Retirement Board Minutes

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-03092A000500060002-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 32
• Document Creation Date: November 17, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 15, 2000
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: April 11, 1968
• Content Type: MIN

Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500060002-6
"CRET
. . . . The CIA RETIREMENT BOARD convened at 2:00 p. m.
on Thursday, 11 April 1968, with the following present:
Emmett D. Echols, Chairman
George C. Miller, DDS&T Alternate Member
MR. ECHOLS: We have two sets of Minutes to look at - those
of the 28th of March and the 4th of April. The 28 March Minutes are under
Tab 1, and the 4 April Minutes are a hand-out here.
I think the 4 April minutes are deficient in that
they don't record the thanks of the Board to Mr. Miller for his services on
this Board.
25X1A9a MR. ECHOLS: Any discussion of the point raised?
Well, it seems to me the Minutes should reflect
the date he left- -
25X1A9a MR. ECHOLS: Can we record that in the Minutes of today's
meeting?
How about the Chairman of the Board
writing him a letter saying that he has been instructed by the Board to express
the appreciation of the Board.
MR. ECHOLS: That was just a suggestion, wasn't it?
Just a suggestion.
MR. ECHOLS: Anything else on the Minutes of 4 April? (No
response.) The Minutes of 28 March? (No response.) Okay.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make this observation --
which I meant to do before, because I think the Board members would be interested
to know this -- as we get these requests for extensions back from the Director,
without exception they have had the indication on them that the Director has
Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : ClS f o 8f 3092A000500060002z6
 Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500060002-6
SECRET
approved this extension with the understanding that there will be no further
request for an extension.
MR. ECHOLS: I was going to bring this out. The last seven
or eight requests for extension that have gone up, every one has come back
with the remark: "Approved with the understanding extension beyond--"
whatever the date was -- "--will not be requested. If
25X1A9a Now does that notation get back to the parent
organization?
25X1A9a Yes. I'm writing two memos, one to the
individual and one to the Career Service -- but this notation is not included in
the memo to the individual.
25X1A9a I just talked to this morning and 25X1A9a
he agreed to change this. Because we feel it's improper for the Head of a
Career Service to be telling an individual what conditions the Director imposed
upon granting the extension -- because it looks like you're the dirty guy,
actually. So it ought to be incorporated, and Mr has agreed, and 25X1A9a
it will be done in the future - it will be incorporated in the basic memo from
the Director of Personnel to the individual.
25X1A9a MR. ECHOLS: That is where I think it should be--
And I'm sure Mr. Helms is ready to stand up
and be counted on this.
MR. ECHOLS: The request originates from the individual or,
alternatively, from the component with the individual's agreement--
25X1A9a In any case, the Director in making the decision
would make it on the basis of accepting or not accepting the recommendation of
the head of the component, and it becomes his action, and that is what needs to
be conveyed back- -
25X1A9a And these cases include both needs of the
service and hardship?
I'm not aware that he has made any distinction.
Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIECi092A000500060002-6
 Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500060002-6
[CRET
Without exception every extension has been marked this way--
would you look at those? -
in those six or seven cases would you look to see if it included hardship?
One I'm thinking of is
based on need for services, and it was on hers.
So that also includes the lower graded
employees as well as the higher graded employees?
It was on the approval of the three employees
who were approved so they would get their 12 years of service -- it was on
It was on an 18 and a half year case in which
it was not clear whether it was hardship or not -- but anybody with less than
20 years at 62 might be considered as having a hardship case. It was on that.
I don't think this precludes--
MR. ECHOLS: I don't think we can categorically assume
every case is going to come back this way.
No, but at least each one should be brought to
the individual's attention, as you are now doing it--
MR. MILLER: The way it's stated it looks like it's approved
until another request for extension is requested --
25X1A9a That's right -- it sounds conditional, George.
