MINUTES CIA RETIREMENT BOARD MEETING 2:00 P.M., 28 MARCH 1968

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 52
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 15, 2000
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: March 28, 1968
• Content Type: MIN

Approved For Release 20MI03130E (CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
MINUTES
CIA RETIREMENT BOARD MEETING
2:00 p.m., 28 March 1968
PRESENT:
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
- Chairman
- DDP Member
- DDI Member
- DDI Member
- DDS Member
- DDS Member
- Alternate DDS&T Member
- Legal Adviser
- Technical Adviser
- Recording Secretary
- Executive Secretary
1. The minutes of the eighty-third meeting of the Board were reviewed
and approved.
2. The Board reviewed 13 cases of employees who had been nominated for
designation as participants in the System, 2 requests from participants for
voluntary retirement, and 1 request from a participant for disability retire-
ment. The Board took action as follows:
a. Recommended designation as participants of the following named
employees who have completed 15 years of Agency service:
25X1A9a
b. Recommended the following named employees with 5 or more years
of Agency service for designation as participants in the System:
25X1A9a
c. Recommended approval of the requests for voluntary retirement
received from the following named participants:
25X1A9a
30 April 1968
30 June 1968
d. Recommended approval of the request for disability retirement
received from the following participant:
25X1A9a
Upon expiration of sick leave
GROUP I
A000500040001-9
Approved For Release 2001/( 3/;0~: C f - x 7"S~I,
rad!flcilor,
 25X1A
Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30: CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
distinguishable from normal government employment. The Board concluded that 25X1A9a
had performed more than 60 months of qualifying service in that
in addition to her overseas qualifying service her entire career has been con-
cerned predominately with the support of clandestine intelligence operations
abroad and involved the performance of duties clearly distinguishable from normal
government employment. The Board unanimously recommended that be 25X1A9a
designated as a participant in the System with concurrent mandatory retirement. 25X1A9a
The Board, noting that was 62 years of age, indicated that the general
policy is to review wit care any cases involving nomination for participation in
the System that go beyond age 60 on the presumption there has been an attempt to 25X1A9a
evade the basic policy. The Board further stated that in the case of
it found no such evidence of evasion, and for this and other reasons, approved her
designation.
7. The Board next considered 5 cases involving extension of scheduled retire-
ment under the Civil Service Retirement System. The Board took action as follows:
25X1A9a a. requested that her currently scheduled retire-
ment date, 30 June 1968, be deferred until at least the middle part of January
1969 based on financial hardship. She stated that she was asking further that
25X1A9a consideration be given to the postponement of her retirement date to January
1970. became 60 years of age in January 1968 and has completed
more than 33 years of Federal service. She was granted a six month extension
by the DD/S&T from January 1968 to June 1968. The Director of Scientific
Intelligence and the Deputy Director for Science and Technology stated that
they have no grounds for recommending favorable consideration of the requested
extension and further pointed out that they will have no real need for her
services during the requested extension period. After a review of the case,
25X1A9a during which it was noted that many of financial problems will
be overcome by the receipt of a lump sum leave payment in excess of $1,200.00,
the Board unanimously recommended that the requested extension of service not
be approved.
b. (P) requested that his currently scheduled retire-
25X1A2e ment date, 30 June 1969, be deferred until 30 October 1970. - (P) 25X1A2e
request was based on the fact that he had previously elected not to become
a participant in the CIA Retirement System in order that he could continue
to remain employed until age 62 and retirement short of that date would cause
severe financial hardship. His retirement date was set for June 1969 at the
time of the policy revision in May 1967 thereby reducing his employment by
16 months. The Chief, European Division and the Deputy Director for Plans
recommended that the requested extension be approved since - (P) accepted 25X1A2e
in good faith to remain in the Civil Service System in order to establish a
firm financial base for his retirement and further stated that he can be use-
fully continued in CS employment until October 1970. The Board unanimously
25X1A2e recommended that (P) retirement be deferred until 30 October
1970 based primarily on the fact that his original retirement date was October
1970 until the recent change in policy.
Approved For Release 20011P/39R Ql#-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
 Approved For Release 2001~0~/~OR: Pt -RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
c. The Chairman next presented the cases of three employees,
who were
being recommended for extension of retirement in order that they might com-
plete 12 years of Federal service to qualify to retain the post-retirement
health and life insurance benefits. extension would be a further
extension from 31 November 1968 until ep em er 1969, from 25X1A9a
31 July 1968 until 31 March 1969, and from 30 June 1968 until
31 August 1969. These extensions were submitted together based on a request
from the Executive Director-Comptroller. In each of these cases the office
concerned recommended that the extension be approved and stated that these
employees could be gainfully employed. The Board unanimously recommended
that the extension of these employees until they have completed 12 years of
Federal service be approved.
8. The Board next reviewed a memorandum which had been approved by the
Deputy Director for Support and the Executive Director-Comptroller concerning
the timing of requests for extension. This memorandum set forth the role to be
played by the counselors of the Retirement Counseling and Placement Staff as the
control point on requests for extension. Following a discussion of this memorandum
the Executive Secretary informed the Board that he had received a call from the CSPS
stating that they have several requests for extension from employees who are currently
scheduled to retire in late 1969, 1970, and 1972 and would like to know whether the
Board would consider them this far in advance. The Chairman suggested that the
Board might say that requests for extension of service should normally be submitted
not more than 18 months nor less than 12 months before the scheduled retirement
date; however, the Board recognizes that exceptional circumstances may require
earlier submission for the orderly planning of assignments and that later submis-
sions will occasionally be necessary. After discussion of this matter, the Chair-
man stated that he would draft a memorandum that could be disseminated to each of
the Career Services and present it to the Board at the next meeting.
25X1A9a 9. made a motion that the case of (p) 25X1A2e
be taken up at the next meeting of the Board. The Board agreed to hold a special
meeting on 4 April to consider this case.
10. The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m.
25X1A9a
Exeutive Secretary
Approved For Release 2001/63F3O :EC1A-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SERE I
. . . . The 84th me eting of the CIA RETIREMENT BOARD
convened at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, 28 March 1968, in the OD/Pers Conference
Room, with the following present:
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Mr. George C. Miller, DDS&T Member
S Member
Member
1 Adviser
hnical Adviser
Executive Secretary
Recording Secretary
25X1A9a
as asked to be relieved of his
duties as a Board member and has suggested that Tom K. nominate another,
replacing member. He specifically said he was going to suggest 25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Now, could we look at the minutes of the last meeting.
Any additions or corrections, or any discussion desired on the Minutes? (No
response.) Okay, we will accept the Minutes as presented.
We turn to the agenda for today. Item 2, Review of
Cases, in which there are three categories. The first group involves five people
with a 15 year election option.
25X1A9a I move we offer them an election -- all of
those under Category A.
25X1A9a
. . . This motion was then passed . . .
25X1A9a
for designation.
25X1A9a
4MOPIM Group B, eight employees qualifying
I move that we so designate.
Second.
. . . This motion was then passed . .
c-
Approved For Release 2001/03b" I'ALRDP78-03092A000540O
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SECRET
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
retirement
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
category. We have a belated application for voluntary retirement of - 25X1A9a
to retire on 30 April. He's in the Logistics Career Service -- age 59 --
has 35 years of Federal service, 15 years of Agency service. I presume he wants
to meet the 1 May deadline.
25X1A9a
This is a 55 and 30?
This is 25X1A9a
We don't have any papers on him.
He is waiving his military retired pay to add that
It's a request for retirement under the CIA System?
25X1A9a
What does it have to do with beating the 1 May
deadline? Could it have something to do retroactively--
n do we get our next increase, John?
25X1A9a
Ours is geared to 1 April -- but under the
new one it would be 1 May, that's right.
25X1A9a
Well, I'll tell you, I don't think it has anything
to do with that, it's just that a home he has been building in North Carolina near
Camp LeJeune is finished now, and he wants to move into it, is why he is retiring.
He's not far from being mandatory- -
25X1A9a
We have copies of his correspondence
to the Marine Corps Retired Pay Division waiving his military retired pay for the
purpose of making his military service creditable under the Civil Service System.
But if he were to die between now and 30 April, he would be--
Category C, one application for voluntary
move we accept this voluntary retirement.
Second.
. . . This motion was then passed . . .
Approved For Release 2001/03/3' tDP78-03092A000500040001-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SECRET
25X1A9a
He waived it as of 30 April.
