CIA RETIREMENT BOARD MEETING 2:00 P.M., 28 FEBRUARY 1967

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 43
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 15, 2000
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: February 28, 1967
• Content Type: MIN

S E C R E T
Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
MINUTES
CIA RETIREMENT BOARD MEETING
2:00 p.m., 28 February 1967
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
- Chairman
- DDP Member
- DDP Member
- DDI Member
- DDS&T Member
- DDS Member
- DDS Member
- Technical Adviser
- Finance Adviser
- Recording Secretary
- Acting Executive Secretary
- Chief, FE Division
1. The minutes of the last meeting of the Board were reviewed and approved
as presented.
2. The Board reviewed 14 cases of employees who had been nominated for
designation as participants in the System, and 1 request from a participant for
disability retirement. It took action as follows:
a. Recommended designation as a participant of the following named
employee who will complete 15 years of Agency service on the date indicated:
- 18 April 1967
b. Recommended the following named employees with 5 or more years of
Agency service for designation as participants in the System:
c. Recommended a~ roval of the request for disability retirement received
from , to be effective upon expiration of his accumulated
sick leave.
3. The Chairman presented to the Board the case of Miss , a
Clandestine Services Careerist, who was being nominated for participation in the
System and for voluntary retirement under the System, based partiall u on domestic
qualifying service. After an oral presentation by Mr. Chief, Far
East Division, and considerable discussion, it was agree t at t is case should
25X1A9a
Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03 , , 4 Q 70001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/36 EG9AR IDTP78-03092A000300170001-7
be tabled for further study. The Chairman stated that he would try to develop
a series of factors that ought to be looked at in each such case which might lead
to a proper or discriminating decision as against other cases, and he suggested
that perhaps individually the members of the Board might also develop such guide-
lines.
4. The Chairman informed the Board that the Director had approved the new
Agency policy on retirement Age. He stated that the uniform retirement age for
all CIA employees will be age 60 for those employees with at least 20 years of
federal service, regardless of grade and regardless of retirement system. He
further stated that there would be a two year period of grace permitted, for
those employees under Civil Service, during the phasing in period of this new
policy.
25X1A9a 5. The Chairman presented to the Board the case of Mis
a Clandestine Services Careerist, who has re uested that she be removed from the25X1A9a
System. Prior to being put into the System exercised her 15 year
right of election and chose to remain in the CIA System. However, she now states
that at the time she signed the election for the CIA System she was under the im-
pression that her mandatory retirement date under the CIA System was in January
1970 as she had been previously advised that this was the mandatory retirement
date under the Civil Service. After discussion of this case, including the applica-
bility of the new Agency retirement policy to the case, Mr withdrew
the case for reconsideration by the Clandestine Services Career Service Board to
determine if they would recommend to the Director an extension under the CIA System.
25X1A9a
6. The Chairman informed the Board that the proposal to abolish the Agency
Retirement Board and transfer its functions to the CIA Retirement Board had been
approved. Appropriate regulatory changes are being developed.
7. The Chairman presented to the Board the case of Mr. 25X1A~
who has requested an extension of his mandatory retirement date under the Civil
Service Retirement System on compassionate grounds. Mr. parent office25XlAc
and his Career Service have agreed that they can utilize his services for a period
25X1A9a not to exceed six months beyond his currently scheduled retirement date of 31 March
1967. The Board approved an extension of Mr. mandatory retirement for
a period of six months, until 30 September 196 . T e Board further stipulated
that Mr. - was to be informed that he was to report to the Secretary of 25X1AC,
the Board what steps he has taken on his own to try to obtain employment on the
outside.
8. The meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m.
25X1A9a
Acting'Ffxecutive Secretary
Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
S E C R E T
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
SECRET
. . . . The 55th meeting of the CIA RETIREMENT BOARD
convened at 2:00 p. m. on Tuesday, 28 February 1967, with the following
present:
25X1A9a
Mr. Emmett D. Echols, Chairman
DP Member
1, DDP Member
I Member
S&T Member
Mr. Alan M. Warfield, DDS Member
S Member
hnical Adviser
nanc e Adviser
Acting Executive Secretary
Recording Secretary
MR. ECHOLS: I think we had better get started. I've
to come in at 2:15 on a scheduled case, so if we can
knock off the Minutes in the next 10 minutes- -
25X1A9a
Move their approval.
MR. ECHOLS: Any additions or corrections to the Minutes?
(No response.) If not, we will accept them as submitted.
MR. ECHOLS: Maybe we can knock off some of these
cases on the agenda--
25X1A9a Move we accept them all (referring
only to cases under A., B., and C. of the agenda).
25X1A9a
Support it.
MR. ECHOLS: Has everyone had a chance to examine
these cases? Does anyone desire any discussion--
25X1A9a
I'd kind of like to know what constitutes
physical disability in some of these cases now -- like in this last case
25X1A9a
_ -- but not the particulars and all of that--
MR. ECHOLS: Is it all right to go now to Item C, which
is a disability retirement case, and I have here a memo from the Director
of Medical Services to the Director of Personnel. (Mr.. Echols then
read this memo to the Board.)
Approved For Release 2001/03/3': 1IDP78-03092A000300170001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
SECRET
This is, of course, privileged information to the
Board in conjunction with its duties.
25X1A9a
If you've got their recommendation, I
don't think the Board needs, really, to hear the details.
MR. WARFIELD: Yes, and I would prefer not to, Gerry.
MR. ECHOLS: I think we should not -- I really do.
25X1A9a
Once it's turned over to the Medics and
the Medics say yes, there isn't much we can do about it.
MR. ECHOLS: It really shouldn't concern us -- it's a
medical judgment--
25X1A9a In this case I couldn't agree with them more --
he is not useful.
25X1A9a
MR. ECHOLS: Any questions, Paul?
No, but I'll raise it the next time we have
one, though. I don't mean the specifics -- just what general rules -
what constitutes disability -- whether it's permanent--
25X1A9a
MR. ECHOLS: That is what I thought you wanted to know.
I don't mean all the gory details.
MR. ECHOLS: I think we only learn this over a period of
months and years by being exposed to the many individual judgments made
by the Board -- but I wonder if we really want to get into that.
MR. WARFIELD: No. You won't get any easy answer
to it, either, because each case is evaluated in light of what is required
of the individual - -
25X1A9a In a particular job -- but strictly against
that job, not whether he would be useful in another job -- that is the kind
of thing I think about. Is it a case where the man couldn't qualify for the
job he is in? Now is that what they judge it against? Or have you got
cases where they try to find other jobs they might qualify for before they
go through this procedure.
2
Approved For Release 2001/03/3
- FjDP78-03092A000300170001-7
% Uft
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
SECRET
MR. ECHOLS: Well, I think as an Agency, if a person has
a disability which is perhaps crippling but not necessarily a disqualifying
disability, that our first obligation is to try to find him a job that he can do.
In fact, we have done this in many, many cases in the Agency.
25X1A9a
You know, Emmett, this is very pertinent
right now. I just left my office where I was talking to one of our men who
is getting a disability retirement - - and he's a very good friend of mine and I've just sort of said to him, "Jack, if we can accommodate you on
some sort of less demanding job" - you know, we're willing to do it
certainly until he's 50 -- he put in for disability -- this is heart -
which becomes very difficult to pin down, and yet the Medics seem to
have no trouble in saying he was entitled to a disability retirement--
MR. ECHOLS: I think heart is the most difficult one of
all -- because many doctors think the best thing you can do is keep active,
keep working, and that the worst thing you can do is retire. I don't know
what the individual's rights are, though, not to work with a heart condition.
25X1A9a
The thing is, I think, if he did not apply
for disability retirement, he could go on working but he would just be
gambling -- so he initiated the request and the Medics bought it.
MR. ECHOLS: The law contemplates that individuals may
request disability retirement, and then it's a medical finding after that.
25X1A9a
Getting back to the case at hand, did I
understand this is a permanent condition, not subject to an annual review
in any way - -
25X1A9a
MR. ECHOLS: Not subject to annual review.
