARFIELD: I don't want to belabor this point, but
I think we decided that when we have the 15 year review we would be very
liberal in our interpretation of this review provided the man had met the
16
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
minimum qualifying period of service.
MR. KARAMESSINES: Well, this would relate back to
Emmett's observation earlier, which I read as suggesting that consideration
of an individual's career would be a very comprehensive and catholic type
of consideration, taking the whole career and looking at it, and reviewing it,
to try to determine whether it is essentially a career covered by the spirit
and letter of the regulation, or whether it is only haphazardly, accidentally,
and intermittently a career which touches from time to time on. the basics
of the regulation. If it is the latter, then it would be a hard case to decide.
I gather the case you were just suggesting now, is one of those.
MR. CRITCHFIELD: The problem we have run into
take OCI - let's say maybe 10% of OCI has served overseas, had several
tours. Is all of OCI thereby a type of service which is normally what
you would consider as qualifying for entering and remaining in the System?
Comma has the same thing -- and the DD/I.
MR. KARAMESSINES: The way I'd deal with that is I'd
forget all about the OCI - I'd forget the label on the individual, and I would
talk exclusively about the individual. And there might be one OCI fellow
sitting someplace overseas and not doing anything much different from
what he would be doing if he were sitting in Washington, and there might be
another OCI fellow who is in Saigon and maybe given some work to do which
is essentially the kind of work that the Clandestine Services fellow is doing
in Saigon.
MR. CRITCHFIELD: But there you come back to someone
in OCI who has done overseas duty
had two three-year tours, let's say, and is still physically capable and ha
signed a service agreement that he is ready, willing and able to go again.
17
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RI0j2A000200130001-2
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
2 X1A6A
It seems to me this almost adds up to a case that you can't slice much
MR. KARAMESSINES: Well, it seems to me -- and this
might be a hard thing for some of us to understand -- and I'm not too sure
that I'm right about this -- but I can't help but feel that there is a certain
element here of a fortuitous, if you will, kind of accidental fate involved.
In other words, I can see how you would have to deal with the OCI fellow
on his individual case, because in the normal pattern of the Service he is
in, whether he chose it or whether he didn't choose it, he is notin a
component of the Agency which was specifically designed to be covered
by this thing -- whereas with the other OCI fellow you can say - Well,
hell, they were doing essentially the same kind of work in Saigon for those
three years -- and I would say that is right, but I would say when that guy
in Saigon in the Clandestine Services gets done there he doesn't know
whether he will be in th the next day,
whereas with the OCI fellow its a pretty sure bet that he will be coming
back to Headquarters, you see -- he isn't going to be yanked out and sent
to this place, or that place, or some other place. So you have to look
at these things a little differently -- and I recognize this is an awfully hard
thing to do, and at first blush it looks inequitable, and unfair, and
unbalanced, and wrong.
MR. BOREL: Mr. Chairman, may I speak to one point
here? I thought we agreed that in a case dealing with a DD/I type,
for example, he would not be brought into the System until he had had 60
months overseas -- at that point you would review the case, and this would
be his ticket for admission, because he had indicated that he had in fact
Approved For Release 2005/04/27: CIA-RDSE R UA000200130001-2
 2 X1A6A
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
complied with the general rules that we apply to your people. So that
it boils down to this, that with the DD/P fellow the burden of proof would
be on the Board to keep him out, and in the case of a DD/I man the burden
of proof would be on the individual to be admitted. And this seemed to
me a pretty good way to do it, and I don't know why we are re-arguing this
thing time and time again.
MR. KARAMESSINES: As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman,
I think it's improper for me to continue participating in your discussion.
If there are other questions anybody would like to put to me -- otherwise
I really think I ought to withdraw, and leave this matter in better hands
than mine.
MR. ECHOLS: Are there any other questions of Tom?
(No response.)
I don't think any member resents your being here, Tom.
Thank you very much, Tom.
Mr. Karamessines withdrew from the
meeting . . . .
MR. ECHOLS: I'd like to add here that I do think it's
unquestioned fact that Congress did not give us this Retirement System and
these benefits for any person because he served 60 months abroad.