He has been a participant for some time.
es. He was designated in January, 1966.
This is just a normal case.
ust a normal application.
I move we pass favorably on his request to
. . . This motion was then passed . .
25X1A9a
If I may, while we're taking routine cases I'd
25X1A9like to take up a belated disability retirement case. The individual's name is
The report from the Board of Medical Examiners recommends
his application for disability retirement be approved -- it is considered unlikely
he will be capable of resuming full-time duty for the foreseeable future. The
Board of Medical Examiners says his disability is permanent.
Any discussion desired?
What kind of a disability does he have?
25X1A9a
J-iealth.
How did he get it? We have no papers on this
FOIAb6
Approved For Release 2001/03/3-0?:ItDP78-03092A000500040001-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SECRET
FOIAb6
25X1A9a
It says disability is not the result 25X1A9a
of wilful misconduct, etc. , etc.
25X1A9a
yet.
He's an employee of the Office of Communications, Harry?
- I don't know -- I haven't even gotten his name
25X1A9a
It, s
Is he a member of the CIA System?
Yes.
ow old?
Born in 1933 -- 35 years old.
k. Has anyone looked at this and for the
record said: We don't believe there is any possibility this could have been
service or employment caused?
25X1A9a
the answer would be no.
25X1A9a
that this had been looked at.
25X1A9a
Unless we assume that the Medical Staff does this,
Well, I for one recommend that it be in the record
Maybe we ought to ask this question just as a
normal routine -- that ought to be put on all of these disability cases.
25X1A9a
and I think it's an SOP question.
25X1A9a
I've said that several times, Mike, over the years --
.... didn't you say all of these were
looked at from that point as a matter of course?
25X1A9a But the record doesn't show it.
I cannot believe for a minute that - - - 25X1 A9a
knowing the nature of his job -- could possibly have BEC come into it.
Are you proposing, John, that we ask the Medical
25X1A9a
Approved For Release 2001/03/3 CRE''RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SECRET
Examiners in every case to make a positive statement that they have reviewed the
case--
25X1A9a No, I didn't say that. I think there should be
some showing in the record that we have at least looked at the possibility this is
so and that reasonable judgment would indicate this is so remote it isn't even
worth considering.
I'm leaving it up for grabs who does it.
could be routinely done by,` BSD but
it wouldn't overcome the Board's finding him disabled -- because what happens is
he draws whichever is the better benefit. He can be a disability retiree not
drawing the disability annuity but 4OLdrawing the BEC benefit instead.
25X1A9a -
disability retirement.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
But the action of this Board is to approve his
If on later examination we find that BEC retirement
is better for him, he waives the annuity under the disability retirement--
retirement for this man.
it's disability--
. He might be incapable of deciding that--
There is not much question about disability
That may well be, but there is a question of whether
But it's not for this Board to decide whether he
should have the right to opt for BEC or his regular annuity.
25X1A9a This Board has been asked will it recommend
disability retirement.
25X1A9a On the basis of the medical facts he is entitled
to medical disability.
25X1A9a
I don't agree with you. BEC is not disability
retirement. It may be a question of terminology here.
Approved For Release 2001/OAS .~TA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SECRET
25X1A9a
Donut you first get a disability retirement?
of necessarily.
Maybe it's terminology. Technically this
Board has been asked to recommend that this man be retired on disability. All
I'm saying is that have we negated the idea that he may be entitled to BEC
compensation -- which is not disability retirement. And we found one here a
couple of months ago.
25X1A9a In talking about that we went in and talked
to Mr. Wattles and I got the impression that it would automatically be considered
that a man would get what would be most advantageous to him. I think the point
you make is it's not a matter of record that this in fact is, has been, or will be
done. This is what you are raising?
25X1A9a
Indeed I am! Because I for one can't
conscientiously sit here and say - fine, let's recommend him for retirement- -
25X1A9a
you our legal adviser--
25X1A9a
John, are you a member of the Board or are
No, I'm trying to look at it for the man--
It's particularly important in a psychiatric
case, because the man may not be compos mentis enough to protect his own
interests. I'm just wondering who should look into this.
25X1A9a
I'd be perfectly happy if Benefits & Services
Division made the statement. I would be particularly unhappy if the Medical
Division made it.
25X1A9a Should we request as a routine procedure that
the Director of Personnel or the Chief of BSD cause to be made a review to see
whether there is any basis for--
Prior to the case coming here.
25X1A9a I urgently recommend it.
(continuing): -- any basis for BEC benefit. Make
a positive or negative statement here?
6
Approved For Release 2001/0 QIA--RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SEG L.
25X1A9a
I strongly recommend that this be done.
And in consultation with the Head of the
Career Service or somebody who knows--
25X1A9a
Somebody who knows what the man has been doing.
Yes, this is important. BSD can't do it. They will probably have to talk to
the Career Service and to the Medical Staff to see if there is any likelihood of a
case.
25X1A9a
requests that in the case of and all future disability retirement
cases that the Office of Personnel cause to be made a review of the nature and
circumstances of the individual's disability, in collaboration with the employing
office and the Medical Staff, to determine whether or not there is any basis for
BEC benefits in lieu of disability retirement. That will pick up this case and
all future cases.
25X1A9a May I ask another question, for education?
So this man is 35 years old. Suppose it was determined that he was entitled
to service-connected disability and was given 100%. He is 35 years old. Five
years later, at age 40, the BEC reexamines his situation and his psychiatric
difficulty has been overcome to such an extent that they consider him fully capable
of earning a living. What happens? Does he stop getting anything?
25X1A9a
In my opinion -- and correct me, John --
because there is no requirement in our Retirement System for reexamination,
once the disability is declared permanent that he would then file for disability
1111111111111010, retirement--
25X1A9a
This is why I want to see this Board act on the man's
disability retirement application regardless of what review is going to be made of
SEC. It's not alternative actions.
25X1A9a I thought we had approved his disability
retirement. M
I thought we had approved it only subject to
establishing no BEC.
Approve 001/03iifle: 314A DP78O309 019
7 Stint I
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SECRET
either is or is not eligible for medical retirement. Our Medical Board says he
is. That leaves little for us to do. Then, whether or not he has an entitlement
to BEC benefits and prefers them to disability retirement benefits is his decision,
or decision by people acting in his behalf.
25X1A9a
I guess we're getting very technical here. I
don't know what we are voting on -- that he be retired for t physical
disability- -
25X1A9a The action before the Board is that we approve
.*Oft his disability retirement, but to plug up the question John has raised in
this case and future cases we are asking that this case be reviewed -- even
though we have approved it for disability retirement - that is irrelevant --
that this case be reviewed to see whether or not there is any basis for BEC
benefits. And I see no problem.
25X1A9a
And what is the answer to my question?
Your question was BEC - not disability
25X1A9a
Alan said supposing the man qualifies for
BEC benefits and BEC five years hence finds him fully cured -- we have found
him to be permanently disabled - - the BEC benefits stop, and can he then
claim disability retirement benefits -- and I said I thought the answer is yes.
25X1A9a
our finding.
25X1A9a
Their finding has , nothing to do with_:,
It's very complicated. He very probably would
already have taken the lump sum payment from here--
25X1A9a
disability.
That is why it's important that he retire for
We have many cases of people qualified for
both benefits - disability and BEC, and they can take their choice - go back
and forth from one to the other.
8
Approved For Release 2001/03VC A-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
ft
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
25X1A9a
contributions, can't he?
25X1A9a
SECRET
But he can take BEC and get a refund of his
To specifically answer your question, if BEC
found him physically able to resume work they would cut him off and he would
have to find another job. That is the specific answer to your question.
25X1A9a
s this a standard part of their procedure?
Yes.
'o review?
Yes. I forget the details--
Except they have administratively not done
it after a man reaches some age - 55, or something like that.
But in theory they can do it at any time.
25X1A9a
There is no obligation for this Agency to
M No.
Can I assume, then, we have approved this man's
application for disability retirement and that we submit a specific request to
:Personnel that this case and future cases of disability be reviewed, always, with
a view toward possible BEC benefits. Okay.
25X1A9a
May I say one word before we start on agenda
item 3? Because this may be pertinent to the Board members. First of all,
Murray, I guess give or take -- I looked at this too late to verify all my figures,
25X9A2
but we have between say, in the CIA Retirement System now.