I'm thinking of the annuity -- if this would
ever result in a reemployable situation, considering this man's age--
MR. ECHOLS: Conceivably it might - - but apparently
their prognosis, based on history, is that it is permanent and there need
be no subsequent review.
Approved For Release 2001/03/30
15'P78-03092A000300170001-7
ERY
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
25X1A9a
SECRET
So we will have this man on our annuity
rolls from now on.
MR. ECHOLS: He is considered totally disabled by reason
of his disorder and since there has been no appreciable improvement in
the past five years the Board found that that disability is permanent.
25X1A9a
I'd find it a lot more handy if we could get
some of this and not know who the man was -- to me it means nothing
knowing what his name is and who he works for -- but otherwise, if they
certify to you, I don't know what the Board--
MR. ECHOLS: We could, at the end of a year's time, for
example, summarize the various medical disability cases we have had,
without reference to names--
25X1A9a The name means nothing, really.
MR. ECHOLS: I assume there's no objection to this
man retiring.
I think I may have told you that it was desired to
have but one Agency retirement board and have it consider all appropriate
problems relative to retirement. These might include, specifically,
and at the moment do include, compassionate cases under the Civil Service
Retirement System. As you know, there appears to be no specific legal
mention of compassionate extensions under the CIA system -- when age
60 comes along there is only provision for extension on the part of the
Director based upon the "public interest. " I do not know whether or
not "the public interest" in the sense of the statutory background would
embrace compassionate extensions. I'm going to ask the Office of the
General Counsel for their opinion on this. I personally would speculate
that "public interest" could include extensions for reasons of compassion,
so as not to throw somebody out on the street, for example, to be a
welfare case or something like that. But I don't know - - and I would
like to get a formal opinion from OGC in this respect. If they say yes,
Approved For Release 2001/03/30
4
ETP78-03092A000300170001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
SECRET
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
it could embrace that, then this Board or some subcommittee of this
Board -- and I'll discuss that later -- would, presumably, handle all
requests for compassionate extensions.
In this case for extension here this man
is 62. Have we ever had an acceptance of your paper that the Civil
Service retirement age be reduced to 60, in keeping with--
MR. ECHOLS: Yes, that is on the agenda today.
25X1A9a
Division, joined the meeting at this point . . . .
25X1A
25X1A
MR. ECHOLS: Well, we now have here, and
I'd like to take up immediately the case of
Woes not qualify for
25X1A9a the CIA System by reason of 60 months of overseas service, but Mr.
and I believe the DD/P and the Clandestine Services Career Service,
25X1A9a
believe there is a case for her designation as a participant in the System,
and, concurrent with that or shortly thereafter, her retirement.
I believe you all have the papers on Miss
MR. WARFIELD: They're deficient in one respect -- how
old is she?
25X1A9a She will be 55 in September.
MR. ECHOLS: Age 55.
So, with that, Bill, I'll invite you -- I know you
have another appointment- -
25X1A9a I would just like to emphasize that I
believe the purpose behind the early retirement system is to compensate
people who devote their energies to the somewhat special work of CIA
and particularly the clandestine work, that Miss M has worked 25X1A9a
very long and arduously in this particular vineyard, that she has risen
Approved For Release 2001/03/IA DP78-03092A000300170001-7
I L 1111 L4
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
SECRET
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
through the ranks to very senior positions, and over the years - and over
quite a few years - has held quite responsible and demanding functions. She
is getting on in years a bit, and she would like to retire, if possible. She
has not the 60 months -- she has only approximately 28 months overseas
service. In part this is due to the fact that her particular talents have been
exploited here -- and she at present is the planning and programming officer
for FE Division. Previously, for a number of years she served as our
covert action officer in FE Division, in which she had both operational
assignments, operational direction, operational staff work, operational
coordination, and also at that time the CA job comprised the programming
and planning function as well -- so that her programming for the Division as
a whole, not just the covert action side of it, has gone over many years.
She is certainly, I think, the single person in FE
who has the broadest experience in terms of our operations over the past
15 or so years. She has carried a heavy load during that time. Her work
has been particularly aimed at clandestine activities in the covert action
business and programming our intelligence and covert action effort. She
certainly is not able to exploit the work she has done to get herself alternate
employment, and thereby she fits the letter of the law in that regard. She
is not physically failing -- in that sense I can't say that this is a hardship
situation - - but I do think it falls quite accurately within the area that the
law was designed to approach.
I'd be glad to answer any questions on her, if I can.
Is she definitely going to retire?
Well, she would like to retire, but she
probably can't if she can't get this retirement.
I mean if she were retired from the
Agency would she try to teach or something?
Frankly, we haven't talked about it. She is
55, though, and I think she is thinking in terms of just unwinding.
6
Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : His .'78-03092A000300170001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A6a
25X1A6a
SECRET
I'd like to add a little bit to that, because I
think there are factors here that aren't just in the compensatory area. She
came to see me some months ago and discussed this question, and it has a
great deal to do with her own constitutional make-up. She is the type of
person -- she says this, and we certainly recognize if -- she's the type of
person who throws herself completely into whatever she is doing, and at
this stage of her life she finds that she isn't leading much of a whole life,
because she is trying to work as hard as she ever did, and, even though in
good health, her reserves just don't leave her with much left over for
living her private life. So it's one of these cases where a person has
really pretty much worked themselves out for the Clandestine Services.
I might add, she works Saturdays on quite
a frequent basis, and she, obviously, works hours much in excess of the
normal. I think particularly she has been under considerable pressure
over the past couple of years as we have adjusted these rather enormous
financial and budgetary and personnel programs to the war areas, at the
same time as the overall enthusiasm for more formal systems programming
have come about through the Agency -- she has taken the greater (heat) of
that from the Divisions, which has come under the Division Chiefs, and
turned it into something that we in the Division can handle -- and I think
has done exceedingly well, but I think it has been a very demanding period.
I did forget one other thing. She did have this one
tour abroad -- it was quite successful -- she did a very good job in
in the covert action business there -- she received a medal from the
~~~~tor her services, and was quite effective. I think
we would be apt to send her abroad at other times, except that, quite
frankly, we wouldn't want to be without her in FE Division. She just has too
much accumulated knowledge, of course, to let her wander off. So there
is some tendency on our part, I think, to keep her here rather than send
her abroad. This certainly came up a year or so ago when I was reviewing--
7
Approved For Release 2001/03/30 '5~P78-03092A000300170001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
ARET
25X1A9a
That is a point I find a little hard to
reconcile -- you can spare her to retire her but you can't spare her to
send her to the field.
25X1A9a
The question is her rights, and that is her
You have no less demanding assignment for
a person of her qualifications?
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Well, I suppose we could find other assign-
ments - you know, that would be feasible, but if she is around--
I'm pretty greedy - I would rather exploit them on the things they can
do best.
MR. ECHOLS: Bill, is she in any way surplus to today's
requirements? I am wondering whether her skills and abilities have
been perhaps overtaken by new techniques in budgeting and programming.
As I say, she has borne a considerable
pressure over the past year or so in this budgeting process. But she is
bearing up to it, keeping up to it. I think it has taken more than a bit of
her reserves of energy to do -- I think sometimes she gets a little short
tempered- -
MR. ECHOLS: Is she known personally to the Director?
Yes, I'm sure of it.
MR. ECHOLS: And her work? In other words, the
25X1A9a
25X1A
Director himself might be in a strong position to make a judgment,
whereas he might not in other cases--
MR.
MR. have found
her to be the most knowledgeable of any of the planning officers we deal
with in the Clandestine Services, and probably the most competent
planning officer we have been able to reach.
MR. ECHOLS: She does not have 30 years' service,
8
Approved For Release 2001/03/3E-~DP78-03092A000300170001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
SECRET
incidentally -- she has 25 years' service -- so, to all practical purposes,
if she did not get out this way she would have to remain another five years.
25X1A9a And then at a reduced annuity -- three and
three quarters percent less.
25X1A9a
So, I'm not trying to get rid of her, I assure
you. My position here is that if she has a reasonable chance at this
particular arrangement she has asked for, I feel sort of obliged to try to
help her get it.
