(UNTITLED)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 21
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 15, 2001
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: May 10, 1966
• Content Type: MIN

)proved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
SECRET
. . . . The 35th meeting of the CIA RETIREMENT BOARD
convened at 2:05 p. m. on Tuesday, 10 May 1966, in room 5E62 Head-
quarters, with the following present:
Mr. Emmett D. Echols, Chairman
DP Member
25X1A9a DDP Member
&T Member
Mr. Alan M. Warfield, DDS Member
25X1A9a S Member
nance Adviser
xecutive Secretary
Recording Secretary
MR. ECHOLS: First, the Minutes of the 34th Meeting.
And I think that I would like to take some exception to the first paragraph
here. I'm not sure that I can agree that the Director of Personnel
should assist people "to develop their best case. " I'm not sure that
that is proper. How do you all feel about that? It seems to me
certainly we should give them technical advice and guidance, but to
actually assist someone to put forth his best case would seem to put me
in the position of having a conflict of interest, really--
25X1A9a MR. WARFIELD: I think it's Personnel - the generic
term. Certainly -- and as I think entioned -- the
benefits and casualty people assist--
MR. ECHOLS: That is right, and we do not assist a man
in, for example, putting through a grossly exaggerated case--
MR. WARFIELD: No, but you assist him in putting forth
the best case he's got.
MR. ECHOLS: The complete case -- so we give him the
best technical guidance we possibly can, although we don't necessarily
assist him in putting forth his best case. Maybe I'm trying to make too
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
 Pproved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
SECRET
fine a distinction here. I don't want to be in the position of distorting
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
MR. WARFIELD: Your point evades me, unless you're
thinking of doing it personally. But I think if you use Director of
Personnel to mean an area of responsibility -- I can't see why someone
on your staff couldn't provide this assistance.
MR. ECHOLS: Well, all right -- just so it's understood--
Just say the Office of Personnel.
MR. ECHOLS: Of course, there's another escape here --
it says "who have a valid claim" -- so this would exclude the man with
a phoney claim or a grossly exaggerated claim. So, with that
understanding, I'll accept this.
I read it sort of as Alan did, that it was
the Personnel Office -- in the Office of Communications, for example,
whoever was the Personnel man would be helping these people as they
prepare their cases -- not you personally.
I forget the context in which this proposed
insertion was to occur, but it seems to me that there are many other
elements besides the Director of Personnel who are helping people
develop their best cases, including Finance--
point was that people were
submitting their requests without the benefit of the sort of information
that should be included here to best present their case, and he just felt
that more help should be given to them--
MR. ECHOLS: Well, if that is what it means I will gladly
accept that for the Office of Personnel.
This was specifically tied in, I think, with
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
 pproved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
SECRET
25X1 C4a
25X1A9a
25X1A9J
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
the case we had considered which was developed on the point of the
heart attack and it didn't seem to have any relevancy. I think that this
statement was put in here so that you could provide guidance and help
so that the claim, or the valid claim, would be relevant to the
circumstances, within the framework of the regulations and the law.
MR. ECHOLS: Okay. As such, I will accept it.
MR. WARFIELD: And at the same time we had the case
of the guy who wanted to claim his duties
qualifying service.
I'm not sure their best case was really
what we were talking about. What we were talking about was to develop
material relevant to the presentation of their case.
How best to present his case, whatever
it is. I don't think you make the case for him.
MR. ECHOLS: If you say "to properly present their case",
I could accept this.
I think that would be better than this
implication that you were going to get them in in some way.
There is no question that individuals
have a pretty poor idea of what they need. I just had one where he
talked about the volume of work, and the number of people he supervised,
and went on and on about things like that - - which is fine if you're trying
to get an increase in grade structure or something, but having little or
no bearing on his qualifying service. This is the type of guidance
that I think we have in mind.
MR. ECHOLS: Would you accept this change: "to properly
and effectively present their case"?
MR. WARFIELD: Or just "properly".
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
 proved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
SECRET
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
And effectively.
MR. ECHOLS: I'd go that far, gladly -- to help someone
effectively present their case.
The word "valid" sort of prejudges the
thing, too.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1 A9al
MR. ECHOLS: Okay. Are there any other additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the 26 April meeting? (No response.)