The statistical people in the Office of Personnel have made projections of how many
people are going to retire -- in 1968 they estimated 71. Now I'm limiting this to
those who count against our quota -- in other words, disability and discontinued
service I have left out. Although they have estimated 71, there are 69 cases in
9
Approved For Release 2001/03/IQ~-: ~j DP78-03092A000500040001-9
0 L a
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
3ECREI
process right now as of the end of March. Now you might say - well,
most people who want to retire in 1968 have probably submitted their papers
already - - but we find that each two weeks this Board is picking up two, three,
four, five people who were not previously qualified that we are qualifying and
bringing in. So I think it's very safe to assume we are going beyond the 71 we
estimated.
Now the point I want to make is that for the period 1970 to
1974 we are going to be over 100 a year, if these statistics are valid at all, in
terms of mandatory and voluntary or optional retirement. So I think it brings
into focus two problems. The first is it may not be too early to be thinking about
raising the quota for the next five years. But secondly, I think it also gives V
us pause on just how many people do we keep bringing into this System knowing
that we are going to begin exceeding this quota. And when we go to the Committee
will they say - we would like to come in and audit the books. I don't know. I
don't know if that would be a problem if they do. In terms of our over-liberalizing
interpretation of qualifying service, by 1974, according to the projection, we will
be retiring 148 people.
But how many will that be for the first 10 years?
25X1A9a There is no carry over privilege.
Not (800) for 10 years--
I guess what I'm saying, I don't think this has
been an ineffective system -- I think as many people as we contemplated are
retiring, and then some, under this System.
You're taking the five year period that ends July 1,
25X1A9a 30 June 1974.
Your projection shows we're going to be over--
How close are we coming on the first 5 years--
In 1964 we didn't retire anybody; in 1965 it was
only 40; in 1966, 44; and in 1967, 55 --
Approved For Release 2001/03/30 sE
!P78-03092A000500040001-9
6-K T
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SECRET
25X1A9a
ow in 1968 we are going to exceed our
projection. There's sort of an acceleration built in here now.
25X1A9a ... (inaudible)...
Did you project it on the basis of how many people
are going to reach 60 in that period and apply a factor to allow for those who
voluntarily retire earlier?
25X1A9a Yes. There may be a slight double-backing
when you do it on a five year basis. If you did it on 10 you would obviously
be double-backing voluntaries and mandatories. But what is happending is the
'bulk of the voluntaries are less than 55. When you do this projection on a
5-year basis those who are voluntary are mandatory in a subsequent 5-year
period. In other words, it's reasonably accurate -- it could swing 10%, very
easily, I think, either way.
25X1A9a Another way to look at it that there's no problem,
the Director didn't have to consent if he didn't have the billets -- just turn the
water off at the lower end of the age--
25X1A9a
John, as a matter of legislative tactics, if we
had to go to Congress to have this quota of 400 increased would you go forward
with a single, little, one sentence Bill, in effect, to achieve that purpose, or
would it be one with many provisions--
25X1A9a
If we had an immediate need right now, for
example, for this last 5th year, we would dump it into our existing Bill--
25X1A9a
reasons.
The existing Bill could be killed for lots of
25X1A9a I was going to explain tactics. And obviously,
the way we've seen things go, almost with every Congress you're going to need
to go in there for a Bill. Whether you get something from every Congress or not
is immaterial, but you're going to have to go in there every year because of the
changes in the general concept -- so you will always have a vehicle to go in and
up the numbers if we need it.
Approved For Release 2001/03/30 :lA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SECRET
We have retired 148 .
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SECRET
25X1A9a
Now I recognize we have lots of time, really.
In other words, the second period ending in 1974, we could go through the first
2 years of that period, obviously -- because you're not held to 80 a year -- so
you could get up to 200 in the first two years before you do this. But it just
seems to me that as a concept we should recognize that we are going - it's easy
to project the fact that we will exceed it during the second 5-year period.
25X1A9a
. I think one of the corollary points in the question
you ask is should we tighten up on participants -- and I, for one, am against that.
I don't think we should. I think we ought to take them as they come.
25X1A9a
In other words -- because it was you and Emmett
that went through this legislative harangue -- you don't feel that fact that we are
now in sort of excess of what we predicted we would have, that the danger of
moving on up higher--
25X1A9a
a base then.
25X1A9a
Our total personnel is higher than we used as
We are a long ways from our estimate. We
said roughly a third of the employee body would be in the System, and we are
quite a ways below that.
25X1A9a
Sometimes it's a quarter, sometimes a
third, but most of the time I thought it was a quarter.
25X1A9a
Another thing you can mention is the Federal
government has liberalized the retirement provisions in the Civil Service and
the attitudes of people in other systemsIMM tend to reflect--
25X1A9a
If you came to a real bind you could defer a few
people to January 1, 1975, and there is no quota, is there, after that date?
M No.
25X1A9a
Let me rephrase my question before. You
must be convinced, both bf you -- Because when IR read the Act
itself, it's pretty clear on two things: one, to me, says overseas, and the other
says duty very obviously a departure from the normal type of Government employment --
Approved For Release 2001 /03/306 # f P78-03092A000500040001-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SECRET
and then the Regulation sort of takes that a step further in terms of interpre.tion --
but throughout it's clandestine services abroad. And we have chosen so far to
say "service in support of" - so that takes you back to the United States. Is
there no question in anyone's mind that we are on real firm ground with this?
25X1A9a
There is no question in my mind, Harry. In
fact, I think we have been very conservative . Because in the whole background
of this, while the thrust was overseas, as carefully pointed out time and time
again all of the cases won't be in that principal thrust category, there will be
some U. S. cases. And actually we have been very conservative on domestic
qualifying service.
25X1A9a
:t don't.
that have gone through.
25X1A9a
In other words, you have no misgivings?
I don't. Let Emmett speak for himself. But
I have some misgivings about a couple of cases
I have more misgivings about some of the cases
that didn't go through. That's the horse race, Harry.
25X1A9a I know my own conscience bothers me a bit --
I feel as though I vacillate - one week I'm all for "let's do it" --
25X1A9a Would there be any prospect that in future years
there will be one system for the whole Agency? If the Director wants to retire
people at 60 one way to do it would be to have a system which embraced all
employees and they all would retire at 60.
25X1A9a
That sort of turns our approach around 180 degrees,
because our whole pitch was "something special" - and you can't make "something
special" for the entire Agency.
25X1A9a
the whole Agency, though.
25X1A9a
I think we're gradually getting to the
point where there is nothing special to give to those people for whom we intended
There is something to be said for one system for
13
Approved For Release 2001/034?CfRDP78-03092A000500040001-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
'SECRET
something special, because, I think, of the liberalization of the Civil Service. I
had some people sitting behind me this morning (at the Retirement Seminar) that
said - "By God, if a young man came to me and asked me if : he should
belong to the CIA System or the Civil Service, I would tell him stay out of the CIA
System entirely. "
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
es indeed.
What was the cover under which this man
nomination for participation based partially on dome stic qualifying service -
25X1A9a There is no indication here that the man's coming
up fort retirement at this time was sort of made a condition of considering
whether or not the domestic service ,. was qualifying.
25X1A9a
Why, Mike?
. . . Off the record discussion .
Let's now proceed with case No. 3, the
Of course, we know the exception to that,
though, Paul, is where there was hazard and physical danger -- in that case we
equated that to overseas service.
25X1A9a This is a specific claiming of a period of service
as being qualifying notwithstanding that it's in the U. S.
25X1A9a
Well, you're going to have to consider the
precedent aspects of this one, too.
25X1A9a
operated? do we know?
25X1A9a It was But the situation there
25X1 C4a
certainly was difficult - - it was a hardship assignment, if you will.
25X1A9a
:['ll guarantee that.
25X1A9a
It was certainly not normal Government service,
I don't have any difficulty finding this domestic
14
Approved For Release 2001/03/35 DP78-03092A000500040001-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SECRET
service qualifying if it is accompanied by a request for retirement.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
get around to defining--
What has that got to do with it?
Because that is the precedent that this
Why?
I don't buy that, Alan.
25X1A9a
We started off by saying - "Gee, if we consider
every one of these requests for a year here, two years there, of qualifying
service -- and if we wait they may get legitimate overseas service and we
won't have to face up to it -- but if a man is ready to retire we will look at his
record in its entirety. if Since then we have recognized the problem that the
man who might have qualifying service might die, for example, and not be in the
right system. So there is a serious question here which way we should go on this.
As far as this particular case, we considered a Commo man not too long ago and
gave him credit for the time he spent on this far from normal Government
employment.