MR. CRITCHFIELD: You're really taking six months of
discussion -- and I agree with you -- but you're taking six months of
discussion, Mr. Chairman, and putting a big question on them, because
you're now opening up whether a DD/I is
really qualifying -- or, carrying it to an extreme, perhaps, certain
administrative Commo assignments
x1
where the individual is doing 25
19
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-R~PE7d fEQ 2A000200130001-2
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
nothing but handling traffic -- or FBIS. I think in a sense we are much
like the Supreme Court right after President Roosevelt (packed) it, that
we suddenly have a change of atmosphere in the other direction.
MR. ECHOLS: I don't think I'm going that far off base,
the previous cases if we take this attitude.
MR. ECHOLS: I do think in every case up to the present time
we have applied the principle: Is the individual serving on a career basis
in a field which normally requires the performance of qualifying duty.
The only exception - up until the last meeting - that we made to this was
that if the individual at the time the legislation was passed was in this field,
we would let it go. What deviations have we made from that?
I think we would have to go back and review
I
what Paul and Jim said - - we made a decision earlier on we would be
liberal in our interpretation. Tom was getting around to analyzing each
man's job. What we did say, I thought, was. that if a man did five years
overseas it was sort of prima facie evidence he was in an overseas career
field or service and therefore we wouldn't worry about if he was DD/I for
five years and then did two tours overseas and then went back to the
straight DD/I concept -- because of the fact he had five years we were
going to put him in. We have had nobody who had five years that we have
ever turned down on the basis that he was not in a career field or service
that normally qualified. Now I don't know how much
had -- I just had lunch with him and know he's in ONE now. If he was one
of these types would you sort of take him out because he is in ONE --
which, if he has put in five years' service--
20
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : Cl - eff?3092A000200130001-2
I thought -- and I'm only repeating, I think,
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
MR. ECHOLS: Did we not at the last meeting earmark
three cases that were not currently in a qualifying career field and on
which I was to get an opinion from the General Counsel's Office as to
whether or not this was a bar to the designation of the individual?
2 X1A9A II
Did you get it?
MR. ECHOLS: No, I have not gotten it yet.
MR, BOREL: But this was with the idea that they would be
admitted unless there was some legal reason why they shouldn't be
admitted.
MR. ECHOLS: Right.
Are there any other cases that were not in a qualifying
career field at the time we put them in?
MR. CRITCHFIELD: I would think there were a large
number of them, if you take what I understand is--
MR. ECHOLS: We have had people in FBIS, and FDD,
but they were still eligible, and available, and had proven they were
overseas types.
MR. BOREL: That is the whole point -- I don't see that
FDD is qualifying under the definition.
MR. SEELY: I think there is one thing we may be
overlooking, and that is early in the game we determined temporary duty
overseas was qualifying service -- and there are a great many components
where temporary duty overseas is a normal feature of service in the
career field. Therefore, if somebody has qualified by virtue of overseas
service but is now in a component where he is expected occasionally to
go overseas on TDY, it seems to me that that in itself would satisfy the
requirement that he must be in a field that requires overseas service.
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-'3j92A000200130001-2
 25X1A7B
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
MR. ECHOLS: You're saying that this paper in its
criteria for domestic duty is too restrictive?
MR. SEELY: No, I think we meet what you say here.
But FBIS has been mentioned a couple of times this afternoon, you see, and
I don't think we belong in that questionable category.
MR. ECHOLS: Well, as I see our dilemma at the moment,
the regulation does stipulate very specifically -- and it was written this way
intentionally -- that the individual, at the time of designation, to be
eligible he has to "Be serving on a career basis in a field... " etc. This
may be a technical or legal bar to designation of people who cannot be
described as currently serving in such a career field, unless we somehow
broaden the concept of career field- -
25X1 9 a' II We have talked about that many times, and
I thought it was pretty firm that we were talking about CIA, not about
components within CIA.
MR. BOREL: Why don't we wait until we get a ruling
from OGC on those three cases? I think that will clarify things a good
deal.
MR. ECHOLS: If we get a favorable ruling from OGC,
offhand is it the consensus of the Board that we should be governed by the
fact that an individual has served the requisite 60 months overseas, or
has served, by some other measurement, 60 months of qualifying duty
domestically, regardless of whether his specific career field at the moment
calls for this kind of duty?