MR. ECHOLS: Okay. Are there any other questions you
25X1 A9a want to ask Mr.
25X1A9a
MR. ECHOLS: Thank you very much, Bill.
Thank you.
point . . .
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
MR. ECHOLS: In one sense, if you look at the broad
picture, the Agency is trying to whittle away on its age hump, and so
on. She is one of the many that constitute that hump. Rather than
pushing somebody out the door, here is somebody who is willing to go and
desirous of going. So from that point of view you might applaud this.
Then there is the real question as to whether she does qualify under this
Retirement System.
withdrew from the meeting at this
Well, doesn't she fall in the same category
as the five nameless people that sort of went through the Director -- other
than in degree? maybe not quite as much overseas service.
Yes, I think so.
MR. ECHOLS: With respect to the individual I would say
Approved For Release 2001/03/30:1DP78-03092A000300170001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
SECRET
25X1A9a
quite comparable -- she has specialized during her career in clandestine
operations. Perhaps missing or questionable in this case is wherein is
the interest of the Agency in having this person retire? - beyond the broad
whittling away at the age hump, that I spoke of.
In that area anybody that is an expert in the
Far East is much in demand today -- and the PPB scheme is the wave of
the future, and she is now being qualified in that. So, on two counts --
except that she is dealing with clandestine matters -- the techniques that
she uses and the knowledge she has acquired about the Far East are both
saleable commodities. I think to the extent that she is a case like the
others, that she varies too much -- the degree is too different -- less than
30 months -- less than half the minimum requirements -- I find it very
hard to stretch it this far. We've got 200 people in this Agency that would
fit these qualifications -- some not in the DD/P. I figure if we're going
to extend these requirements that far then I think we ought to look at the
whole Agency and see if there aren't people elsewhere that would qualify
under these guides.
MR. ECHOLS: Well, I think there are, as you say, many
people in the Agency whose area of vocational specialization deals either
principally or exclusively with let's say the direct support of clandestine
operations. I can think of one - for example, the Chief of our Contract
Personnel Division, very much of an area of specialization -- most of his
work has been dealing with staff agents, contractual agents, covert contracts
with respect to covert operations, and so on. So here is an individual whose
25X1A9a life work, you might say, is related directly and almost exclusively to
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
clandestine operations. Would this be a comparable case to the -
case? And maybe many, many others.
Frankly, I wouldin" t---even balk if it was 200
cases -- although I question there would be 200 cases like
I don't know -- I don't find this hard to live with at all -- I mean, I go back
Approved For Release 2001/03/3& gGff IDP78-03092A000300170001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
SECRET
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
to our original talk on this subject where we said we're not going to bring
these people into the System, but at such time as they are ready to retire
we will look back and say - yes, their work was so oriented toward
clandestine operations that we could wave the wand and say it's qualifying.
And Gerry's words, as a matter of fact, I think were used in the discussion
of the legislation -- people who have burned themselves out in this demanding
work. I can't believe there are going to be so many of them, and I don't
find it hard to - -
MR. ECHOLS: I think most people will prefer working--
Well, most people who have operated at
level have had the overseas duty. The fact she is a woman, I think
has had some affect on this -- or, as you say (indicating Mr. Echols),
they would want to keep on working. So I don't think we are talking about
an awful lot in numbers. I think now we're only at the question of degree --
40 months? 38 months? 27 months? or we may get somebody who has
never been overseas. I think we have to take them case by case.
They are going to feel the loss of this
girl tremendously. I'm repeating myself here, but in this whole field
But on that Dez FitzGerald has already
signed off -- he is ready to let her go.
This girl has a tremendous knowledge--
Just on that score, she came to me last
fall, and I said, "Well, when do you want to retire?" She said, "I want
to retire on the 1st of January, 1967, but Bill has asked me to stay on
until September, and, by God, I'm going to stay on! " So I think you've
got a case here of a person who, I think, staying on and working as she has
to do, you are asking her to assume what I think is an intolerable burden
11
Approved For Release 2001/03/,% IJTRDP78-03092A000300170001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
SECRET
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
for five years. And I think it is true that that is one of the very purposes
for which this law was passed, that if people do reach the point of
exhaustion in a field that is quite esoteric, they should be allowed to go in
peace, if they want to go.
Would you bring her back as a specialist
consultant or part-time--
whatsoever. I can't answer that question.
MR. ECHOLS: May I ask this. If we saw fit to recommend
approval in this case what are the factors upon which one could differentiate
between this case and let's say those thousand other people in the
Clandestine Services whose work is exclusively concerned with clandestine
intelligence, ranging from the lifelong secretary to any range of professionalism
that you want to go into. How would you differentiate? What are the
principles for sorting the sheep from the wolves?
MR. WARFIELD: I think you enunciated them earlier
when you said this is an individual who feels burned out, and wants to leave,
and wants to retire. That is the thing that separates them.
But would you apply that to the secretary?
MR. WARFIELD: Maybe.
You might.
MR. WARFIELD: If you had a 55 year old secretary who
said, "I'm really all washed up--
MR, ECHOLS: "I can do my job, and do it well, but at
the end of the day I'm dead. "
MR. WARFIELD: It might be a DD/I secretary who says,
"It's all that crazy intelligence the Clandestine Service is producing that
has led me into this--
I think that is pertinent. A person working
in PPB work - you can burn yourself out whether it's in the DD/P or not --
12
Approved For Release 2001/03/3(t(aI#IDP78-03092A000300170001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
SECRET
the nature of the work is what causes it -- it just happens to be oriented
in a particular direction -- and I kind of hate to see a double standard
applied here unless we were prepared to be ready to admit that there will
be others in other directorates who would qualify for this type of
retirement.
MR. ECHOLS: . . . (inaudible) . . . standard is that
pertaining to the transferability of the skills and qualifications developed
over the years, which are reflected in the person's career advancement.
A secretary, for example, even though she has spent Z5 years in the
Clandestine Services has basically the skills to go out and do secretarial
work- -
25X1A9a Take a man working in the (COMOR) field
exclusively -- security-wise it's tighter than what we are talking about in
this case.
25X1A9a
MR. ECHOLS: Just for the fun of it, what is the consensus
on this case -- if there is any?-- pro or con? Do you think she might
well be eligible?
MR. WARFIELD: I favor recommending her as being
eligible. And I also feel that this is a pretty good precedent -- we ought
to take a liberal attitude -- and I don't think it ought to be simply because
she was working on programs for the Clandestine Services -- I can easily
see how it could apply to somebody else not in the Clandestine Services -
a Personnel Officer in the Clandestine Services, for example.
The skills and knowledge are unique to the
clandestine activities of the Agency -- that is the way the law was written,
I believe.
MR. ECHOLS: How does our regulation read? This is
11(b) and (c), I guess--
25X1A9a 11(c), for example.
MR. ECHOLS: We might take (a), (b), and (c), "(a) under
13
Approved For Release 2001 /03/30' P78-03092A000300170001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
LCRE
25X1A9a
conditions of employment which include a demonstrable hazard to life or
health in the conduct or support of covert action operations" --
conceivably one of these persons might say here their health had been
run down by reason of the exacting requirements of their work --
"(b) under conditions of employment requiring the continuing practice of
most stringent security and covert tradecraft procedures to maintain
personal cover in the conduct or support" -- this might apply, too, in
some cases -- it doesn't here. "(c) 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" -- that might
take care of the stenographer -- "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" -- that may well
apply to her rather senior duties. So, that is what our regulation says --
and we don't have good precedent or standards--
A few meetings back I was sitting over there
(indicating the other side of the conference table) and trying to say just
this - you know, let's make it black and white - what are the rules ? --
25X1A9a and
rather impressed me by saying: Don't do that -- keep
it loose -- keep it open -- and consider each case as it comes up. And
I think time has proven to us that this is probably the best way of doing it.
25X1A9a And I personally do not have any problem with under these
rules. I might have with a secretary -- I don't know. Maybe if it was a
25X1A9a - - really, I'm dealing in names - - I might say, "Boy! her
pressures have been great. " The next one, maybe not. But I'm
certainly willing to have the Board take them on a case-by-case basis
and seeing whether they meet that definition -- and if it includes someone
in the DD/I who is in COMOR, as you (indicating Mr._ say we might 25X1A9a
vote yea.