25X1A9a
25X1A
e was up for retirement, wasn't he?
fight.
We had the case of the Security man who was
not up for retirement, and in that case, you remember, there was hazard and
25X1A9a
25X1A _
25X1A9a
We had a couple of cases where if there was
a hazard connected with it we gave him that without the consideration of retirement.
In all of the other cases we tried to bring them under 11(c) -- we didn't necessarily
look for hazardous duty in those cases, and we looked for a request for retirement
Approved For Release 2001103133E fDP78-03092A000500040001-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SECREI
simultaneously. But I think we have had two or three cases which were based
on the function the man was performing, and he was not asking to be retired, and
we allowed it.
25X1A9a
Well, in my opinion the hazard is minimal
here. This plane that they commuted on was the best kept plane probably in the
whole United States because they had some very rare and expensive engineers of
one of the major airplane manufacturers in the Nation, and they really took care
of this bird.
25X1A9a
Do you have any trouble with it as being clearly
distinguishable from normal Government employment?
25X1A9a
No, no problem at all.
25X1A
25X1A9a
five days a week?
25X1A9a
I could base it on what I just said and without
any trouble give him qualifying duty.
25X1A9a
I agree 100% with Alan.
How about the fact he lived away from his family
I think almost anyone who spent any time out
there won't have any trouble with it.
25X1A9a
I have some difficulty reconciling the time he
states in the record with the record on the profile. He says he was there from
June 1955 -- that would be 55 months. According to the profile, he might have
25X1A been there longer -- it shows July 1955, to March 1958.
25X1A9a
e only needs 23 months.
But the Form 3100 is in agreement with his memo.
16
Approved For Release 2001/03/32 E jDP78-O3O92AOOO5OOO4OOOl -9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SE ET
25X1A9a
Incidentally, although the man doesn't say he
intends to retire soon, he was born in 1910, and therefore is 59 years of age and
is bumping against our retirement age--
25X1A9a _
couple of years to go.
25X1A9a
In May of this year he will be 58. He has a
I think the conditions of service are somewhat
similar to the case that Harry mentioned where a Commo man came back to a
25X1A6a
similar nd we credited him with th service in view of
25X1A
the nature of his work.
25X1A9a
The thing that troubles me here, here is a man who
is 58, and he, obviously, without this doesn't have enough overseas service--
25X1A9a
And will not get it.
(Continuing) : - - and he probably will not get it, or
it's a question of must he take another two years to get it. I think it's significant
that he get an answer ahead of time.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
I do, too. I'm with you on that, Harry.
I move he be taken into the CIA Retirement System.
MR. GEORGE MILLER: Second.
25X1A9a On what basis?
25X1A9a On the basis of the hardship- -
25X1A9a He is in the System now, isn't he?
25X1A9a No. If he gets in he will have a vested right.
I move it on the basis of the nature of the duties he
performed during those 25 or so months, in terms of hardship, isolation,
security, conditions that were completely peculiar to this particular job.
Would you add hazard to that?
25X1A9a
got hurt out there,
25X1A9a
that anything to worry about?
Actually, Mike, I don't think anybody ever
Approved For Release 2001 /03/ f tDP78-03092A000500040001-9
25X1A
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SECRET
Again, the thing that bothers me -- and I hate to make
these arbitrary rules for us to live with -- but I'd sure hate to get some of our
young communicators who are Z5, 28 years old, asking for qualifying service
because they just finished a two-year tour there. And yet you see the problem
for someone like this man, over 55, into the retirement planning zone, and the
chance of his getting other qualifying service has been substantially reduced --
it seems worthy of consideration. But I'd hate to open it up to--
25X1A9a
It's either qualifying service or it isn't. You
can't distinguish between the young guy--
25X1A9a
I still feel that our rule is a good one. When
he gets to age 60 he is going to retire under the Agency's policy for Civil Service
or he is going to retire mandatorily under the Act -- and if he retires under the
CIA System he gets a little advantage -- and it will be at that time that you make
the decision.
25X1A
Approved For Release 2001/03/30SP78-03092A000500040001-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SECRET
25X1A9a
percent?
I think that is being unfair to him.
It's unfair for three and three-quarters
Because I think we need to be consistent. And
saying - well, let's wait a couple of years -- why?
Just as Harry said--
25X1A9a I disagree with Harry.
made the point I think it's unfair in the case of
this man at 58 not to know where he is going in the next few years--
25X1A9a
At age 60 he's out, Harry.
hat is true, but he doesn't know which way- -
doesn't have to.
Doesn't know whether he is going to get three
and three-quarters percent or not.
25X1A9a
reasonable basis for stalling.
But he has earned it and I don't see any
25X1A
19
Approved For Release 2001/03/
JUM EIRDP78-03092A000500040001-9
 25X1A
Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
L
25X1A9a
I suggest if we find this duty to be qualifying
we make it a formal matter of record that all similar cases will be handled
identically.
25X1A9a I don't see how you can approve this one and
25X1A9a Harry, is this causing you a problem here?
No, I'm trying to rationalize in my mind how
much of a workload would be imposed on us -- and I'm not talking just about this
case, I'm talking about being asked to determine qualifying service at various
stages of people's careers when we don't know yet that it's even essential that
we sit in judgment. This is a sort of first rationale--
25X1A9a If everyone agrees this is qualifying awilb"
25X1A
service it is no more difficult to figure out this than service -- it just
automatically is.
25X1A9a ^
Okay -- but then you are not saying qualifying
service generally, you are saying this particular area only.
MR. GEORGE MILLER: As a precedent, you're surely setting
that up.
25X1A9a What about phrasing the Board action like
this: In view of the imminent retirement -- "imminent" is an open-ended word --
25X1A9a
in view of the imminent retirement of the Board has reviewed
his case and has found certain of his domestic service as qualifying for participation
in the CIA Retirement and Disability System.
25X1A9a
That would take care of this case.
MR. GEORGE MILLER: Then when another case came up if
the man wanted to do it when he was 35 years old his case wouldn't be considered,
but if he was getting close to retirement it could be--
25X1A9a
But doesn't a man who has just been with the
Agency 10 years have a right to come in and say: You have given me credit for
four years of overseas service, and I feel that I did a tour of duty at headquarters
21
Approved For Release 2001/03/38r FDP78-03092A000500040001-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
in a particular type of function which I believe under the Act is qualifying.
Doesn't this Board therefore have to sit down and take a look at that man's case
that comes before us?
25X1A9a
We would say: What is your intent-
Many Many of these men may be 49 or 50 years of
age. If they are in the System they ill would have the option of retiring at
50 -- and if they're not, they have no option until 55, at the earliest.
25X1A9a All right, if a man says it's his intent--
But he may not want to tell you that. He may
not have made up his mind. He has a right to have his case adjudicated.
25X1A9a
I'm worried about the large mass of
people-- We have sort of indicated anyone in DD/P who has been working
in support of clandestine operations it could sort of be counted as qualifying
service. Now what would keep people who wanted to clear the air for
themselves -- whether or not they have other tours ahead of them -- to submit
a paper at age 36 and say: For the last three years I have been sitting at a
desk supporting overseas operations, and I would like to have this determined
to be qualifying service. Are we going to listen to all of those at this time?
25X1A9a I think we have to listen to anyone who presents
his case. Now I don't think we want to encourage the kind you just talked
about -- but I think the man has a right to adjudication.
25X1A9a
of age
25X1A9a
We shouldn't consider anyone under 50 years
.... (inaudible)..... .
I don't think it would stand up. According to the
criteria, if you have 18 months of qualifying service you are eligible to come into
the System with five years' service; with 36 months you are eligible to come in
with 10 years' service. So you could have a man who was not yet 30 years old -
or just 30 - with 18 months of service, who could1litft ask for admission into
the System, and you would have to consider his case -- and whether it was domestic
or overseas, it wouldn't make any difference, it seems to me.
Approved For Release 2001/03/30.fP78-03092A000500040001-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SECRET
25X1A9a
There are a few people sitting in OC who
have four-years-plus of qualifying service, and they have asked -- and can
truly make a pretty good case that they have been working in support of
clandestine operations. Do we say when you get closer to the wire, when
you're ready to retire then you come forward and you say how about this six
months? Once this gets around it seems to me all these people are going to
be coming in and asking for a determination right then and there whether or not
they have it. They have been redlined up to this point -- they have been redlined
by their individual components on the basis they didn't serve overseas--
25X1A9a
What kind of service dof they think might
be qualifying.