MR. BOREL: I wouldn't put it that way. I'd say evidence
of 60 months makes him eligible for consideration. If somebody brings
up other factors that tend to rule out the weight of this evidence, then I
23
Approved For Release 2005/04/27: CIA-[ mUr92A000200130001-2
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
2 X1A9A
think we would vote against him. But by and large I would think they
would probably get in more often than not.
But I think you get back to the two glaring
examples -- the man who comes in and immediately goes overseas and
does five years and then says, "I've had it -- I want out - into some other
component -- and I'm no longer willing to sign this statement" -- even
though he has the five years, I think under Paul's concept he is eligible
for consideration but you may consider this case and say he doesn't meet it.
Now even that would be a departure from what we have already agreed to.
But on the other hand, the fellow who does the five years and then even
though he is in some other part of the Agency - Logistics, or Personnel,
or Support component, still says, "I'm willing to go overseas any time" --
I think he'd be in. As I say, though, even this is a little departure from
what we said before, where we said if he did five years he's in. But I
have to agree with you that as this thing is worded you can make a
farfetched case for yourself with the fellow who does five years and then
says, "I'm through - I'm not going overseas again" and in fact transfers
to the Graphics Register, or wherever -- it would be a little hard to
nominate this man.
MR. ECHOLS: Well, I think that is fair enough -- let me
proceed as indicated in the minutes of that meeting on things which I was
supposed to do, and accept, then, 60 months as being qualifying for
application, if you will, and if there is no legal bar to our designating such
a person we can go ahead and take them up on a case-by-case basis -- the
60 months and of course the other criteria have to be met.
MR. WARFIELD: While we're on this subject I really
2 X1A9A
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-&J3j92A000200130001-2
think we ought to discuss this one case - the case of
24
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
MR. ECHOLS: What is the problem here, as you see it?
2 X1A9A
MR. WARFIELD: The problem here is that
as you know, met with a catastrophic accident in Saigon and will probably
never be able to go and serve in any kind of so-called qualifying service
again.
MR. ECHOLS: Why not?
2 X1A9A
MR. WARNER: Under the minutes of the 18 January
meeting, he is eligible - completely eligible.
MR. WARFIELD: When he comes up for his 15-year review?
MR. ECHOLS: He's got it now -- he can be put in any
MR. WARFIELD: That is fine, then -- I just wanted to be
sure there was no obstacle to this -- because this clearly is what the Bill
was designed to don
MR. CRITCHFIELD: There's no problem.
MR. ECHOLS: Well, we've jumped to cases, so let's
start from the beginning. Are there any additions or corrections to the
minutes? I'll report to the Board I have not taken action yet on
paragraph 5. c, of the minutes, nor have I taken any action on paragraph 6.
I might mention, in connection with the single asterisk on page 5 of the
minutes, that the extension of as recommended and approved
by Mr. Helms 27 January. Any other additions or corrections to
the minutes? (No response.) If not, we will accept the minutes as
presented, and go on to the cases under Group A.
The three cases under A have 15 years, they are or
will be subject to mandatory retirement, and their Career Services have
requested an extension of their services to the dates indicated, The
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA QC 092A000200130001-2
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
2 X1A9A
first case is that of
who is currently overseas and they have
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
requested his extension until the completion of his tour on 30 September
1966 -- and I see no objection to that -- it is consistent with the orderly
completion of his tour.
MR. WARNER: Can you extend that far?
Mr. Echols can extend for a year -- his
authority to extend will expire in June, but he can extend beyond June.
MR. WARNER: That is what I'm asking.
MR. ECHOLS: I can extend up to one year.
MR. WARNER: All right. How about the next two cases?
MR. ECHOLS: The next two cases I will also be able to
MR. SEELY: In the case of
who was 60 years
old in April, 1964, is this an extension of two years and 10 months or is
this an extension of 11 months?
MR. ECHOLS: An extension of 11 months.
From time of designation.
MR. SEELY: He has in fact already been extended by
one year and 10 months.
MR. ECHOLS- Well, he is past the mandatory retirement
age, I quite agree, but I don't think he has been extended yet.
Any other discussion of these three cases? (No
response.) May we have a motion that they be put into the System?
MR. BOREL: So move.
MR. CRITCHFIELD: Second.
. . . . This motion was then passed . . . .