The one case we have had like this we have
said: Okay, this is the basis for approval -- now will you please sign a
resignation action with 31 December 1968 on it? And the guy said, "Thank you
very much -- I'll file this paper. " Then I went back to
and 25X1A9a
said - on the basis of this man's attitude does this negate the Director's
extension and should we proceed to retire him as of June? And he said -
no, we don't have problems until this fellow refuses to leave in December. I
said - "Well, in any case, let's compromise and let's start something in
October or November, because you can't wait until December-
Approved For Release 2000/09/08: CIA-BEL92A000500060002-6
'TO
 Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500060002-6
ORE'
MR. MILLER: If it said "will not be approved" rather than
"will not be requested", there would be no problem -- if it said the request
will not be approved. But this says, "will not be requested. "
I think the Director is saying to the D/Pers:
//The Board has recommended, and I concur in this recommendation" - and
then I think he's telling the D/Pers: Don't you recommend any more extensions
on this case to me. The man can ask for it, but it seems to me the Board -
or the D/Pers has gotten the guidance that it won't be approved - that he's not
going to approve it. Now again, I'm sure we will have a test case where-
MR. ECHOLS: Murray, are we earmarking these in some way
so that we don't inadvertently send another request to the Director?
and all comments like this I'm entering on their cards.
25X1A9a
that were second extensions-
25X1A9a
The Director has in the past approved cases
We have something like this today.
MR. ECHOLS: Going back to the Minutes of 28 March, can
I assume they are approved as submitted? Okay.
Let's go to our agenda, Category A, which is the 15 year
25X1A9a
vesting of a participant -
I move we offer an election.
Second.
. . . This motion was then passed . . .
MR. ECHOLS: Category B, two employees who meet the
basic criteria for participation -
Move we designate.
25X1A9a
Second.
. . . This motion was then passed . . .
Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIA-R[94 192A000500060002-6
 Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500060002-6
SECRET
MR. ECHOLS: Category C, two applications for voluntary
retirement - 25X1A9a
I recommend that their applications be accepted.
Second.
. . . This motion was then passed
MR. ECHOLS: We have an urgent, late submission, an
application for retirement as of 30 April of a participant in the CIA System,
He has 21 years of Federal service, 16 years of Agency 25X1A9a
service, is age 51, and he is leaving, I understand, to go into politics -- not
that that makes any difference. His application is endorsed by the Chief of
25X1A9a
his Division and by the DDP/OP. Shall we approve Mr. - application?
25X1A9a I move it be approved.
Second.
This motion was then passed . . .
MR. ECHOLS: Item 3 - - we have an unusual request here
25X1A9a by
to revert to the Civil Service Retirement System. This is
occasioned by the fact that the individual's service with Government is running
beyond the break even point and it is to the individual's advantage -- his earned
advantage, I might say -- to be retired under Civil Service. And it is
important, as you know, that he be under the Civil Service System for at least
one of the final two years preceding retirement.
John, what if something happened to this individual in
the interim period?
25X1A9a It would be tough, wouldn't it.
Why?
Well, on your question, Emmett, actually if
he desired to retire immediately he simply couldn't retire -- and on disability
or death, it wouldn't make any difference -- it's only voluntary retirement --
Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIA-R13P78-03092A000500060002-6
p
SECFill'
 Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500060002-6
SECHEI
so that's the reason I was a little flip in saying it would be tough. It's only if
he changes his mind and wants to retire, he simply can't under Civil Service.
25X1A9a Why not? with 55 and 30.
He has to be under the Civil Service System
for one year -- so for the next year he is precluded from changing his mind.
That's why it's flip, really, in saying it's tough.
MR. ECHOLS: But if after he reverts to the Civil Service
System the Agency were (to have a RIF), he is still qualified--
CIA System.
25X1A9a
circumstances--
25X1A9a I
Oh yes.
I wonder why he initially elected to be in the
Maybe he simply didn't know the facts and
He was one of the initial group in 1965,
so up until November 1967 it would have been to his advantage--
It was to his advantage to be in the CIA System
in the event of death or something.
I don't think there's any question -- he should get
whatever is to his advantage.
MR. ECHOLS: Okay, that is approved.