25X1A6a
Harry, don't think for one minute there aren't
a hundred people standing in line to see how we rule on That
is what we are really dealing with.
25X1A9a
That is why we want to be sure we aren't just
domestic
talking about certifying! service. We are really saying anything
outside the continental limits of the United States,
has now 25X1A6a
been designated as qualifying service -- if we really want to do that -- and that
'wouldn't open up all these others. But we have for example, 25X1A9a
and he has been in charge of the whole covert collection program for us, and he
needs six months, and he has been after me, and I say, "Wait until you are 25X1A9a
ready to retire and we'll see. " And
in support of clandestine operations abroad, and will we give him
the six months? They are all waiting until the point of retirement when we can
really look at the thing in total. I'm concerned about the workload we will be
impo sing- -
25X1A9a
can't base our decisions on whether it's going to be tough on the Board or not.
25X1A9a
Well, an unnecessary workload -- people who if
they waited would have five years of honest to God MOW overseas service.
Approved For Release 2001/03/30 ETP78-03092A000500040001-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SECRET
25X1A9a
Harry, the Act and the Regulation both call
for the five, ten, and fifteen year review. Now it's possible that on the 10 year
review you might find a fellow only (30) years of age and we say, "Sorry -- you
can't stay in the System any longer because you have only 32 months of overseas
service. " Now a piece of paper must evidently leave the Office of Personnel
or somebody telling him we are going to take him out of the System -- at least
that is what we told the Congress we would do. Now, this fellow says: "Yes,
but I did a tour at headquarters in what I think is qualifying duty. " He has a
paper that has told him, and all of the Bulletins we put out said to him: If you
are turned down and you think you have been affected adversely, you have a right
to appeal to the Board. I don't see how we can then tell them - "Sorry --
why don't you wait until you are about 50 or until you get another ' tour
overseas. 11 We have to sit down and decide that question.
25X1A9a
Okay, if you say we review them to see whether
or not to put them out of the System, that is a fairly orderly system. What
I'm afraid has happened is there is a fairly large body of people who were not
brought into the System when we first got started, we just redlined them
because they didn't have five years. Didn't we tell all those people we were just
looking at overseas service the first time around?
25X1A9a The Agency didn't tell them. Maybe Vft
the Career Service components did.
25X1A9a
25X1A
time say:
Why couldn't the Career Service now at this
The Board has reviewed service in from the time of the 25X1A6a
inception qualifying
service. om now they
might ha allation, and
it might be an entirely different story--
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
A full tour? a normal type of tour?
Are these dates the dates this man was there?
Why not limit it to the dates this man was there?
24
Approved For Release 2001/03/30SEf j P78-03092A000500040001-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SECRET
25X1A9a
Because we are dealing with a type of service
at this location during a span of time. The fact that he was there only part
of that time --
25X1A9a
I don't mean if another case came along with
somewhat different dates, if the conditions were the same-- We don't want
to go too far in establishing a precedent--
25X1A9a We can review the past but we can't foresee the
future .
25X1A9a We are acting on the knowledge of some of the
Board members Why don't we just say service such
as his is qualifying, and leave dates out of it -- and look at his case.
25X1A9a
I thought the object of the exercise was to find
that service ualifying.
25X1A6a ~~Mq
25X1A9a I didn't think of it in those terms. I just
looked at the facts of this case.
Of course, those will be the same facts--
25X1A9a
Do you want to handle a single case and possibly
do a disservice to other people who don't have sense enough to ask for this
service?
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
no trouble with yours (indicating
25X1A9a
I'd have no trouble with what Emmett just read.
The (dates) don't really bother me. I have
Does anybody need anymore discussion as to
25X1A
the nature of this service to make a decision?
25X1A9a
But we are not making a decision now that we will accept
and review all requests for a determination of qualifying service at any time.
25X1A9a We have always been hoping to do that. But that
is not a part of this at all.
25X1A9a It is unless you use Alan's words--
I'm sorry, but we're going to throw this area into the category of qualifying service--
Approved For Release 2001/03/3SEM DP78-03092A000500040001-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SECRET
25X1A9a
I'd like to just say we considered this case,
looked at his overseas service, his domestic service, we have reviewed the facts
presented, as well as testimony by members who have personal knowledge of
conditions there at that time, and on the basis of the record as a whole
consider this man qualified for the System.
25X1A9a
. . . suggestion was then approved by the
policy issue? Are we or are we not going to consider any request for determination
that a given period of service, anywhere, is qualifying--
25X1A9a
I'm sorry, but aren't you kind of ducking the
But let's not decide now what our decision is going
to be when the request comes up.
25X1A9a
I agree with the way you put it, Paul. I think we
ought to dispose of this case on that basis. We on the Board are establishing
somewhat of a precedent for ourselves in considering future cases.
I think your suggestion is excellent, Paul.
25X1A9a
Okay, the consensus seems to, be we should
handle this on an individual basis.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a The next case is -- a total
25X1A9a
of 50 months and 29 days of verified qualifying service.
25X1A9a I understand that between 1951 and 1954 he
operated away from this building in town under a cover - - and I find no problem
in seeing this as being distinguishable from normal Government employment,
and I move that we accept himI as a participant in the System.
Second.
25X1A9a
Actually, this one goes a step further -- although
again it isn't made clear -- he is going to retire.
25X1A9a
is going to retire.
I can decide this case outside of the fact he
26
Approved For Release 2001/03/30 S iJP78-03092A000500040001-9
 25X1A
Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SECRET
25X1A9a
There were extenuating circumstances in
this case. She was asked to stay on, and it was kind of indefinite--
em loy ers
25X1A9a I talked with her esterday on
this, because it bothered me, because I felt the members of the Board would say
ILLEGIB
she was seeking the better of two worlds at this point. I was particularly
concerned over the fact that , had she appealed they case in 1965 when
she was told she could not be a participant in the System, and had won at that
time, she would have had to mandatorily retire in 1966 -- and I felt that that
question would be a question here. So I talked to her supervisors yesterday.
They told me that she did not appeal simply because she was lacking only two
months and a fraction, and she felt that within the two years she had she could get
her two months. Subsequently they asked her to stay on because they were very
short-handed. And it wasn't until January of this year that the reorganization
in that office caught up with them and they arrived at the decision that they could
not ask her to extend -- had she been in the System they could still have asked
her to extend, I suppose -- but they decided at that point they had to get rid of
some number of slots and they were sorry but they couldn't extend her. She
felt all along she was going to be asked to extend, and that was the reason she
didn't make any effort - - and she felt within the two and a half year period left
to her before retiring that she could definitely get her two and a half months. So
I was looking at it from the question of good faith on her part, and her supervisors
told me there was every indication of that.
25X1A9a
I think we might look at this case in conjunction
25X1A9a 25X1A9a
with the case. The Director, as you know, when applied
at age 62 for the CIA Retirement System, and for which he had met all the
criteria, the decision was negative. But then looking to the equities of the
25X1A9a
situation, in case he specifically turned down the CIA Retirement
System in favor of continued service under the Civil Service System, and then
belatedly tried to get back - tried to get his cake, and he had already had it.
This case is distinctly different in two ways. One, from
28
Approved For Release 2001/03/3%IDP78-03092A000500040001-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SECHLrg
the simple equities, she is only lacking two months and nine days. Another
thing, there is no indication that on her part she really ducked the CIA System
in order to remain in service for the additional time.
25X1A9a
May I add another thing to that? You will
notice on her Biographic Profile that for a period of about eight months she
was working with the from November 1958 to
July 1959. She was working as an officer with the
boys
during that time -- this was for the Jpj" obtaining of
codes -- and did a very excellent job -- and this would certainly be one of the
functions she would never be able to talk about on the outside.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
She was doing that herself?
Not doing iti herself but she was
25X1A
25X1X4
25X1X4
involved in the operations, I understand. It wasn't the case of a stenographer
sitting there doing typing.
25X1A9a
I heard you, Mike - - but a few months of
sensitive work that one can't talk about, doesn't really add anything, in my
opinion.
25X1A9a
she was not eligible?
25X1A9a
I don't have any problem with this one.
Why was it she didn't appeal the finding that
The story seems to be she fully expected at that
time she would have little trouble getting the couple more months required.
move her acceptance.
25X1A9a econd.