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-J# r0j092A000200130001-2
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
2 X1A9A
MR. ECHOLS: Group B consists of 67 cases, every one
of which has more than 60 months of qualifying duty, they all have 15 or
more years of service so if designated and they accept, they will all be
in permanently.
Mr. Chairman, I move we offer to
25X1
2 X1A9A
designate all of those listed under paragraph B.
MR. WARFIELD: Second.
This motion was then passed . . . .
MR. ECHOLS: Group C -- they will shortly complete
15 years and otherwise meet the basic criteria for designation.
MR. WARFIELD: Will this be considered the 15-year
review as well?
MR. ECHOLS: Yes.
MR. WARFIELD: I move that all of the people under
Section C be designated.
This motion was then passed . . . .
MR. ECHOLS: In Group D are individuals with less than
fourteen and a half years of service, who appear to meet the criteria
for designation.
MR. WARFIELD: There may be a substantial discrepancy
in Case No. 43, as far as time served, which will
preclude his designation. He claims 30 months and he has only 26
verified. This probably ought to be pointed out to him or to his Career
Service.
27
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA C ET092A000200130001-2
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
MR. ECHOLS: Any discussion on this group?
here in the D group, as I remember, that all fell within this month, and if
they could complete the month of February they would then fall within the
six-month period for the 15 year review. If we were holding this meeting
the end of this month all of them would have fallen within the 15 year review.
No. 2 7, and
What do you wish to do about them?
No problem on our side. We were trying to get them n.to the System as
soon as we could.
I
happen here?
MR. ECHOLS: If we wait 15 or 20 days we could include
them with the Group C above. Well table them -- is that agreeable?
Mr. Chairman, we have three cases
We will cover them administratively.
I'm confused for a second - - what will
Just hold those three out?
MR. ECHOLS: Yes.
MR. SEELY: Could I go back to for a moment?
I'm a little mystified as to how there could be such a discrepancy in
service here -- this is quite a discrepancy for something that happened
so recently -- and my question is, how could this discrepancy arise?
I'm pretty sure that was because they
took the information off of a Personnel Action -- but our figures here are
Case No. 23,
as being the kind of DD/I case we have
in mind, where it is indicated that he is not now serving in a field,
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : Cl) RR(i092A000200130001-2
MR. BOREL: Mr. Chairman, could I invite attention to
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
according to the certification o and yet he has had 75 months
overseas and some of this at the request of and on behalf of the Clandestine
Services. And I think this is exactly the kind of case we're talking about.
MR. ECHOLS: Consider him more as an individual than
as his career being in a career field -- yet, it's a good point.
MR. SEELY: He is overseas now, so there's no question.
Did you read the comment on the 3100
2 X1A9A
MR. WARFIELD: That is just what we've been talking
about, though, where, if I understood Mr. Borel correctly, we would sort
of hold this one out until he had had the 60 months.
MR. BOREL: This is the kind of individual I'd leave
out until he has the 60 months--
MR. ECHOLS: In other words, at the present time you
could not certify him as being in a qualifying career field?
MR. BOREL: No -- and it says "no" on this Form.
MR. ECHOLS: Then why was he nominated?
MR. BOREL: I don't know why. It's one of these areas
where we require clarification from the people who are putting the names in.
they probably figured it was awfully close, so put him in.
2X1A9A I
He missed by one month and 12 days, so
Is there any real disadvantage --
MR. WARFIELD: The only disadvantage is when you get
to the 15 years you have to pull him back out, and then if he subsequently
goes back overseas, put him back in.
219
Approved For Release 2005/04/27: CIA- 0 92A000200130001-2
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
2 X1A9A
MR. ECHOLS: We would have to pull him out by the 15
years if he hasn't qualified by then. In view of the fact that they say
there is an excellent chance that he will--
MR. BOREL: Why don't we wait until he qualifies --
that is my point. I just can't see this inconsistency in the application
of policy.
Why are we being inconsistent?
MR. BOREL: He doesn't have the five years.
2 X1A9A
But he has time before his 15 years to
get five years.
MR. BOREL: But he's not in a career field - that is the
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
MR. SEELY: Is he not in a field that requires it? The
fact that he has already done it in that same field I should think. would be
evidence that he had done it.
MR. ECHOLS: Well, this could go either way. We
could say we're not convinced and he should stay out and prove it.