If not, we will accept them as corrected.
Now, our first case today is an individual, age 50 --
who wishes to apply for voluntary retirement.
The request has been endorsed by the Head of his Career Service, and
it has been checked out by our staff and he meets all of the criteria --
and he does have the 60 months of qualifying service. Any discussion
on the case? (No response.) Does anybody know why this man
at age 50 is exercising his right to apply for voluntary retirement?
Yes. For one reason, he was advised
to do so -- not that he hadn't been a good and valued employee, but he
had reached the point where he was not interested in the operational end
of the business anymore, and had not been really a conspicuous success
in the operational end. He had been a teacher earlier in his life
and felt he would like to go back to teaching, and about two years ago, I
believe it was, he came to me, and he was assigned to OTR to more or
less test his wings at teaching again. He did so, liked it, picked up
his option, and he has a teaching --
MR. ECHOLS: I asked the question only so that the Board
would have some feel as to how this is helping us--
This is a real case where early retirement
4
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
 25X1A
Approved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
Approved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
 proved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
SECRET
Item C is an individual who likewise will be of
mandatory retirement age if put into the System. His Career Service
intends to request the Director to extend his service until 31 March 1968.
I have a memorandum here signed by the DD/P, which I think probably
is relevant. (Mr. Echols then read this memorandum to the Board.)
So there is a real solid operational orderly turn-over requirement here
which I'm sure the Director will honor. This request is addressed
to the Director.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
I have a question -- again, it isn't -
himself, its just this concept -- I mean, here is a fellow who will be
62 in 1967, which is mandatory even under Civil Service, and I thought
we had said something about a man could elect to stay out of the System
and stay on under Civil Service but that if he elected to stay in this
System he should at least sort of retire by the book. Didn't we sort
of incorporate this as one of our policy concepts?
I think this is the ultimate desideratum,
myself -- but again, this is one of the cases that I would say was in
the switch-over period -- the man is abroad, and I don't think it's to
the Agency's best interest to bring him home to retire him. But in the
future, providing we can avoid it -- and this presents a problem in
itself -- we wouldn't send such a man abroad. But on the other hand,
we can't have, either, every prospective retiree sitting in Washington
for the last two years of their service.
I would have thought that this was the
type of case that Congress had in mind when they gave the Director the
right to extend for one to five years where it was to the best interest
of the country - - or however they worded it - - and I would have thought
(SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
 pproved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
SECRET
this was an operational type of case where it would be to the best
interest of the government--
25X1A9
I had in mind this agreement that we
seemed to have on the record here. Again, I have no quarrel with
but this does come up with other people, and I guess each
time you have to make this judgment -- I mean, there are people who are
in effect saying: If I have to retire at 60 I would rather not join this
System, because I'd like to stay on until 62 -- but if you will request
a waiver for me, and support it, then I'll be glad to come into this
System and also stay on until 62. And I think we sort of have to watch
this.
25X1A9a
MR. ECHOLS: You're more or less putting the individual
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
completely in the driver's seat there. But here I think the operational
interests of the Agency clearly are predominant.
Each Career Service, admittedly, has to
make a case by case judgment.
MR. WARFIELD: On the other hand, the DD/P could
extend him to age 65 under the Civil Service Retirement, I think,
without reference to anybody. But presumably he doesn't want to do
that -- he wants to retire him as soon as he can be replaced, is that
correct?
That is right.
MR. ECHOLS: Certainly this individual is basically
deserving of being in the System.
No question about this individual, no.
MR. ECHOLS: But I see your point.
As I say, it's more for guidance in
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
 pproved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
SECRET
25X1A9a
subsequent cases that I bring it up.
MR. ECHOLS: Okay. Any objection to this case
proceeding as proposed? (No response.) If not, we will so handle it.
Category D are those who meet the basic criteria
and have 15 or more years and will thereby acquire a vested interest
if they elect to do so. Any discussion on any cases in group D?
I move we offer to designate all of
these in group D.
MR. WARFIELD: Second.
. . . . This motion was then passed . . . .
25X1A9a
MR. ECHOLS: In Category E are individuals who have
not quite completed 15 years of Agency service but who will do so within
six months and therefore this review will be their 15 year review.