I think I had a prior motion on the floor that
contained this language about -- (Reading): The Retirement Board
25X1A9a
recommends the approval of request to become a participant
in the System and to retire on 30 April 1968. With this action, however, the
Board intends to adopt the policy henceforth of considering any
application of an individual who has passed his 60th birthday as an evasion of the
Approved For Release 2001/03/30 DP78-03092A000500040001-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SECL
statutory requirement for retirement at age 60 under the CIA Retirement Act.
25X1A9a I don't favor that, because there still might be
a case such as this one where we would not consider it an evasion to have had
such a thing happen. And I don't see that we are benefitting anybody by going on
the record -- and if we do go on the record on this point, I would rather see the
two matters separated.
25X1A9a
I think the crucial question in this case and any
other case we may get in the future is whether there is evidence of evasion or
evidence there was no evasion. Now if you say any case hereafter, then we're
shutting the door to other cases that are as meritorious as this one.
25X1A9a
It depends what you consider policy.
Policy is not law.
25X1A9a But I'd modify your statement to say that where
there is evidence of evasion--
25X1A9a
Who have we instructed and what guidance have
we provided by going on the record with that statement? Who is going to be
helped?
25X1A9a We could do this. Instead of #MMdjMW making
policy, Alan, say: The Board henceforth will adopt the attitude that cases
involving continuation of service beyond age 60 will be viewed as evasion of the
mandatory retirement provision in the absence of evidence to the contrary--
25X1A9a
Couldn't we get the same thought in here by
saying we are approving this because after careful consideration it was determined
that there was no intent
idea- -
25X1A9a
at evasion. This would convey the same sort of
Twist it around the other way, saying: The
general policy of the Board is to review with care any cases that go beyond 60
on the presumption there has been an attempt to evade the basic policy. We
have done so in this case and find no such evidence of evasion, and for this and
other reasons approve it.
CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
Approved For Release 2001/03/3 faiLl
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
25X1A9a
SEM
I don't have any problem just as long as
some note is taken that we took cognizance of this. Because as we open the
25X1A6a
door to_-- because if it depended on duty I wouldn't even raise
the issue of 62, provided somebody wanted to stay on an additional two years.
I think we ought to have some language in there to say we don't like this coming
up at age 62 to get back into the System.
25X1A9a
25X1A6a
25X1A9a
Is language satisfactory to everyone?
Do we have a motion to approve the case using Paul's language? Anybody so
move?
25X1A9a
case on?
25X1A9a
Services Career Board.
25X1A9a
Excuse me -- what are you justifying this
The simple findings of the Clandestine
I sure don't want to say because she worked in
25X1 C As a matter of fact, the Director has been known to say he
'wasn't going to keep somebody from retiring because of a few weeks. You
could do it almost on that basis. I realize we don't want to say two months
or three months. So it's a lot of facts together--
25X1A9a On the basis of her entire record you found
an addittonal two v#AANS#
months of qualifying service.
That is the basis on which I find it.
25X1A9a
Okay. 25X1A9a
The next case is extension of -7)-
:retirement date from June 30 1968 to Januy 31 1969 -- a little more than six
MR. GEORGE MILLER: I think the DDS&T position is pretty
well stated here.
25X1A9a I think it is, too. I'm informed she has
already had one 6-month extension.
25X1A9a
$335. 00.
The different;e in annuity is not insignificant -
Approved For Release 2001/03/30.3 lA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SECRL
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SECRET
25X1A8a
What is the 5-year letter status of this case?
Is this a case where two years would cut off her notified--
25X1A9a No -- it will be 60 and 30.
If she could be kept gainfully employed, I personally
would have no objection to her being continued for six more months provided
she works with the Outplacement Office to try to find something. This girl has
a number of debts, as I remember, and it looks like she is going to have to work
for some time after she retires. Do we know if she has worked with the
Outplacement Office to try to find something on the outside?
25X1A9a
MR. GEORGE MILLER: I talked with about
that and he said she apparently was making no particular effort.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
I fully expect another request for extension
She says in her memo: "I am asking
further that consideration be given to the postponement of my retirement date
to January 1970. "
MR. GEORGE MILLER: I think a pertinent point here is the
area in which she is working has been drastically reduced and is being further
reduced -- and I believe that's the NIS type of reports.
25X1A9a Well, her request just doesn't seem
reasonable, that she wants to pay back all her debts and at the same time build
up a substantial savings account for after retirement.
25X1A9a She hasn't done so in the past 20 years--
She will have more than $1200 coming to
her in a lump sum for her annual leave.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
I'd be inclined to follow the recommendation of
MR. GEORGE MILLER: I'd be inclined to vote against
(Reading) "I am satisfied every attempt has been
32
Approved For Release 2001/03/8(CH p DP78-03092A000500040001-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SECRET
made to make her aware of the implications of retirement and repayment to the
Civil Service retirement fund. I would question that an extension of six months
would materially resolve her problems. " This was Carl Duckett's statement.
25X1A8a I doubt if she would be any better off seven
months hence. And she can solve a lot of her problems with this $1200. 00.
25X1A9a If we are going to recommend the extension
not be approved I think it would be worthwhile to add, for the sake of those who
review our action, that the Board observed that many of the financial problems
she mentioned will be overcome by the receipt of some $1200 in a lump sum in
terms of leave time.
25X1A9a Could she at this point go back and pay into
the Civil Service retirement--
25X1A9a She would have to pay it in before retiring, but
she could go to the Credit Union and borrow $500. 00 and sign a power of attorney
and the minute she gets her lump sum leave payment the loan will be paid off.
I think she should be so advised, though, in case she doesn't know this.
25X1A9a
25X1A2e
Has anybody got a motion to make on this case?
MR. GEORGE MILLER: I move the extension not be granted.
Second.
The extension is denied.
Case No. 7, On Social Security
benefits hasn't the age been lowered to 62 ?
Only for women.
25X1A9a
Men can take it at 62 with a reduction in the
25X1A8a
25X1A9a
Did this man receive a 5-year letter?
Yes. This is a case where he has received
two of them. This is the case of a man saying: I'd like to go back to my age
62 according to the first letter that you sent me -- and to deprive him of these
17 or 18 months here, is harmful to him, he says.
33
Approved For Release 2001/03/31EODP78-03092A000500040001-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SECRET
25X1A9a Oh, he's one of the fellows who at 57 was
told he could go to 62. I was all set to vote against this man, but that changes
my mind.
25X1A9a Is he returning to his original age 62 date?
He has never left the 62 date, I guess.
Can they utilize his services?
25X1A9a They say so.
I notice memo is dated November,
1967. But what is said here still stands, I take it -- I mean, in view of the
fact that we've got an overseas reduction and a lot of other problems. That
memo was written in November of 1967.
He is not affected by it.
25X1A9a Anybody wish to make a motion?
25X1A2e
I move that request for extension
be approved.
. . . This motion was then passed . . .
25X1A9a
25X1A8a
Murray, there's the case of which
is parallel to this. Is that case coming up soon?
25X1A9a
25X1A8a ~
sometime ago.
25X1A9a
I haven't had any paper work on it.
Oh, I thought we had submitted a request
25X1A2e
Could we indicate we granted extension
because he had been previously advised he could go to 62.
25X1A9a
given to--
We could explain that consideration was
Yes, I would think so.
I think that might be in explanation of why
we added more than a year here.
Approved For Release 2001 /03/30 r . DP78-03092A000500040001-9
 25X1A
Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SECRET
25X1A9a
= is in the No. 2 category, in which there are about (135).
25X1A9a I think -is one of very few, if not the only 25X1A9a
Estonian linguist.
25X1A9a The last time we looked into this we found that
no matter when this fellow leaves the Agency it will be a loss to the Agency.
25X1A9a
was 25X1A9a
approved in December 1967 it came back from the Executive Director, but
perhaps we should send a memo in and lump these together rather than give
all of these to him separately -- there are five of them -- two more to go.
25X1A9a
Each of their Services say they can use these
people -- Iand it's a very important benefit for these people to have.
25X1A9a
I move we extend these three, in keeping
with the dates as set out here, in order for them to obtain their twelve years
. . . This motion was then seconded and passed . . .
25X1A9a
I was asked to firm up the instructions on
the timing of requests for extension to make sure they got in early enough, etc. ,
and when I attempted to do so I found that the instruction had already been
worked up between Mr. Wattles, Director of Personnel, and the DD/S. I
thought the Board ought to review it and see if the system seems sound, or if
it needs to be supplemented, or perhaps needs wider distribution. I thought
you better look at it first.