We have had cases we withheld for this
very reason now. Technically they have the time to get 60 months but it
will take a few breaks to get it -- and we have held them out until they
get it.
MR. SEELY: We did agree that Career Services in
nominating people of this type who didn't quite make it but had time before
15 years, should, when nominating such people, indicate that they would
assign these people overseas, so they would qualify, but they don't have
any specific plans.
assignments is another factor.
The fact that they don't control these
30
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : C3l03092A000200130001-2
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
MR. ECHOLS: Very well - - would the Board rather hold
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
2 X9A2
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
It's a question of how much credence
you're giving to the statement by the head of this Career Service -- if he
has signed a statement saying he thinks that this guy is going to make it--
MR. WARFIELD: At which time he could put it in, it
I don't know -- I don't feel strongly--
MR. ECHOLS: What is the consensus?
MR. BOREL: I feel we ought to have a consistent policy and this man doesn't qualify under the rules of the road, as I see it.
When you say a consistent policy you're
ma.ing a determination that FDD is not a source of career overseas duty.
MR. BOREL: No more than anybody else. They have a
crew in there, but you can't tell in advance which of the individuals--
regularity- -
We're using them all the time, with great
MR. BOREL: You havelpeople in that shop -- how many
do you use?
Except this guy by his action has shown
that he is certainly oriented toward--
For five years, almost. I'm saying you
could be inconsistent-
MR. BOREL: I don't like to argue against my own people,
but I like to be consistent in the application of what I think is a reasonable
scheme for dealing with people that aren't now in a career field.
Approved For Release 2005/04/27: CIA-RSECa&92A000200130001-2
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
MR. ECHOLS: I do think it's easier, perhaps, to keep
them out initially than take them out later on if they don't qualify.
Well, I'll make a motion, if nobody else will. I
suggest we redline this man until he has proven he has 60 or more months.
2 X1A9A
That is the interpretation we have been
placing on this.
MR. SEELY: I still think by virtue of the fact he has
performed service in a qualifying field that he is in a field that requires it.
2 X1A9A
Suppose this guy was unfortunate enough
to die next week and we had to sit in judgment on was he truly in a
qualifying position? What would we say? - that yes, the chances of his
getting that other month and a half in "x" number of years was great
enough to bring him in?
MR. BOREL: Where are you going to draw the line
short of 60 months?
2 X1A9A
It isn't a question of time in service, the
question is,is he in a Career Service that lends itself--
MR. BOREL: His own man has said "no" in this box--
MR. WARNER: That is not what that box says --
currently performing qualifying service, period.
2 X1A9A
Not currently, but it goes on to say he
should qualify for the Agency Retirement System when and if his services
are needed -- its not a very strong statement, but it winds up "should
qualify in the Agency Retirement System. See the little typed statement
across the face of it?
2 X1A9A
of designating him now.
It isn't clear to me what the advantages are
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : Cl "ET 3092A000200130001-2
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
MR. ECHOLS: Very slight.
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
He could be designated when he does qualify -
no disadvantage from that point of view. I don't see what we gain?
MR. WARFIELD: Couldntt we just administratively leave
him out, and if he was unfortunate enough to die, we could have a meeting we have done these things posthumously before.
and even if he's got 35 months at the 10th anniversary review, even though
today he is serving back here in Washington, I'd take him out of the
System. We told Congress we would put them in and take them out.
The same way with this fellow -- if this fellow should die today, I think
his family should have the benefits. I think we should designate him, and
then at the end of 15 years if he doesn't get that month and eight days,
or whatever it is that he needs, take him out of the System -- and then if
he goes back again, put him in. I think it's easier to administer that
type of thing than to say we will only consider him if he has had 60 months -
then you would be looking at all those people who are serving with a
Career Service that normally does it, and you would be applying the
10-year review to service not in the DD/P, for instance, just like a
person in the DD/P -- and if that person has served overseas, and has
done a good job, and is willing to go back overseas, and his own Career
Service is willing to let him go back overseas if another such opening
exists, and he has proved his worth, I don't see why you don't put him in
the System.
I think it would be far more consistent
if a person has served overseas that we qualify him, we admit him to the
System, and we look at him at the 10-year review, and the 15-year review --
We have cases sort of parallel to this.