I move we offer to designate those
under Category E.
25X1A9a
Support that.
. . . . This motion was then passed . . . .
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
MR. ECHOLS: Group F consists of 195 individuals who
have five years of Agency service, at least, and appear to meet the
basic criteria, and are proposed as participants. Any discussion?
Just one question on procedure. Let's
take this first case under Category E - - who has
14 years and 10 months of Agency service. Now what happens when he
hits his 15 years? Do you just give him one of these sheets to sign, or
not to sign, without it becoming an official Board action? And I just
take his case because it's the first one here. My only question is
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
 25X1A
Approved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
Next 2 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
 pproved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
of 14 years 10 months?
MR. ECHOLS: How are you going to handle the case
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
I would prefer to put them in the System,
as they should be, and come the 15 year point let them exercise their
option. This is the way I think it was intended--
MR. ECHOLS: The alternative would be to engage in
correspondence with these people overseas and back to try to get
assurance ahead of time how they are going to jump at 15. And I think
I agree with Phil that that is not--
25X9
MR. WARFIELD: And if out of rases we've only
had two reversals, I don't think that is a problem.
MR, ECHOLS: It's fine if a man happened to be here
in Washington and you could call him up on the telephone and he would
tell you. But I think the administrative work in trying to do this is
completely out of line with what you're going to get out of it.
We did have one case that came to my
attention last week of a man in Security who intended to opt out at his
15 year election. I called Security and suggested that I talk to him.
After discussing the pros and cons of the matter with him, he changed
his mind.
SECRET
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
He chose to stay in the System?
Yes. It was based on lack of
information -- he had read the Bulletin but no one had put it in perspective.
I think we could get into a lot of legal
problems if you wrote to a man after 14 years and 6 months and you said
do you want to get in or stay out, and he said in, or he said out -- well,
when his 15 years comes around I'm not sure he can be estopped -- I
think at the end of 15 years he is supposed to have that election.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
 pproved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
SECRET
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A6a
I think we should stick to the system, and
this is the way it was set up.
MR. WARFIELD: I agree.
I had questions about some of these other
cases, and I guess again it's not clear in my mind as to the benefit of
putting people in at these early dates. I notice a number of cases here
with 5 years and 4 months' service, one tour of duty overseas, and so
on. So much can happen to them, that it doesn't seem to me you have
much assurance that you are really putting a good case into the System.
I see here two cases, actually, of medical technicians - young people,
who had one tour of duty overseas and now they're back at Headquarters-
I think they're kind of poor risks, I should think, for the System.
Now is five years really a very realistic length of time in which to
try to decide whether you've got somebody who is going to do qualifying
service or not? I kind of question it.
MR. ECHOLS: I know Medical Techs who have had more
overseas service--
Harry's people are probably a better risk,
because so many of his people do--
We have to fill those overseas medical
tech slots -- and many of them - take this fellow
X1 A9a'
again, who happens to be the first case here, he 5X1A6c,
he has had a pretty full
career overseas. I think the financial aspect of it is the very
significant one that you might be overlooking -- I mean, if this program
is going to work we need that dual contribution just as early as possible.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
 proved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
SECRET
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
MR. WARFIELD: I know, but the concept -- and I wish
was here, because he spoke eloquently about this --
the concept was that these five year reviews would not be a Board
action only, they would be a supervisor or Division Chief in the DD/ P
talking to a case officer and saying: Now, you have been in for five
years, you've been overseas, we think that this career is well suited
to you - - now how do you feel about it? If he says, "I don't think I
like it so much - I'd rather get into RID, or something here in the
States" then you pull him out. That was the concept -- am I right,
Gerry?
I think that is right.
MR. WARFIELD: It was a chance for a dialogue between
the supervisor and the employee, rather than just a Board action.
Did we put any of that language into that
Bulletin? It seems to me we did reduce some of this to language at
one point.
Isn't it still true, Byron, that when we
get money from the Civil Service at any stage we get only the single
contribution?