Item 4, request for extension under the CIA Retirement
System - whom you all know, I think. The case is made 25X1A9a
primarily on a need for services basis to do a specialized task. They do bring
in a subsidiary reason, that he is just returning from overseas where he has
been for many years and they feel that a period of adjustment would be worthwhile --
but that is not the basic reason.
Why isn't this being done under contract?
MR. ECHOLS: Because he is going into what is essentially a
staff job, and we have an Agency policy, published in which says 25X1A
the contract people will not--
Approved For Release 2000/09/08: CIA-SE11L ~092A000500060002-6
 Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500060002-6
8ECRL
All right, that's enough for me.
MR. ECHOLS: -- that contract people will not go into staff-
type jobs. And this same policy paper requires persons not be hired for
these jobs above the top of a GS-15-- No, I beg your pardon, not in this case.
Supergrade positions are recognized as being command positions. But if he
were to be hired under contract you cannot pay the man more than the top of
a GS-15. He is being changed or shifted to another job with a lower
classification, which in this case has been pegged at GS-15.
25X1A9a
And he does not get salary retention rights
for three years?
MR. ECHOLS: No.
25X1A9a Why not?
Salary retention is not automatic.
If you're downgraded through no fault of
your own, I thought it was automatic.
I thought it was, under the law, that if
you're downgraded the law permits you to keep it for two years.
25X1A9a -
well as the Agency.
25X1A9a
This is a combination -- it's the individual as
Well, I may not be strictly within my role,
but this case gives me a great deal of trouble.
I was about to chime in with that, too.
The Director can extend whenever he needs it
in the public interest. That is the only statutory guidance we have. That is
broad language, but, obviously, public interest means it's in the interest of the
Agency that somehow we need this fellow longer than age 60. And I say
"fellow", but I know Bill well. But the very idea of the Director saying it's
in the public interest and at the same time demoting the guy just seems inconsistent
on the face of it. Now, maybe I'm wrong -- and I can visualize some circumstances
where it is in the public interest to retain a person. And aside from these
Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : Cl 8--(3092A000500060002-6
 Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500060002-6
SECRET
rationalized legal reasons, I just have a great deal of pain as an officer of CIA
to penalize a guy in his last year of a career for a measly three thousand bucks.
I have said my piece. And I may have stepped over the line--
MR. ECHOLS: You have said your piece excepting that this
policy was hacked out with the Deputy Directors, the Executive Director, and
the Director.
25X1A9a To reduce a guy when you extend him? I
didn't know of any such policy.
MR. ECHOLS: I'll read from Employment After 25X1A
Retirement Age. (Reading)
" 3. a. Employees Extended in Service
The classification of the position to be occupied shall
dictate the grade of an employee extended in service
beyond retirement age. If the grade of the position is
lower than that of the employee, his grade will be
adjusted in accordance with the provisions of the
Classification Act of 1949, as amended.
b. Contractual Employment of Annuitants
(1) The classification of staff positions, particularly
in the upper grades, is preponderantly based upon
managerial, organizational, and supervisory responsi-
bilities. Since contract employees may not perform
staff-type duties, these elements of position classi-
fication will not normally be present to an equivalent
degree in the contractual position, although the latter
may have its own similar responsibilities. Accordingly,
the gross contractual salary of a reemployed annuitant
will normally be lower than that held as a staff employee.
(2) The grade of the job to be performed by a reemployed
annuitant will be established by normal position classi-
fication procedures. If the grade is in excess of GS-15,
the approval of the Director of Central Intelligence is
required. The salary to be paid for any grade so
established shall be negotiated with due regard to the
special qualifications of the individual relative to the
requirements of the assignment and the effort required
of the individual. "
Now, I would say here, this is the way it would almost
have to be looked at, it seems to me. This man is bumping up against
mandatory retirement age -- by law he is to be retired -- correct? And the
Director is simultaneously recalling him.
Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : Cl it
V 3092A000500060002-6
 Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500060002-6
SECREE
25X1A9a He isn't recalling him -- he's extending him.
That is what the record says.
MR. ECHOLS: Does the law make any provision for extension?