14
Approved For Release 2001/03/S!c RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
SECRET
MR. ECHOLS: I think it's to the Agency's advantage
to broaden the practical scope of our legislation to the maximum degree
that is justifiable. We then would have the most flexible system that we
can have.
25X1A9a Do I understand that if she were not
applying now for retirement but had come before this Board and said,
"you made a mistake by excluding me from being a participant in the System",
that we would have applied some of the decisions that we have made in the
past trying to equate domestic duty with foreign service cases, and said,
"No -- sorry you can't get into the System" ?
MR. ECHOLS: Right.
25X1A9a Then what you are really saying here is
that you apply a different standard any time a man submits his request
for retirement.
25X1A9a No, it's not a different standard--
MR. WARFIELD: We are not taking under consideration
anybody who has not got a retirement problem immediately facing--
25X1A9a
Now, come on -- to me you're applying
an entirely different standard -- because the facts won't permit the
individual to be a participant, yet the same facts entitle her to retire
because she submitted her request for retirement.
MR. ECHOLS: If you recall our Notice on this, it was to
this effect - "when other employment is imminent" -- in other words, it's
not a problem until she intends to leave the Agency - then it becomes a
problem.
25X1A9a Mike, I think the difference is that if she
were to remain on board, whether in the System or not she has a chance
to qualify under our normal rules. Just like the case of the guy in ONE -
we say: Okay -- we can't let you in now, but this doesn't bar you from
consideration later, when you have qualified.
15
Approved For Release 2001 /03/30 l 1?DP78-03092A000300170001-7
. 1:115
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
25X1A9a
SL L
Right -- but you still are not permitting
this girl to become a participant in the system- -
25X1A9a
What (we are using the System for), as I
see it, is to try (to take into account) some of the objectives of the Agency
in permitting people to retire sooner than they would otherwise.
25X1A9a
To bring them within 11(c) -- isn't that
right? And we were told that 11(c) was the place where the Director was
being given a convenient tool to get rid of people--
25X1A9a
That's the other thing that bothers me about
this case -- nobody is trying to get rid of this gal -- they want to hold
onto her -- but she wants to leave, so we are asked to accommodate her.
If the supervisor says, "She has burned herself out and we can't use her",
that is quite different from saying, "I don't want her to leave, but she wants
to go. "
MR. WARFIELD: We are not saying about 25X1A9a
her service is not qualifying. This is not a case of her retirement, just
application for participation. We're not even looking at that. We are
saying we are not going to take cognizance of this case until the situation
requires it by a forthcoming retirement.
25X1A9a But when she comes here -- if she were
to take issue with the fact that she was turned down by the CS Career
Service Board because she didn't have 60 months- - Here is a girl with
over 15 years with the Agency -- now, she has Z7 or 28 months -- and she
says, "I want to be a participant. " We say, "Sorry, you can't be. "
"Why? " "Because you don't have 60 months' qualifying duty, which you
need with 15 years. " She says, "I want to prove to you that I do have it --
I have done all these other things. " Now, we are recognizing these other
things when she submits to us her request for retirement but we refuse to
recognize that that could be qualifying duty beforehand.
MR. WARFIELD: Because she still has her career in front
16
Approved For Release 2001/03/3Q F DP78-03092A000300170001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
SECRET
of her during which she could get the normal qualifying service.
25X1A9a
But we're not basing it on the fact she
could possibly get two more years in five more. In this case she is doing
it on her record. She says: Look at my record - - I have been in the
Clandestine Services - - I have supported them - - I have been overseas for
two years -- I have the most sensitive stuff at my fingertips - - I used to be
the operations officer for CA -- I think that I am qualified to be a participant
in this System. And we have thrown some of those cases out the window.
MR. ECHOLS: No, this is fine, Mike. I think in any case
such as this we are recognizing that his or her service is indeed qualifying
service -- has been all along -- but under our rules we are only
recognizing that it is now qualifying in anticipation of separation, and the
validation, if you will, of these facts of difficulty in translating this
service to another employer, it is only in anticipation of this fact that it
becomes recognizable as qualifying service.
25X1A9a
I'll buy that part -- but the only reason
we have allowed ourselves to look at that is because she submitted her
request for separation, for retirement. Now in the other case she is not
doing that, and she is confronting--
She is not doing that. She didn't--
25X1A9a
That is beside the point, Gerry -- she
25X1A9a
I agree with you completely, Mike -- I think
you have stated it accurately -- there is a double standard -- but I think
it was a wise decision, for a couple of reasons. First of all, just the
sheer weight of the Board's work. It's a heck of a job to go through some
500-odd people who might submit, in varying degrees, reasons why they
should be qualified under 11(c), with some very difficult decisions to make.
even
We said we don't)want to consider that. As Alan said -- "Maybe time will
take care of it -- you will be fully qualified. " We also bring ourselves
17
Approved For Release 2001/03/305 1 I DP78-03092A000300170001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
SECRET
to the day of decision right now -- how does 11(c) fit right now? Some of
these people may subsequently go on into other work, and the nature of
their work is such that they can go somewhere else -- and we may vote
"no". Where you are particularly right is if something happened to Kay
today -- if Kay died today she would not be covered -- and in that sense
you could say, "Well, there is something wrong if she's covered to be
retired--" I know what you're saying (indicating Mr.
but I 25X1A9a
think the Board was right in deferring considerations under 11(c) until
it's a current decision to make.
25X1A9a I'm not fighting that. I'm just saying
that if a person came to one of us today, just in our capacity as a member
of this Board, asking for guidance -- and came to us with a case like this --
we would have to say, "Well, sorry, the only time we could sit down and
consider whether or not this is qualifying duty is if you actually submit a
request for retirement. " You see? Yet, if the person were involved
with explosives -- and it seems to me this Board has already decided that
case -- that we would then consider this man, and say, "Yes, by golly,
that is domestic duty and we will give you qualifying service for that. "
25X1A9a
I think the motivation in those five cases that
we had, management said: It's to our interest that these people go now.
They have not said that about this case.
25X1A9a That is right -- and this is the point.
MR. ECHOLS: Here is the decision the Director will be
faced with. He has to in good conscience say to himself: This is in the
best interest of the Agency. Now why would he say that? I can think
of only one reason why he would decide this is in the best interest of the
Agency and that is out of a sense of - I won't use the word "compassion",
necessarily, but it sort of fits - in recognition of what this woman has put
into her job and the impact it has had upon her, and that she is quite
burned out. On that basis he might say this is in the best interest of the
Agency. I can think of no other basis--
Approved For Release 2001/03/30k; ; l P78-03092A000300170001-7
oCLl
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
SECRET
MR. WARFIELD: You don't want to drive people right to
the wall. And apparently she is unable to pace herself, and if he kept her
on she would be driven to the wall -- justified on those grounds.
25X1A9a
Well, I can tell you that she is awfully
hard to get to see today because she is just loaded with work -- I can tell
you that - - and she is the one we go to, to get all the information we want.
25X1A9a
There are a lot of people like that in the Agency,
but if that doesn't work out you try to relocate them, you don't come up
with a special case and say, "Oh well, they have to get into the System. "
MR. ECHOLS: I think it's perfectly logical that the Board
might, in this pioneer case, be unable to reach a consensus, and in which
case--
What do you mean by a consensus?
25X1A9a A consensus without unanimity.
MR. ECHOLS: We will certainly not reach a unanimity of
consensus -- and in which case it will go forward and could go forward
expressing the doubts of the Board, and the arguments pro and the
arguments con, and force the Director to make the ultimate decision
without a unanimity of Board opinion.
What is our general consensus here?
25X1A9a I made my piece for this case, of course,
when I took it to the Career Service Board, and it came forward-
MR. ECHOLS: So you are in favor of it.
Harry? You seemed to be in favor of it.
MR. WARFIELD: I'm in favor of it.