Right now we are only getting the
employee's contribution for the total service he has had with the Agency
and any prior Federal service withholdings. Any (new) legislation
would authorize the transfer ....... and increase our
total potential income to support the system. However, at the same
time that same legislation provides that should the employee be
re-transferred to another retirement system the Agency may transfer
the Agency's contributions. I was a little surprised at that difference
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
 pproved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
SECRET
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
in language -- to us the language reads "shall be" transferred, but
when we transfer the man back, say, to Civil Service, the language
reads "may transfer".
MR. WARFIELD: Has there ever been any retirement
system that the Government has administered, though, that hasn't used
appropriated. funds to augment--
We're not going to make ends meet --
we are going to have to, in the long run, ask for appropriated funds
to support this.
MR. WARFIELD: As every other retirement system does,
So we're going through a passing exercise
here of giving money back and forth.
MR. ECHOLS: Karl, are you satisfied?
Not really. I feel the basic point is still
the same -- I don't think that five years, particularly with only one
short interval of qualifying service, is really much of a test.
MR. ECHOLS: The reason we're putting the individual in
as early as possible is to give him the benefits of the death or disability
provisions in the event that during this period of qualifying duty he
suffers a misfortune. It's a financial benefit--
But it's not terribly significant in that
early phase--
MR. ECHOLS: It's 3. 75. We also hope to get a special
tax benefit, as you may know -- which in some cases will help--
These are sort of peripheral benefits but
we find in talking to some of the youngsters the mere fact that they are
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
 pproved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
SECRET
brought in early and know that they are in a system which will provide
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
for early retirement, is important to them.
MR. ECHOLS: Good psychology.
Some of our boys think of it as an enlisted
man's career -- so, okay, at the end of 20 years I can get out with a
pretty good retirement. And to dangle them for years before you put
them in or out could be significant. In other words, as the regulation
reads at the end of five years if you have 18 months and you're in a
career that is oriented toward overseas, you're in, and at the end of 10
years you have to have three years of this overseas service, and
finally 15 and five -- and gradually this concept is being publicized and
they understand it. As a matter of fact, we have had to do a little
explaining why we're waiting five years -- you know, we were bringing
them in after three years originally.
MR. ECHOLS: Well, I think we're still considering
Category F here.
Well, if nobody else has any question
about this five year business -- that was my only question on the whole
bundle of them.
I have no serious question.
MR. ECHOLS: If there is no question, we will put
all of those under Category F into the System.
Now, I have some very important new business to
bring up. I don't know if you want to talk about it today -- I don't think
we should tackle it today, because so many members are absent today.
Security has now put forth its best case, if you will, on domestic
qualifying duty.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
 25X1A
Approved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
Next 1 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
 Oproved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
SECRET
MR. ECHOLS: Just in case it might strike some sparks
in some of you, I had scribbled this off after I got through reading this
case today, as to how this might be used for similar cases. I start
out with the principle that cases involving domestic qualifying duty
should only be considered by the Board after the individual in
collaboration with his Career Service believes he has completed 60
months of qualifying duty. In other words, let's not worry about this
thing until the man and his Career Service both think that he may have
60 months of qualifying duty. That is rule No. 1.
Rule No. Z. To qualify the individual for any period
of domestic qualifying duty he: (a) must have actually performed the type
of duties considered hazardous to health and life at recurring times,
and such duties must have been an inherent and accepted part of his
duties -- in other words, this is part of his normal work requirement -
on call he will perform such duties, and, secondly, he of course must
have in fact actually have done it at recurring times. (b) The Career
Service and the CIA Retirement Board should agree that the nature of
the hazardous or stressful duty was of such severity and frequency to
warrant acceptance as qualifying duty. And (c) that any periods of
duty of a given type, place, and time which are accepted by the Board
as qualifying domestic duty shall usually be held qualifying for other
persons performing and subject to identical duties at the same place
and period of time -- in other words, if we've got one Security officer
at this given location and we say for this six-month period we think
these duties qualify, and we've got another guy at the same place
performing the exact, same duties, we would automatically say this is
a good guide, then, for --
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
 Pproved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
SECRET
MR. WARFIELD: At what point does the Board want to
consider these? If there is the likelihood, in the eyes of the Head
of the Career Service, that this individual is going to be sent overseas
again, then do we want to go through this exercise? Maybe the
individual would be unable to go overseas again because of a family
commitment, or whatever -- or maybe even because of some physical
condition he was just disqualified for further overseas service -- but
surely we don't want to get into all of this agonizing analysis of an
individual case if, as Gerry points out, it is likely the fellow is going
back overseas again, anyhow.