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : J
fBL3092AO00200130001-2
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
We will take a fellow out of the R&D Lab - an engineer - send him overseas
for a tour, and then we may put him back in the Lab. As a Lab R&D man
he is not truly overseas but he is always subject to overseas duty again.
We don't even think twice about saying he is in a career service that will
take him back overseas. Now some of them may never make it again --
we can't be sure -- but when they get to 10 years or 15 years they will
either be in or out. But in the meantime they are subject to call. But in
my experience with the Foreign Documents Division we are calling upon
them all the time for these teams that go out. I'm not certain he will
go out, but he has indicated a willingness to go again. To me it will
be inconsistent if we don't put him in.
Well, on the strength of our earlier
discussions, however, I did redline some people, and one of them wrote
Eck a letter and protested,because technically he did have time to get
his 60 months before he completed 15 years of service -- and we persuaded
him, Eck, as you remember, to relax, and when he gets his 60 months
we will put him in -- and that is the kind of guideline that we have been
following.
What is his basic work?
He has people working for him at several
overseas places -- and he goes over--
Is it likely he will serve again overseas?
He was there last week, and will probably
be going again next week. Technically he was within the span of time
within which he could acquire this service--
MR. ECHOLS: But there were no plans then to send him--
2X1A9
But as it turned out he has been overseas
two or three times since you and I talked.
34
Approved For Release 2005/04/27: ClA60 092A000200130001-2
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
No. 61) in the System.
MR. SEELY: Second.
MR. ECHOLS: And he will be taken out of the System
if he doesn't make it by the 15th anniversary review.
This motion was then passed, with
Messrs. Borel andOvoicing dissenting votes . . .
MR. BOREL: You couldn't be more inconsistent in
application.
MR. WARFIELD: Isn't it a matter of the judgment of
the head of the Career Service? The head of this Career Service
has a good chance of doing this.
Career Service doesn't control this man's assignments.
probability of the man being called--
specifically ask - is he serving in career service? -- and I'm assuming
in all of these cases the answer is "yes", except for those three or four
cases we had two meetings ago in which the head of the Career Service
said "he is not". But if the head of the Career Service here says this
man is currently serving--
But even if he says the man is not currently
2X1A9A
serving--
I don't think that has anything to do
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : WAtT
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
SECRET
MR. WARNER: I don't, either.
MR. ECHOLS: "Section D: Based on his career assignment
and past and prospective performance of qualifying service, this employee
is recommended for designation as a participant in the CIA Retirement and
Disability System. He is serving in a career field which normally requires
the performance of qualifying service as an integral part of a career in
that field. "
MR. ECHOLS: We understand requirements are
constantly levied on FDD, and this man has proven he is willing to take
these assignments, and his Career Service head says - "I'm going to
give him these assignments" -- so why not?
I also would like to think that by and large the Board
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
is really going to try to get people in rather than keep them out.
So, we have a split vote.
I wouldn't argue with you on that part of
the discussion - - but after some deliberation with the Chairman, though,
we had decided in several of our cases that we wouldn't put them in.
I don't remember the specific case but I
do remember a case where it seemed to me it was one of these things
where he needed two years overseas, and he had two or three years to go--
MR. WARNER: I don't think that is inconsistent with this.
I Are the 15 years up now, Karl, in
your case?
2 X1A9A II
No, but soon -- it was a matter of let's
say 15 months before 15 years' service -- and he's 14 months shy. He
could, technically, get it.
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : Ve I rt
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
MR. WARNER: But obviously he wasn't going to do it.
MR. ECHOLS: I think we have to play the odds here --
what are the probabilities, you might say, of this being done. If they
were very favorable, I'd put them in; if they were very unlikely,
leave them out.
. . . . Motion was then made, seconded, and passed,
nominating for designation as participants all but three
cases under Group D. Cases 4, 27, and 34 had
previously been tabled . . . .