25X1A9a On the basis of the record, if (the Panel)
came forward and said this woman is burned out and it is to the interest
of the Agency that she be retired -- I'd prefer that, rather than
accommodating her even though it's going to be rough on the Agency
when she goes because she's going to be missed -- this is accommodating
19
Approved For Release 2001/03/3, j&DP78-03092A000300170001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
SECRET
the individual well beyond the intent of the legislation -- this is supposed
to be for the benefit of the Agency, not the individual -- and to compensate
an individual when people are going to be discriminated against under
(the Civil Service System) if they want to leave early -- I don't see that
in this case.
MR. WARFIELD: The name of the game is early retirement,
though.
MR. ECHOLS: Mike, what is your --
25X1A9a
You know, I would have no trouble with
this if we could just make these cases black and white and we say every one
of these cases where the person submits his request to retire we will sit
down and take a look at the case. I just don't know where you are going to
draw the line. Maybe the next case is going to be three months of what
we have recognized as qualifying duty up to this point. Just where do you
draw the line? That is why I argued the last time that I'd like to see
those cases that come under 11(c) by-pass this Board and go to the Director,
if he wants to use that as a tool for keeping a younger service, and that they
not be brought here to this Board.
MR. ECHOLS: Well, specifically, the Director does want
the opinions of the Board, and has so stated.
Well, that adds up to three against two.
MR. WARFIELD: Who is against it?
MR. ECHOLS: Mike and Paul.
25X1A9a I'm against it only because I don't
understand it -- I don't understand where we are going with this type of
case.
MR. WARFIELD: I think we are headed for liberality --
which I don't think is a bad thing.
MR. ECHOLS: I'd hate (to see us headed toward) an
unmanageable situation where we can't differentiate between one case and
another--
20
Approved For Release 2001/03/3 ? CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
25X1A9a
SECRET
I think we ought to sit down -- and
forget this case for a moment -- and try to draw guidelines. I know the
idea is let's just forget that and take them on an ad hoc basis, but I'd like
to be able to sit down in my office and look at this case and say, "Yes,
I can pigeonhole this one into this slot here, and this one into this other
slot here. " But I looked at this and said to myself over the weekend,
"What the hell are we going to do with this case? where are we going to
draw the line?" The next case could be three months' overseas duty,
and the person all worn out. I just don't understand it -- I don't know
how to apply these- -
25X1A9a Mike, I'm very sympathetic with what you
are saying. For example, it's easy for me to rationalize that Kay meets
these requirements, but it becomes very difficult when somebody down
the line in my shop or somebody else's shop hears that Kay has been
retired under the CIA Retirement System, and they sort of ask you to
explain - "How does that relate to my case?" This is difficult, because
it isn't hard and fast, and your only answer can be that the Board considers
each case on its merits. I don't know how else you do it. It isn't
completely satisfactory.
25X1A9a
25X1 C experience has been as a or he has handled explosives, I can
tell them, "Look, I think you've got a fair case, you ought to take it to
the Board and see if they will give you credit for this domestic duty as
qualifying duty" -- because we have acted on those cases, and I know
where we stand. But on this one I find it very difficult. And I believe
25X1A9a I may be even better aware of how Miss- is worn out than her own
Division Chief -- we see her -- she has worked like a demon -- she is the
only one that everybody runs to on planning and on programming and on
budgeting. I think she is the most valuable person they've got in that
office, from that point of view. But nobody can tell me that if she
Approved For Release 2001 /03/30 M 2DP78-03092A000300170001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
SECRET
25X1A
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
went out and applied for a job on the outside and they asked her, "What
kind of experience have you had?" and she said planning, programming,
and budgeting, that they're going to want to go down into the minute details
of that programming and planning and budgeting -- I think they would take
her on the basis that she has been a planner and programmer--
I don't think they are going to worry
about whether she was involved in covert action or the ordinary collection
of intelligence. And I'm not objecting to seeing this girl retire. I'd
like to see us come to grips with something we can sink our teeth into
and know how we can guide people when they come to our office.
Where does the initiative lie to separate the
individual, whether it's the individual who wants to leave or whether it's
management who feels that it would be in the best interest of the Agency
that the individual does leave -- and if it's the latter, then I can see this
Act as a whole supporting this and I don't need a section this and that. I'd
say that is why we have the Act. I don't see that in this case. In fact,
we're recommending her for an Award -- it looks like she's the type
of person we would go out and hire tomorrow.
MR. ECHOLS: I think this Board would be remiss in
sending a precedent case to the Director for his decision without at least
giving him a list of the factors, the guidelines, the conditions or facts
of the individual's service which are leading us to one recommendation
or another. I think the Board could develop a series of factors, one
of which would be: Where is the principal motivation for the action
coming from - the individual or the Agency? Obviously, if it's to
the Agency's clear-cut interest that a person leave, this would be a very
significant factor -- but it isn't necessarily the only one, Paul, I don't
think. And I think probably the Board could develop a series of
factors which should be applied to each and every case that might come
22
Approved For Release 2001/03/30, jfFDP7803092A0003001 70001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
SECRET
up, which individually or severally might lead a case one way or another.
Shouldn't that be our first step? Fortunately, time is not urgent in
this case for the moment, and we do have plenty of time to develop
something.
25X1A9a On this business of calling this early
retirement, that's why they said 50 with 60 months -- it wasn't just because
a guy wanted to retire early -- because our present Director sat right
there and talked to the Committee -- and you (indicating Mr. Echols) were
present -- and said: This does not include all the people who are in this
intelligence business -- those people who are sitting in Washington are not
intended to be included. So you can't sell me on the idea -- knowing
those facts -- that just because the person is worn out that is justification --
or that you can bring in a secretary who has been overseas, because she's
worn out.
MR. WARFIELD: You're right, Mike, that is probably a
good example. But you take a senior officer, and this is part of the
business of keeping your Agency young, is to have senior officers
going out early.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Yes, but that is generally from the point
of view of the Career Service of that officer when they say: This guy is
worn out - - he is of no use to us, really, anymore - - let him go out early,
because he's 51 and he can start another career in life -- and he has had
his 60 months. So, we give it to him, we let him quit early. I mean,
you are recognizing the fact that he is no longer of use when he is worn
out.
I certainly don't agree to that as a factor,
that a person would be of no use to the Agency. I can't think of anybody
that is of no use to the Agency that we have acted on so far.
And I'm sure that Dez FitzGerald writing
a memo that he thinks it would be to the best interest of the Agency if she
Approved For Release 2001 /03/3% I~ DP78-03092A000300170001-7
L Vi
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
SECRET
was out -- I mean, those are just words -- he didn't happen to use those
words. I keep going back to "the skills and knowledge are unique to
the clandestine activities of the Agency. " I'm not in the Clandestine
Services but, to me, this Bill was made for the Clandestine Service.
Would you bring a secretary into that?
25X1A9a
No, because I don't think her knowledge of
clandestine activities falls within this--
25X1A9a You tell me about the secretary. There
are many secretaries that I think would, because while they are rated as
a secretary they have spent their life doing all kinds of work. So, in
answer to your question, if you will give me the name, the age, the grade
of the secretary, and what she has been doing for the last 15 years, then
I can tell you whether I think she would be eligible or not.
25X1A9a
Why do you think (c) was put into the Act at
all? Don't you think it was to cover this?
25X1A9a
was thrown in for, in effect, anothe=- it was a good tool that the
Director could use himself when the person wasn't presenting himself for
retirement -- the man was 51, had had the 60 months overseas, had 10
years with the Agency and 20 years in the Government -- so the Director
says I want to get rid of this man and I want a young service, and there-
fore he comes forward and says, "I think you ought to retire" -- or this
fellow himself steps forward -- he's 51 but he's got his 60 months overseas--
25X1A9a
If he has 60 months you don't need (c).
MR. ECHOLS: Let's say we definitely tried to keep a
loophole in this thing for management purposes -- we didn't quite know--
MR. WARFIELD: Every time we get into one of these
discussions I become more and more convinced that this wasn't a good
Act- -
MR. ECHOLS: It was the best we could get--
24
Approved For Release 2001 /03/30 ft f P78-03092A000300170001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
MR. WARFIELD: I'm not denying that or saying anybody
25X1A9a
could have done any better -- but I don't think it's an adequate law.