25X1A9a
I have one general comment. On a thing like
this it seems to me that more and more some of these things are slipping out
of the supervision of the line supervisors, and it seems to me that
staff ought not to get into the act until a case has been referred to them by the
Directorate in charge giving them a tentative or a fixed date for retirement.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
I thought staff was mostly 25X1A9a
triggered by the individual going to them.
36
Approved For Release 2001/03/3bS tP78-03092A000500040001-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SEGE
25X1A9a
Paul, I had sort of the same reaction --
but isn't all we are saying here, command has a chance long before this to
request an extension or decide not to request an extension -- and this is just
a safety measure, that if they got to their last year and nothing has been done
they will get in touch with you to be sure you have no intention of doing anything--
25X1A9a
Take paragraph 3. d. - - who is going to decide
whether or not the guy is going to be in a position to request an extension.
There are going to be consultations between staff and the individual 25X1A9a
as to what his retirement is going to be or what he thinks it ought to be. It
seems to me this puts that staff in the chain of command.
25X1A9a
with people in the years before their retirement, and some guy might say -
"Well, I've got a problem - I can't afford to retire" -- and it may be a matter
of getting another job, for example -- this is bound to come out in
personal consultation. It seems to me in paragraphs d. and e. all they are
going to do is if the request isn't under way or hasn't come in, they're just
going to alert command that they have a problem.
25X1A9a It says if they have not learned from the
office responsible of an intent to submit a request for extension then they will
initiate a review with the office.
25X1A9a They're not going to interfere. They're not
going to promote anything. They're just going to alert the office.
25X1A9a This is the same thing that
25X1A9a
expressed some concern about at our last meeting. I think it's going to very
clearly imply- -
25X1A9a When the man comes in every year (to RCPS)
he should be able to say - "I've already talked with my boss and he says he's
going to request an extension for me" or "he isn't going to do this. " That
ends the retirement counselor's problem. But if the man says, "We haven't
really discussed it but I'd like to have an extension" then the man gets in touch
37
Approved For Release 2001/03/30Sf#P78-03092A000500040001-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SECRET
with you and you confirm whether or not you intend to do it. It's only to keep
it from coming up six months before he's ready to retire, and to be sure that
it's settled a year before.
25X1A9a It says, "RCPS will serve as the control point
on requests for extensions. " That is where it expresses who is boss here --
and perhaps that was not intended, and maybe it won't work that way, but in fact
I had two other people read this and they came to the same conclusion I did.
25X1A9a
I think this might happen, Paul -- as
I read paragraph e., they do talk about a joint review -- I think we might learn
from the employee that he has real problems that he may be reluctant to discuss
25X1A9a or has failed to surface with his employing office -- so ~s able, then,
to say - "This guy has a tough problem" --
25X1A9a I thought this staff (RCPS) was primarily to
make the landing soft once it had been determined when the man was leaving --
this was essentially to help him get ready. But as far as when to do it, and
how valuable he was to his Service, that they weren't going to get into that kind
of discussion with the employee.
25X1A9a The purpose is to condition the employee to
get him thinking about it and acting on it early in the game. And the counseling
period can cover as much as five years - by invitation. There are lots of
things that can come up during that time.
25X1A9a
Again, Paul, if in counseling the man before
that last year the fellow says - "I've got young kids, and I don't really want to
retire" - then all the counseling staff could do is say - "You better talk to your
Career Service" - or "You better initiate action in your Career Service. " What
we are trying to stop from happening - and what has happened an awful lot - is
that three months ahead of time, or six months ahead of time the component gets
compassionate and says - "All right, we will honor this man's request. "
25X1A9a
Also, there have been cases where the
employee gets an implied statement or feeling from his immediate supervisor
Approved For Release 2001/03/30 SEA, RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SECRET
that - "Well, yes, maybe we can work something out" -- it hasn't gotten r
up to the command level -- and he goes in to see the counselor and says -
"Well, I understand I'm going to get an extension. "
25X1A9a
If you have a good career management system
within a component, the Retirement Staff should never have to do anything about
this -- it should all have been talked over with the man and he should know
exactly where he stands.
25X1A9a
Personnel Office informing me that they have five requests for extensions from
people who are scheduled to retire in April and June 1969, and August 1972, and
they're wondering what they should do - whether to send them to the Board --
would the Board entertain them this far in advance? or should they tell the
employees that it's too early?
25X1A9a Well, it is too early. Does this memo of
Wattles' cover this point at all?
25X1A9a In the DD/S we have - not a rigid policy
but we have encouraged all the Career Services to submit their requests no
earlier than one year in advance.
25X1A9a Most of these people were affected by the
recent change in policy. I don't know about the one in 1972, but all the others
went back--
25X1A9a
I'm not sure that it isn't a Directorate problem--
Whether they want to submit them or not- -
Whether they are that clear that ...
(inaudible) ... They might have some management reason that might
be valid -- maybe they want to plan on sending them overseas for three years.
25X1A9a
But if the Career Service did submit them,
25X1A9a
Well, in the DD/S there are a lot of people
that don't have high grades and they're probably going to have to continue to work,
39
Approved For Release 2001/03/31 g}
DP78-03092A000500040001-9
fful
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
S'ECRE
and we felt that by giving them a guarantee for two years this should work to
their own advantage, because they ought to be out looking for a job.
25X1A9a
That is the second part of this thing -- do it
one year in advance and don't ask for more than one year at a time. That's the
DD/S. Now I don't know how you feel about it, Emmett. There could be
cases where for planning purposes a decision is needed two years ahead of time.
25X1A9a
The grades here are 6, two 7's, a 9 and a
I think the DD/ P probably has a different
problem -- if it's a man they would like to send overseas, that's a different
problem.
25X1A9a Well, why wouldn't something like this be
desirable -- at least so we can answer telephone calls. It seems to me from
all the advice and guidance we've gotten from topside regarding the Agency's
manpower situation, that we do not desire to consider requests more than 12
to 15 months before scheduled retirement date, that we would like requests to
be received 12 months ahead of time so that the individual still has some planning
time, and beyond that we recognize there will be special circumstances wherein
earlier requests may be necessary in order to schedule possible overseas tours,
which will necessarily come in earlier than that. What more can you do?
25X1A9a
I was wondering - - it seems to me it's not a
matter of the calendar so much as getting them before the Board as soon as it is
known that an extension will have to be considered- -
25X1A9a
25X1A6a -- because as far as management is concerned --
and I've talked to some of these managers -- they say, "Look, how can I plan?
I'll bring in a guy fro how can I plan
rotation two or three years in advance? - which you must do at some of these
places. " So they're asking for more than a few months.
25X1A9a But how can the Agency plan what its manpower
40
Approved For Release 2001/03/30 SE g P78-03092A000500040001-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SECRET
requirements are going to be three years in advance?
25X1A9a
Not three years in advance - - but if you have a
case where you know they are not going to have 12 years of service, and that
we're going to grant it, and the situation is not going to change, why not
consider it two years in advance?
25X1A9a
Well, Emmett's phraseology said we recognize
that there would be special cases which would require different
handling - -
25X1A9a But I would disagree with your statement,
:Paul, that the situation is not going to change, because we don't know what
contractions this Agency might be forced to carry out.
25X1A9a
Murray, wasn't the last one you mentioned
for 1972? That's four years in advance. It seems to me you have to put some
sort of a limit on it, otherwise it might get ridiculous -- some people might
come in at age 50. But one year in advance seems to be cutting it too fine--
25X1A9a
I think in the case of the one year that we
nevertheless have to hear and consider a man who may come in only a week
before he is going to retire and say, "I want to extend" -- we can't say, "No,
you're too late. "
25X1A9a I think the way that Emmett worded it,
gives flexibility.
25X1A9a The two they have in April and June 1969
should be submitted -- and maybe the October one should.
25X1A9a
Why not say this:
Requests for extension
of service should normally be submitted not more than 18 months nor less than
12 months before scheduled retirement date. The Board recognizes that
exceptional circumstances may require earlier submission for the orderly
planning of assignments and that later submissions will occasionally be
necessary.
Now, how do you want to distribute that? to each Career
service? 41
Approved For Release 2001/03/30 S l?P78-03092A000500040001-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SECRET
25X1A9a
I think all of the Career Services should
follow the same guideline.
Yes, that's the point here.
25X1A9a
The guideline the CS is following now is
they have to apply to the CS nine months before -- because, you remember,
that was the policy- -
25X1A9a
The original deadline was they have to be in
Col. White's hands six months ahead of time for an extension.