2 X1A9A
MR. CRITCHFIELD: Mr. Chairman, I think our
discussions today really leave us with a gap that we have got to think about,
because on the one hand when we discussed qualifying domestic service
there was a consensus, I think, with the views expressed by you and
Mr. Karamessines that we should pursue a rather rigidly conservative
interpretation at this point, but we have, after some swinging back and
forth today, I think come back to rest on a rather liberal interpretation
of the five years of overseas as being qualifying, and this may lead us to
some appeals by individuals who are performing domestic service which
really is pretty much clandestine service type of duty but which Tom said
he would not be inclined to support
I was reviewing the
case (No. 23) after
it was called to our attention, and he's going to end up approaching his
15th year review in a couple of years and he's going to have the 60 months
overseas duty but much of it is going to be in a totally overt capacity, so
he will have less than five years that can be construed as hazardous,
dangerous,: and all of that.
'25X1 A
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CI ? J43092A000200130001-2
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
2 X1A9A
2 X1A6A
2 X1A6A
2 X1A6A
2 X1A9A
So, philosophically we are moving in divergent
directions in our assessment of overseas duty and domestic duty; we
are remaining very liberal on overseas duty and we are moving toward
a more restricted interpretation of domestic duty.
But isn't this rather natural, Jim? - that
there is not likely to be contesting of qualifying people who have served
overseas, whereas if it's a conglomeration of types of duty domestically
that it will be more subject to questioning, and therefore we have to be
more careful in what we do. This doesn't seem illogical to me.
MR. CRITCHFIELD: I think it is illogical and I think
it will ultimately produce some requests for appeals for reconsideration
of an action. Someone will say: Here is the case of Mr. Smith,
who served, let's say, to put it in simple language, five years in
and was a clear representative
0
-- and I served five years in
25> 1A
don't think there is an exactly defensible gap. I think were going to
have trouble with these, because this kind of thing is going to be discussed,
and we're going to get this, and at some point - fairly early - we have to
make up our mind whether we're going to be conservative generally, in
which case we may have to review some of the rules that we have evolved
in the last six months,or we have got to go the same generally liberal
road in domestic qualifying service.
MR. WARNER: I think there is a lot in what you say,
except I don't see what you see -- you apparently see some sort of
consensus emerging on qualifying domestic service, and I see absolutely
none.
I
3!8QQ~
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA S&1092A000200130001-2
Well, again, we all agreed - hazardous
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
duty -- it's just going to be a question of identifying it.
MR. SEELY: I don't think we are going to have a consensus
until there have been a number of precedents set by cases in the past that
we have turned down.
MR. ECHOLS: Let me ask this question, Jim. We
are still faced with the problem of giving further guidance to the individuals,
to the Career Boards, etc. , on domestic qualifying duty. Now assuming
that we get our ruling from OGC as to how broadly we can interpret that
"be serving in", and shift the emphasis to the individual a little bit more,
and his broad obligation to the Agency -- and get a favorable ruling - - and
assuming that I were to loosen this paper up accordingly, do you think
there is any merit in this paper as being at least a step toward the further
guidance that we're looking for?
I support what Jim is saying. Paragraph 6
is now tending to move toward some criteria of domestic qualifying
service, but it's still (not very clear). Is it your intention, then, to
hold a discussion of this paper at a later date?
MR. ECHOLS: Yes.
MR. ECHOLS: Then if it's okay with the Board we will
publish it or somehow get it out to the Agency.
And then what do you intend to do with it?
z5xIasa I I
Well, I question at the moment whether it
would be advisable to publish anything about this -- I mean, if you know
you're going to face up to a constant state of re-definition, then why
publish anything except the most general type of advice to the troops?
MR. ECHOLS: We haven't published a great deal yet,
and our present Bulletin says we will provide additional guidance as we
develop experience on a case-by-case basis.
39
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : C A I
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
2 X1A8A
2 X1A8A
Paragraphs a. and b. probably give all
the guidance they need -- are they hazardous to life or health, or so
specialized. That seems like enough, to me -- I don't think we're going
that much further in what we say beyond that at this stage.
MR. ECHOLS: Don't you think the criteria in paragraph 6
are a little more definitive than they are today?
Paragraph 6. d. is going to be hard to put
an interpretation on.
MR. SEELY: It seems to me c. under 6 is a little broad --
not very definitive.
MR. ECHOLS: You must remember there is a preamble
to a. , b. , c. -- personal participation in clandestine operations or the
support thereof. Paragraph c. is frequent and recurring dealings with
foreign nationals, and if that is also tied in with cover and so on, it would
seem to me we would have a pretty good case.