. , . joined the meeting at this
point . . . .
MR. ECHOLS: Well, I would like to suggest that we
25X1A9a table this case today, and we will do a little more
thinking about it, and perhaps individually see if we can't develop a
series of factors that ought to be looked at in each case which might lead
us to a proper decision, or a discriminating decision as against the
other cases.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Well, could we agree on one thing,
that looking at a case like this from two sides - that is, the welfare
of the individual and the welfare of the Agency, can we agree that it's
to the welfare of the individual that she be permitted to retire based on
the evidence at hand?
MR. ECHOLS: Well, the only evidence I have is that
she feels that this work is too enervating and it constitutes a severe
impingement upon her own life. Whether this is true or not, I have
no idea.
Well, I mean, what kind of evidence do
you want on that?
MR. ECHOLS: Oh, on some similar cases there might
be, for example, medical evidence that the person just isn't fully up
to the work requirements.
MR. WARFIELD: I'd agree, Gerry, but where would it
get us?
25X1A9a Then all we need to do is talk about the
Agency half -- you eliminate the personal half of the thing. I mean,
25
Approved For Release 2001/03/301 ibP78-03092A000300170001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
SECRET
25X1A9a
after all, if a person of unimpeachable integrity comes and tells me --
as she did tell me -- I don't say, "Look, chum, prove it. " I think you
accept it as a fact.
MR. WARFIELD: Sure. If somebody has applied for
retirement you certainly assume -- you can't second-guess them whether
it's to their own best interest or not.
MR. ECHOLS: What if the individual desires to get out
of Government service with a substantial annuity and get started in some
other field of work before he is kicked out at age 60 -- that is his only
motivation, to get a head start. Is that adequate motivation?
MR. WARFIELD: I think so -- but that doesn't seem to
be germane, to me --
No, because that is one of the reasons
for the early retirement, that a guy would get out early enough so he
could have a second career. That is what they were talking about--
MR. ECHOLS: Right, if he meets that statutory
25X1A9arequirement of 60 months of qualifying duty.
Not necessarily on his own motion, though --
25X1A9a
If he meets all the requirements he
can apply for it, and I don't think this Board is going to turn him down--
MR. WARFIELD: I should hope not! I thought that was
the name of the game.
MR. ECHOLS: It is if they meet the 60 months requirement.
In this particular area the 60 months is fuzzy, because it isn't easily
identified- -
25X1A9a You see, this business of getting
exhausted is what bothers me -- because what do you get exhausted from? -
sitting at a desk pounding a typewriter, pushing intelligence reports, or
are you getting exhausted , you're lacking in motivation, because you're
26
Approved For Release 2001 /03/36 , ikDP78-03092A000300170001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
SECRET
just tired of performing clandestine operations the rest of your life.
MR. ECHOLS: Well, I'd like to suggest that we table this
case today. I for one am going to try to develop some guidelines I would
like to re-submit to the Board, hopefully by the next meeting--
MR. WARFIELD: How many times have we done this?
MR. ECHOLS: I don't know that we have - - have we?
(Continuing): -- in order to give us some basis
for making a discriminating judgment on one case versus another. Unless
the Board thinks we should entertain any case of someone who has been in
the Clandestine Service.
25X1A9a Emmett, I'm sorry I missed all of the
discussion. I found this a most interesting type of case. I thought I
understood the groundrules - you know, after those five cases in
December, because I thought that if we really wanted to unload somebody,
that here was the mechanism for doing it. This doesn't seem to follow
that sort of groundrule at all. This is a case where the volition clearly
lies with the individual. Therefore I am at a loss to know under what
groundrule we are considering operating here. If we can make a case
that it is for the good of the Agency that an individual be retired under
this System, fine -- I think we could kind of look the other way on those
cases we considered earlier. But this is not that case. The testimony
is that she is almost indispensable, to the point of being recommended for
an Award, and all that sort of thing. So this clearly is some other
groundrule we are trying to find here, and I'm very much at a loss to see
what it is. I don't think it's fair to all the other people who put in the
same kind of activity here if an individual with this kind of a record can
then be declared eligible under the System. I see no reason why the
whole Agency personnel shouldn't come under the same sort of groundrule
as this individual here. Everybody operates under the same handicaps,
working against their will at times, working under conditions of secrecy,
27
Approved For Release 2001/03/30P78-03092A000300170001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
SECRET
and so on, that they find hard to live with, but that alone doesn't seem to
me to be a basis for qualification in this. So I find it very puzzling.
And I'm sorry I missed the argumentation, because I'm sure the DD/P
must have had some arguments to advance in favor of it. But on the
record it's a very difficult thing for me to see.
25X1A9a
You know, I don't know whether this is
worthwhile or not, but last weekend or the weekend before that I took home
all of the unclassified stuff on this and I re-read the whole thing to try to
find something that would permit us to hang our hats on on those five cases
that we had. I'm sorry, I couldn't find a thing. Now I didn't have the
executive session hearings, but I think it would be worthwhile for you to
take a look at the executive hearings and see if there was anything said
there. But I couldn't put my finger on anything to justify those five
cases. But my conscience didn't bother me on those five cases simply
because every one of them had had over 50 months and every one had
spent their lives in the Clandestine Services and had been involved in
guiding -- at least the ones I was familiar with -- in guiding operations
of people abroad. So my conscience didn't bother me on that one. But
then I thought to myself, "Well, the next case is going to be 40 months,
and the next case 30 months, and then the next case Z8 months" -- and,
by God, we got one with 28 months here! Now I wouldn't care about
25X1A9a this if we could only have, as has said, the guidelines set
out for us so we can look at each case that comes down and feel we can
make a decision.
MR. ECHOLS: On this score I do have a piece of
information that came to my attention -- and it was supposed to be a
direct quote -- given to me by Col. White from Mr. Helms. It was to
the effect that he was not going to be bound by the absence of a few
months of qualifying overseas service. Now, for what it's worth,
what is a few months? 48 months is adequate? 50 months is adequate?
S[CRt `
Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
SECRET
28 months is adequate? I don't know. This is the only clue I have as
to the Director's current thinking.
With regard to my own views on this subject --
because I've been silent, pretty much -- I have never been able to
reconcile in my own mind the extending of this System to any individual
beyond the really basic consideration that it was to the best interest of the
Agency, as opposed to individuals' desires -- because I think once you go
beyond this as the predominant factor, you have an unmanageable mess.
That is my view at the moment.
25X1A9a
Gerry, are you suggesting there may be
some medical, psychiatric, or other reasons--
25X1A9a
know of.
No medical or psychiatric reasons that I
25X1A9a She did come to you, though, to say she
wanted out -- is that the idea?
25X1A9a
It wasn't just in those terms. I mean, we
have been talking for an hour on this case, on this point. If we can't
agree on anything we might as well quit.
MR. ECHOLS: Yes, let's table this case and do some more
thinking about it -- and bring it up again -- okay?
25X1A9a But if you close that up altogether -- I'm
just thinking about your statement (indicating Mr. Echols) -- is this
truly our guideline? that this Board is to sit here and concern itself
only with --
MR. ECHOLS: What I was saying was my personal
opinion, that I have never been able to bring myself beyond this point of
thinking.
25X1A9a I mean, I feel that we also have an
obligation to good and faithful employees to give them every possible
break.
29
Approved For Release 2001/03/3t1EC IIDP78-03092A000300170001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
UPI
MR. ECHOLS: That is right, and that can be part of
the consideration that this is to the best interest of the Agency. Certainly
this Agency has a definite liability toward the welfare and health of its
employees.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Including those that remain behind!