25X1A9a
Have we ever issued any guidelines on how
much advance notice we need for a voluntary retirement?
25X1A9a
No.
That would be useful. We had one fellow that
came in on Monday and said "I'm leaving Friday" -- and he was a Division Chief!
25X1A9a
kind of a case from coming up.
25X1A9a
Nothing we can issue is going to keep that
If I could just submit one more little change
,, in that phraseology about exceptional circumstances. I would think
maybe say exceptional circumstances could make it desirable from both
managements and the employee's viewpoint -- desirability -- because I can't
think of any situation where you're going to have a "must" --
I don't think I used the word "must".
25X1A9a
Point out that it's both from management's and
the employee's viewpoint. Encourage managers to think about this too.
25X1A9a
I'll try to draft up something that can be
disseminated to each of the Career Services. I'd like you to see it at the
next meeting, before we actually go out with it.
This proposal in Bob Wattles' memo was approved by
Col. White, so this is the procedure unless we wish to object to it. Are there
any compelling objections to this procedure?
25X1A9a
I'd like to show this to irst,
42
25X1A9a
Approved For Release 2001/03/30 E P78-03092A000500040001-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SECRET
25X1A9a
because if he's going to replace on the Board, I3d like to have him
25X1A9a
I would only urge, don't view this with
suspicion -- because I honestly think its sole intent is to be a checkpoint which
would alert the office concerned. Nothing else. They're not going to
negotiate --
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
concern.
I want to thank the members for their agreement to a
change of day for our meetings so I could participate.
25X1A9a
meetings for some 10 weeks or so. And I found several people actually
preferred to meet on Thursdays. Why don't we try it on Thursdays and see
what comes up. Is Thursday a bad day for anyone?
25X1A9a I prefer Tuesday to Thursday -- but it doesn't
make that much difference.
25X1A9a
You prefer Thursday, don't you, Alan?
I have a Board meeting nearly every Tuesday
at 3:00 o'clock, and one Tuesday a month I'm always out all day.
All right.
25X1A9a
I make a motion we take up the
25X1A9a
case at our next meeting. We've been at it here for two hours. And this is
a complicated case.
25X1A9a
They want him to retire 30 April.
This is the case of 25X1A9a
This is a discontinued service case.
Why don't they just fire him?
25X1A9a He won't get retirement.
He is 47 with 25 years of service--
On the ', basis of 25 years' service and
Approved For Release 2001/03/30SE'pP78-03092A000500040001-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SECRET
discontinuing his function.
25X1A9a
(Continuing): -- and it seems to me a very
appropriate case of a man who is not able to take a particular assignment and
that we use this way of getting rid of him without a complete loss of annuity
to him.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
What is your question, John?
This case is a lot more complicated than meets
the eye. I have a great deal of trouble with this question of not Ift being
able to take an assignment. Five out of the 10 years he hasn't done a lick of
work.
That is what bothers me.
I know it's late, but I want to look into it some
more -- because this case has been in and out of our office for a number of
years.
25X1A9a
this case.
management out.
I didn't know that it was coming up today.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
We could hold a meeting next week to consider
On the surface this looks like a real good
What are the alternatives for management?
You could fire the man for cause, or you could terminate him because he hasn't
a job. In the one case he would be eligible for a dftooftv. discontinued service
annuity, and in the other case he wouldn't.
That's right.
So why is it complicated?
Just want to make sure -- at least decide
25X1A9a
as far as my own conscience that we are looking at it in the right way.
25X1A9a
Is your point that we should be looking to see
whether he should be fired for cause?
25X1A9a
44
Approved For Release 2001/03/30SE
EPP78-03092A000500040001-9
VIT
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SECRET
25X1A9a
Well, then, if his service is discontinued for
any reason, he automatically is eligible for an annuity if he has 25 years of
creditable service.
25X1A9a
It's involuntary retirement under the CIA System
and it's discontinued service under the Civil Service. It's 50/20, or any
age with 25 years of 4 service.
25X1A9a
He couldn't have discontinued service -- I mean,
he is qualified for involuntary retirement under the CIA System.
25X1A9a
Under the Act Mitself it's at any age if
he has 25 years of Government service?
25X1A9a
any problem here.
25X1A9a
If this is not a "for cause" case. I don't see
You would almost have to kick him out of the
CIA System before you could give him a discontinued service --
25X1A9a
Counsel's memo
M. I'd rather have a special meeting. I'm a
half hour late for a retirement party right now.
What additional information do we want for
part of the problem -- unable to accept an assignment in Saigon, which he was
offered. That bothers the hell out of me.
25X1A9a M e does have qualifying service if this General
25X1A9a
a special meeting?
He isn't in the jo CIA System -- that's
25X1A9a
homework.
25X1A9a
discuss it.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Apparently wants to do some 25X1A9a
And I'd like to study this some more before we
Are we making the point he doesn't meet
the six qualifications for being a participant in the CIA System?
I'm not satisfied that he is qualified, in view
45
Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : t78-03092A000500040001-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
.SECRET
of the record here, because of inconsistencies. It says he was offered an
assignment but was unable to accept it - - I don't know what that means -- and
I was under the impression we would like to have people go to Saigon, particularly
a man with these technical qualifications.
25X1A9a
There is a question on whether his service is
valid, is that it? (Reading from OGC memo dtd 18 March 1968) ". . . it is
our opinion that that period of time from 17 February 1949 until 9 October 1951
should be creditable for satisfying the 25 year minimum period for involuntary
retirement under the age of 50 but may not be utilized in computing the annuity
he is to receive, in that this was non military time for which no contribution
was made to any Federal retirement system. "
25X1A9a
annuity.
It has nothing to do with qualifying service--
He had service but it didn't entitle him to an
How come we don't have a fact sheet with how
much annuity he's going to get, and all this business? This just seemed to me
awfully short notice to bring in a case like this.
25X1A9a
I just got it two or three days ago.
t looks':: like the tougher the case, the less
time we have to consider it.
25X1A9a When do you want to schedule the meeting?
25X1A9a A week from today?
25X1A9a A week from today.
I suspect we are going to easily find qualifying service
in view of the staff agent status from October 1955 to September 1961 -- which
is six years -- followed by career agent status. He appears to have 67 months
of qualifying service. I would think that would be the governing consideration.
25X1A9a
I'd like to see what the impact of his retirement
would mean under both systems, in view of the fact that some of this service
Approved For Release 2001/03/30 P78-03092A000500040001-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
SECRET
25X1A9a
It's discontinued service under the Civil
Service ?
25X1A9a
It would have to be under Civil Service for
a discontinued service annuity.
25X1A9a That is what you call it under Civil Service -
"discontinued service"? And if he were a participant in the CIA System we
would call it involuntary retirement?
yes.
25X1A9a
At any age. Now, what are the criteria
or requirements under Civil Service?
25X1A9a
The same -- 50/20, or 25 years, any age --
25 years of service, regardless of age, or 20 years of service at age 50.
25X1A9a
that age.
25X1A9a
But the annuity is reduced considerably at
We will have those comparative annuities
at the next meeting, a week from today. And maybe we can dig up some more
information about what he was doing as a staff agent and career agent, and was
it domestic service, overseas service, etc.
25X1A9a Mike, are you going to look into this case
at all ?
Yes, I will, now.
And I'll look into it from my standpoint -- I
want to know about this Saigon assignment.
. The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p. m. . . . .
Approved For Release 2001/03/30 eI - DP78-03092A000500040001-9
SE
 Approved For Release 2001/03/30 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500040001-9
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
SENDER ILL ~-'qr:.CK CLASSIFir-ATION TOP AN TOM
UNCLASSIFIED CONFIDENTIAL SECRET
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
OFFICIAL ROUTING SLIP
TO
NAME AND ADDRESS
DATE
INITIALS
2
4
3
4
5
6
ACTION
DIRECT REPLY
PREPARE REPLY
APPROVAL
DISPATCH
RECOMMENDATION
COMMENT
FILE
RETURN
CONCURRENCE
INFORMATION
SIGNATURE
Remarks.-
Attached is the last half of the transcript
of the Retirement Board Mtg on 28 Mar.
FOLD HERE TO RETURN TO SENDER
FROM: NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE NO.
DATE
~
3 Apr68
UNCLASSIFIED CONFIDENTIAL I V
SECRET
Approved f?. lt"'RQMs6e2004/Oi3f30 : CIA;R[?, ZarQ 92AO,( Q5 40001-9