Paragraph b is a pretty general
And you're saying two or more of these types of
things should be covered? You're specifically saying two or more?
wonder -- I'm not sure there wouldn't be a case where c. by itself--
MR. ECHOLS: Not any relationship to the other criteria?
I mean, is he running around to foreign embassies getting visas or
passports or something?
MR. SEELY: How about the
MR. ECHOLS: Maybe we can make a case for it -- I
SECRET
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
tuRET
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
When are we going to get some of these cases?
MR. ECHOLS: That is the point, we haven't had the cases,
and we need the cases, I think.
MR. SEELY: We have had some open and shut cases where
people thought they had domestic qualifying service. We need some
borderline cases.
MR, ECHOLS: That is right -- I think so, too. I have
a group of cases -- not very many, but some -- like Tracy Barnes --
that the Board can listen to.
Aren't we agreed on the 45 and 14, that
we don't consider it until 45 and 14?
MR. ECHOLS: That is a principle we haven't discussed yet.
That is a pretty significant one.
MR. ECHOLS: With paragraph 7 here it seems to me we
can save ourselves an awful lot of trouble by applying some such principle.
Well, I think there is some virtue in that,
because in the Clandestine Services we would literally have to examine
hundreds and hundreds of files if we didn't put a limit--
I'm not clear on the 45 and 14 -- I can see
the 45, because it gives you five years before you're eligible for retirement -
but it would seem to me if you had 45 and 10 -- you may want to know -
"Boy; I better get overseas and complete my 5 years within the next
5 years. "
MR. ECHOLS: My point is this, after 15 years' service
Congress is willing to vest a person in the system no matter what happens
in his career after that, so I thought there was some logic in tying this
thorough review, if you will, to the 15th year.
Approved For Release 2005/04/27: CIA-
6192A000200130001-2
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
2 X1A9A
O
I'd like to think about this one. I think
it's a little rough on the guy who sort of sits in a sort of unknown status
all this time. I'd like to just think about this a little bit. Also, you
get into this death possibility -- which I think sometimes clears your
thinking on it, that if you considered this qualifying service he would be
in the System.
Mr. Chairman, would you try to get
these papers of this nature to us before the meeting so we will have time
to digest them?
MR. ECHOLS: If I had written it before last night, I
would have been happy to do so.
Only after much urging by me.
MR. ECHOLS: There is another agenda item, the
clarification of paragraph 12. c. of the Employee Bulletin. Is that clear
that we are only talking about a single date?
MR. WARNER: Emmett, I think you do have to technically
clarify mandatory retirement date. You use it in two different senses,
one under the CIA Retirement System and one under the Civil Service
Retirement System -- and you don't really mean mandatory retirement
date under the Civil Service Retirement System.
MR. ECHOLS: I think I'm using "mandatory retirement
date" the same way all the way through here. As far as I know, there is
only one mandatory retirement date.
You can spell it out - 60 with 30 years'
service, and 62 without- Is that what you had in mind, John?
MR. BOREL: Creditable Federal service at the time of
his retirement. You don't have to relate it, do you?
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-
5~ 092A000200130001-2
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200130001-2
SECRET
STAT
2 X1A9A
MR. ECHOLS: The very first use of the term "mandatory
retirement date" is in. connection with the CIA Retirement System and
CIA Retirement Board, and it is used consistently thereafter.
Now this would not apply to the man who
at the 15th year review elects not to get into the System -- he can. stay
on until he is 62?
MR. WARNER: Yes.
MR. SEELY: It would apply to the man who has been
designated and then decides - "Well, I would like to work for two more
years" -- it would preclude that kind of appeal.
MR. ECHOLS: Any new business? (No response.)
We have another item here, the subject of meetings.
We have a holiday coming up on Tuesday, February 22nd - - and we've
also had a month in which there were five Tuesdays -- we've been meeting
every other Tuesday. What is your desire? We have a big job to do --
I don't know if we can afford to miss many Tuesdays. I would like to
leave it that we have a meeting every other Tuesday. The next one
is a holiday, so I wonder if we could meet either the day before or the
day after the holiday. Is that possible?
D
MR. ECHOLS: All right, our next meeting will be
2 X1A9A
Wednesday, February 23rd.
The day after would be better for me.
I move for adjournment.
. . . . The meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m.
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 :CIA-WU*92A000200130001-2