MR. ECHOLS: The next case is a request by Miss
that she be removed from the CIA Retirement System,
notwithstanding the fact that she was only put into the System in December,
1965. She was in the field at the time and a message was sent to her
advising her, first, of her eligibility to retire at age 62, and then in
December she was advised of her eligibility for the System -- and the
letter that goes out, as you may know, is very explicit in setting forth
that the retirement age under the Agency System is 60 years of age --
and she accepted designation into the Agency System. Subsequently,
she now comes in and says that she had not really understood that under
the Agency System she would be expected to retire at age 60, and that
her acceptance of the CIA System designation was an error on her part.
I would point out this. She now desires to work,
of course, two additional years and retire under the Civil Service at
age 62, as she had originally planned to do. There is no documentary
evidence that an error was made or that she was not promptly informed
in writing about what would happen, but I would point this out, that she
was in the field but the advantages of the CIA Retirement System had
(been talked about) for many, many months, as to the additional 3. 75%
and ... (inaudible)... But it seems to me that if she had sat
down with a pencil and said, "Gee, if I work two more years that is
$20, 000 more, and I automatically for each year of service get an
additional 2% of high-5 -- so that is 4% -- and under the CIA System
I'm only getting an advantage of 3. 75% -- so it's clearly to my best
interest, if I intend to keep on working, to stay under the Civil Service
Approved For Release 2001/03/3fcgFFDP78-03092A000300170001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
ABET
System. I would say for anyone who did not intend to possibly
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
exercise the early retirement option, and who was close to age 60,
shouldn't join the CIA System, because it'd so clearly to their advantage
to work a couple more years, both in terms of annuity and in salary.
So I would say that sheer logic indicates that she indeed hadn't really
thought it through and hadn't used a sharp pencil in figuring out what
she was doing to herself by accepting participation in the CIA System.
Could I ask what her grade is? I
gather from Mr,-concurrence that they would be happy to have
her stay the additional two years.
MR. ECHOLS: She is a GS-13 -- and they are happy to
have her stay--
MR. WARFIELD: And how much service does she have?
20 years in August.
25X1A9a
She's had 15 with the Agency? This
25X1A9a
was an election she had?
MR. ECHOLS: Yes, and she chose the CIA System.
In the past I think we've taken the attitude
that come retirement a person could elect to retire under the system
which provided them the most favorable circumstances. This girl
now wants out, but come retirement is she going to say: Well, I want
to go back in, because I qualify for the CIA System, bed i.use I've earned
the right to choose the most favorable circumstances.
25X1A9a
30 years--
I think only when you've had over
MR. ECHOLS: I think we have only said ... (inaudible).. .
under Civil Service. We didn't say freedom of choice. In the first
place, if they wait until it's too late, before retirement, they couldn't
qualify under Civil Service -- they would have to be in that system for
at least one year , the last year of their Federal employment -- so they
31
Approved For Release 2001/03/38t ?c-PDP78-03092A000300170001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
ME i
25X1A9a
would have to make the option to go back to Civil Service at least a year
with the drop from 60/30 to 60/20 -- we are providing a two year period
of grace--
25X1A9a From what base?
I assume recent events haven't overtaken
her. How do you plan implementing the new age 60 retirement? How
are you going to phase this in? What transition period are you going to
allow? She will be 60 in 1968.
MR. ECHOLS: That is pretty relevant here.
Incidentally, for everybody here, the new Agency
policy on retirement age has been approved by Mr. Helms. I have it
here today - - I just got it. And, as I told you before, 60/20 will be
the uniform retirement age for all CIA employees, regardless of grade,
regardless of retirement system. In phasing into this -- particularly
MR. ECHOLS: From age 62 to 60--
25X1A9a
No, I mean when does the two year period
MR. ECHOLS: From the time the new policy is announced.
25X1A9a
Which might be the 1st of April, 1967 --
so that it could be, then, in this woman's case that she would go from
1 April 1967 to 1 April 1969. In any event, she wouldn't quite make it to
170. She is down to quibbling about one year. I wonder if she might
want to reconsider, on the basis of one year, where she picks up only
two points instead of four points. My only thought.
MR. ECHOLS: The policy paper - - I wasn't quite
accurate -- it does specifically provide a two-year grace period, but
then in exceptional cases it contemplates further extension -- otherwise
you might get someone in the middle of a tour, for example.
25X1A9a
I don't know what the facts are -- I just
Approved For Release 2001/03/i'11EIRDP78-03092A000300170001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
SECRET
wondered whether it would change it for her.
MR. WARFIELD: Well, I would recommend favorable
consideration of this request, with the condition that she clearly understand
that she cannot reenter the CIA System, and with the understanding that
under the new policy that even given the two-year grace period she would
be expected to retire in January of 1969--
25X1A9a I don't know -- maybe they will want to
request a further extension.
MR. ECHOLS: At least she should be advised what the
new policy is and exactly what it means.
25X1A9a : Is she in the field now?
MR. ECHOLS: Yes, and I believe she will be there until
4 May 1967.
hat is her total Federal service?
25X1A9a 19 and a half now, as far as I know.
I'd like to make it clear that I couldn't
agree
more that she should not be held to this mistake, that she should be given
this privilege, only that it now means she retires in 1969 ... (inaudible) .. .
the Clandestine Services request the additional extension until 1970.
MR. ECHOLS: Is it agreed, then, that we will offer her
a new option- -
25X1A9a Could we discuss this a second more? I've
just been thinking here -- I mean, I'm torn on this case between the
business of people shifting from one system to another, for whatever
reason, but at the same time I can well realize that getting this in the
field the full significance of it had maybe just not dawned on her -- and I'm
influenced to some extent in this case because I've just been looking at
the papers that some of the other agencies send out on this type of thing,
and it's in great detail and sets forth all sorts of calculations for people
so that they know what their retirement returns are, and so on. But we
33
Approved For Release 2001/03/3&t8I .FRDP78-03092A000300170001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
SECRET
didn't have time to do that. So, as I say, I'm torn. But at the same
time, there are two courses of action. We can put her back into the Civil
Service System in order that she might have two years, more or less, to
serve, or we can say to her: "Look, if you want to apply for an extension
we will recommend that to the Director" -- and leave her in the CIA
System. This latter course of action doesn't appear in these papers at
all, but it just occurred to me now, sitting here, that it might be a desirable
alternative.
MR. WARFIELD: I think it sounds much better.
25X1A9a A one-year extension under Civil Service
would even this thing out--
MR. ECHOLS: Should we get an indication from her
Career Service that they would like to keep her another year--
25X1A9a
Yes, we should.
of the Director
MR. ECHOLS: And approvalfbefore we go to her? Other-
wise it's an iffy thing -- she might get it, and she might not.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
I would like to bring this case forward
again -- submit it to the Career Service Board and see if they are willing
to recommend an extension under the CIA System, and, if so, then I think
it would be better to go forward on that basis.
What is our batting average with the
Director? Has he overruled recommendations?
MR. ECHOLS: Well, to date I think extensions in every
case have been justified on the basis of a strong need for the individuals'
services. Indeed, I think the law requires that.
MR. WARFIELD: And Congressional interest.
MR. ECHOLS: And Congressional interest.
So I don't know how the Director would respond
to this.
25X1A9a What would be the justification for
34
Approved For Release 2001/03/-fDP78-03092A000300170001-7
'VE
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
SECRET
an extension of this individual under the CIA Retirement System?
MR. ECHOLS: I think the justification would have to be
that she has earned her participation in the CIA System and there is a
need for her services -- a sound use for her services, if it isn't a
demanding requirement.
25X1A9a
In the public interest.
To carry her beyond 1969? I can
understand until January, 1969, but I don't understand why beyond that --
and that is the two year period of grace if she stayed under this System.
MR. WARFIELD: If she stayed under the CIA Act
that period of grace is not applicable.
MR. ECHOLS: Assuming we get this policy announced
publicly within the next month, by 1 April, then the two-year grace period
would take us up to April, 1969. And to go beyond that point, I don't
know how you would justify it.
25X1A9a That is under the Civil Service --
because it doesn't have any applicability under the CIA System.
25X1A9a I thought Emmett said regardless of
which system- -
25X1A9a
Under the CIA System the mandatory retire-
ment age is 60, unless the Director extends it.
MR. WARFIELD: And Gerry doesn't know whether the
Division thinks she is so valuable they would want to hang on to her.