Security
MR. ECHOLS: I think what .T would like to have, Alan - -
25X1A6a
25X1A9a
maybe they felt that if they had a good understanding of what we would
probably accept as qualifying duty, then they would start keeping book
on these 40 or 45 people that they may have, so they will build up a
record over a period of time and not have to go back 10 years later, or
15 years later, and try to reconstruct periods of qualifying duty.
MR. WARFIELD: I don't know if they have any such a
guy but if they had a man say ~~~~~~that had to
keep his bags packed all the time and he went out on a courier assign-
ment lasting maybe a week, once a month, or something -- to me that
is not living -- that is worse than anything.
This is a little out of my field, but I
would like to be permitted an observation. As I read this I got the
impression they were talking in terms of what the Security man was
doing first overseas, and the hazardous living with reference to, in
many cases, his return accompanying bodies into this country. It would
seem to me this might be one criteria, that you should consider that
SECRE,
Approved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
 pproved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
SECRET
element of time, not just when he reentered the States -- definitely we
would give him credit for the overseas, but as a continuation of that
particular assignment while still having custody of some of these bodies.
And this would tie in with what you're saying (indicating Mr. Echols),
that if we could give them a guideline then they could keep tab on that
additional- -
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
MR. ECHOLS: I don't think TDY in the States by our
present accounting system would interrupt overseas duty.
It wouldn't change the credit for it, no,
but this TDY as a continuation of protection or custody of some of these
bodies they talk about--
Maybe the basic question is whether you
expect the Office of Security as one group to keep a pretty accurate set
of books on the movement of their personnel -- an almost unique set
of books--
The cases that I had in mind are all people
who are at least at the 15 and 5 stage, where it does become significant.
Now whether you want to hold that that man should be at the 15 and 5
point, or where he thinks his true overseas plus other qualifying would
bring him into the 15 and 5 category and that we don't worry about the
man who has only 10 years and 3--
Your first point, I think, Emmett, I took to
mean that wewon't be reviewing the Office of Security people at the end
of five years--
MR. ECHOLS: If they've got the 60, it would be a one time--
It almost seems to me -- and I realize we
made a decision here anybody overseas is automatically in -- but knowing,
SEGREI
Approved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
 pproved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
SECRET
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
as each of us does, that there are many jobs overseas completely
lacking in hazard, that we are possibly going too far in looking for
severity here in the United States service. In my own mind it would
seem to me that if the key is proving it very different from any normal
government employment, rather than really stressing this hazard to
life and health, which, as I say, isn't truly required overseas in many
cases. So if we get into this case and you really prove, sort of as you
said, that even though he is not doing it on a daily basis but his normal
job is such that he is called upon on a fairly regular basis to perform
these off-beat jobs, that we shouldn't push it too far as far as the
"severity", I think is the word you used there. Again, it's a philosophy
of are we really trying to bring people in or hold them out.
MR. ECHOLS: We're trying to bring them in -- but as I
recall that "hazard to life or health" I think that went in on a floor
amendment, didn't it? And as Tom testified here, we almost lost
this whole program, until we went back- - Actually, originally
we just wanted what the Foreign Service had -- no more and no less --
that was our original philosophy.
Nevertheless, in our interpretation we have
interpreted it to cover all people overseas.
This won't do us any good as far as the
past is concerned, but it might be something to think about -- can you,
Emmett, write a regulation defining a dangerous duty assignment?
MR. ECHOLS: I'd be willing to try.
So that the person knows, a priori, it's a
dangerous duty assignment and it is accepted as such for qualifying
service.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
 25X1A
Approved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
Next 2 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
 pproved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6
SECREI
vitally interested in this. If we're only talking about 45 people,
maybe somehow we can narrow this down and make some decisions on
it.
25X1A9a
It would be a lot easier if we knew what
we were doing across the board, though.
MR. ECHOLS: Any other business? Any other
discussion? (No response.) If not, the meeting stands
adjourned.
. . . The meeting adjourned at 3:15 p. m. .
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000200190001-6