25X1A9a
to which says "it is unlikely we can justify extension" --
25X1A9a
development, which you don't have there, and that is they are so hungry
for people with her qualifications in Vietnam that they also want her out
there. So just let me take this case back--
MR. ECHOLS: All right, then, will you take that back
35
Approved For Release 2001/03/36E iDP78-03092A000300170001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
SECRET
and look into the requirement for her services for an extended period?
25X1A9a I will indeed.
25X1A9a MR. ECHOLS: Now, we have a request for the extension
Would you first explain about the merger
MR. ECHOLS: Regulations have been approved and are
up with the Regulations Staff which abolish the old CIA Retirement Board,
whose sole function, really, was to handle compassionate cases -- of
which there are, in a year's time, maybe eight or ten -- and this Board
has been asked and the new Regulations prescribe that this Board will
handle Civil Service compassionate extension cases.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Now, the case of Mr.
I move the extension.
What are we moving? - how long?
The recommendation is for six months.
MR. ECHOLS: The request is apparently influenced by
the fact that his present employing Division says they can only keep him
busy for a period not to exceed six months.
25X1A9a
Usually in these cases that doesn't mean
that you have conclusively decided he will be separated out. They usually
come up again, if they haven't had any luck--
MR. ECHOLS: You serve on the other Board- -
25X1A9a
Yes, I'm on the other Board. It's been
an informal proceeding -- we never have a meeting -- they circulate a
case like this and you write out your own recommendation, and it goes
back, and then pretty soon -- presumably on the basis of consensus - you
find out what happened.
MR. ECHOLS: Do you know why they recommended the
six months, Mike?
36
Approved For Release OS L-U
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
25X1A9a
SECR 1
They think it's a hardship case, and
they feel sorry for the fellow, but the reason they haven't recommended
beyond six months is that he is not a top-notch employee.
25X1A9a I think if you do it for more it would
take some of the pressure off in terms of trying to relocate.
25X1A9a
I'd like to amend the motion that was
made that this man work on his own to try to get employment on the outside,
as well as with the outplacement office, and that he report to the Secretary
of this Board what steps he has taken on his own to try to obtain employment
on the outside.
MR. WARFIELD: That makes sense. And it wouldn't
have to be much to restore his salary, with a $2700 annuity. If he got
$4, 000 -- which is not very difficult to get--
25X1A9a I'm just curious -- because the poor guy
seems to have an almost impossible situation -- but is this full annuity
on the basis of his having paid back the thousand dollars?
MR. ECHOLS: I don't know. His years of service, of
course, are creditable, even though --
25X1A9a
You're going to have this case back
in your lap every six months thereafter.
25X1A9a
You feel like recommending something
be withheld from his salary, or something. He's nowhere if he doesn't
pay back that thousand dollars.
25X1A9a When the policy was first enunciated
this fellow was given notification that at age 62 he would have to leave.
So they started giving the 5-year notices when he was 57. Now, he had
that notice, but what efforts he has made on the outside, I don't know.
But as the date approached supposedly for his becoming 62 he went down
south someplace and came up with a certificate saying he was only 60,
and therefore could he extend for two more years -- and he went before
37
Approved For Release 2001/03/30 QQ- DP78-03092A000300170001-7
SEURL-F
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
25X1A9a
ECREI
the proper authorities and they said, "We accept this baptismal record" or
whatever it was, and so they gave him two more years.
Now he has had six or seven years in which to find something
on the outside. Now, based on the amount of money here, there's no
doubt it's a hardship case. My only question is whether he has, in good
faith, tried to get something on the outside.
MR. ECHOLS: He has been with the Agency since
30 November 1951, and his service computation date goes back to August
1943, so he has 24 years of creditable Government service. I would
speculate that the annuity was based on his paid in period of service.
Perhaps it can be increased if he can repay that thousand dollars.
25X1A9a It looks awfully low.
25X1A9a
Paragraph 5 says "see attachment".
25X1A9a
It refers to three things, the request
for deferment, his biographic profile, and his latest Fitness Report.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
MR. ECHOLS: His current salary is $6, 739. 00.
. . . . Mr. Echols then read the ratings on
Mr. latest Fitness Report . . . .
MR. WARFIELD: Mike, has outplacement helped at all?
I don't know.
MR. WARFIELD: I assume they wouldn't have any
trouble getting this fellow a job at $4, 000 a year.
25X1A9a
He has this $1, 000 indebtedness -- it
would seem to me that even in six months he should be able to save
enough to pay back that thousand dollars. But this is sort of Ben
job to counsel him -- and he probably has.
25X1A9a I think that if he had tried to get a
38
Approved For Release 2001 /03/30 ;, -RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
SECRET
job in the past six or seven years -- and he has had notification of the fact
that under the Agency policy he was going to have to retire-- He could
have done better -- he could have gotten a job that would pay him almost
as much as he's getting now, and then plus his annuity and he would end up
getting more money.
MR. ECHOLS: Mike, is your motion still before the
Board, or has it been withdrawn?
25X1A9a
No, it's still before the Board. I'd
like to see him report back to this Board what steps he is actually taking
now -- not just someone telling him that he is to seek outside employment
on his own -- that he is to report back to the Board what steps he has taken
on his own.
MR. ECHOLS: Is there a second?
25X1A9a
. . . . This motion was then passed . . . .
MR. ECHOLS: I have one little new item here. I've
already discussed the age retirement policy, but the other thing is that it
has been proposed in the interest of uniformity of standards throughout
the Agency,and to ensure that the CIA System does not appear to any
disadvantage to the Civil Service System, that all extensions under either
retirement system be processed through the CIA Retirement Board --
which is us -- and that all extensions be approved by the Director -
whereas now they are approved by the Deputy Directors.
25X1A9a
Who has made that suggestion?
MR, ECHOLS: The Executive Director has made it
and I believe is preparing a memorandum addressed to this Board
requesting the Board to review the proposal and see what merits it may
have.
25X1A9a I think this goes too far in second-guessing
Approved For Release 2001/03/30 :361A-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
CRE1
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
SECRET
the Deputy Directors, myself.
MR. ECHOLS: Well, it was pointed out that under the
CIA. System the Deputy Directors have no discretion in extending beyond
60 --
25X1A9a That is right, but I think if the law were
being rewritten that would change.
25X1A9a
MR. ECHOLS: Well, you are forewarned.
It does have the merit of perhaps a more
uniform application of groundrules.
25X1A9a
Well, in the interest of uniformity you
could have the Director arranging the furniture pretty quick--
MR. ECHOLS: Obviously, under the CIA System come
age 60 you're out unless the Director extends you, while under the Civil
Service any DD can extend you, which might make it appear, in the minds
of many people - "Gee, I don't want to get into the CIA System -- my
chances of staying on are better if I remain with Civil Service" -- and
this is a possible problem area as far as downgrading our own CIA
Retirement System.
25X1A9a What you have just said, then, to have
any standard of uniformity all decisions have to be made in exactly the
same place, that you can't have a policy and let it be administered by
various elements.
MR. ECHOLS: Is there any reason why the standards for
extension should be any different under one system than under the other,
Gerry?
25X1A9a The difficulty here is that you have two
different retirement systems and they don't apply uniformly to all parts
of the Agency -- and yet I think it's to the interest of the Agency that one
group try to weigh the equities.
MR. WARFIELD: There is a good reason why you
40
Approved For Release 2001/03/3(idiDP78-03092A000300170001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000300170001-7
SECRET
should have them uniform. One is a matter of law and the other is not
a matter of law. Under the CIA System it's a matter of law, and under
the Civil Service it's 70.
25X1A MR. ECHOLS: Just for your information,
annuity computation assumes repayment of the thousand dollars.
25X1A9a
A thousand dollars represents a good bit
of annuity. I hope he is getting counsel.
MR. ECHOLS: Okay. Shall we adjourn?
MR. WARFIELD: I move we adjourn.
. . . . The meeting adjourned at 3:45 p. m.
41
Approved For Release 2001/03/30 %%frP78-03092AO00300170001-7