Yes, it does. I just read the law--
In the public interest, at the will of the
It seems to me we have already crossed
the bridge as to whether he should be extended at all. I would like to suggest
it may not be in the public interest. The Director has to determine this. But
as far as this Board is concerned we continue to hear people that consider once
you get into the upper grades extension is no problem - you're either a
consultant, or you're continued under contract, or you're extended, and that
that only happens in the upper grades, but as far as the GS-11 who has sweated
it out, these little plums don't fall to him. I think this kind of thing tends to
undermine the philosophy of the System.
I agree with you 100%.
25X1A9a
That's the other side of the coin, Alan.
This thing does more to hurt us in trying to
implement not only the CIA program but forcing people out under the age 60
Civil Service retirement -- then turning right around and giving an extension.
I for one could not vote for it.
The only argument I would make for it is
it's a brand new function that has just been established and they're looking for
the oldest and most experienced guys we've got, and they pinpointed these four
or five individuals to start this office, and I understand they're going to be
around for just about a year to put it on its feet, and then there may be fewer,
in number, and the grades might be different.
But with all the overseas returnees, this
25X1A9a These people were very carefully selected.
Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : ClSOM3092A000500060002-6
 Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500060002-6
SECRET
What do you mean "these people"?
There are four or five that comprise this
new office that has just been established.
MR. ECHOLS: Have the five people been identified?
25X1A9a
Yes. This is the 5th.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
I think this would be fine if they could get 25X1A9a
fellows 58 or 59. But I feel very strongly, as a member of this Board--
If the Director can examine all these facts and find is the only 25X1A9a
one that can do this job - well then fine.
Apropos of what Alan said, I think conversely
we shouldn't discriminate against somebody because he's a GS-15. I assume
you wouldn't object as much if this man were a GS-13?
I would object the same way. I'm only
saying the feeling among the employees in the Agency is - well, this retire-
ment policy only applies to the peons, it doesn't apply to the supergrades.
25X1A9a Yes, I can vouch for this feeling, too. I have
people stop me in the hall, because they know I'm on the Board, and sound off
on this -- this happens two or three times a month.
We say we need youth and vigor and have to
bring these young people along, and if we don't live up to it in our actions--
25X1A9a
25X1A9a I can only point again to the peculiarity of
this particular job and the qualifications they want. was pinpointed
for this a good while ago. He is the 5th man, and the last man, to comprise
this group. Here is a man who has had operational experience, reporting
experience, administrative experience, communications experience -- you name
it, he has been in it -- he's been in every type of field possible.
30 year old.
And now you want him to identify with a
10
Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : Cl4-5 lc7R. T092A000500060002-6
 Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500060002-6
SECRET
I don't understand.
25X1A9a
I think the difference between a man 60 years
old and a man 30 years old makes counseling a little difficult -- I think the
age gap is too wide.
We're talking experience here, and guidance--
I agree would be very well qualified, 25X1A9a
purpose of this office--
He has been in every field, and that's the
But you are also saying the Agency needs this
type of experience -- but we're saying when they hit 60 they have nothing to
contribute any more.
That's for the operational -- we want the
younger people for operational purposes, and that sort of thing.
anybody else?
Would he be blocking the career progress of
25X1A9a This is a brand new function -- just started.
He blocks a supergrade slot.
But God knows the DD/ P is going to be returning
a lot of people from overseas on this BALPA thing, and surely there must be
someone who would fit into this slot.
25X1A9a I don't know the experience of the people
coming back -- they haven't been identified to me.
The object of setting up this staff was to have
men with the greatest possible prestige. I can't say how many of the returnees
might be very able men - - we haven't gotten a complete list -- but those I know
who are coming back, there are none that can be compared to
I'm thinking of a returnee to go into a job
which would free somebody else, and as a result of the shifting you would come
up with a man qualified for this job. The fact is that you're going to be under
Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIj8i3092A000500060002-6
 Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500060002-6
pressure to get down to ceiling over a period of time. It just doesn't seem like
the right time-- You can't really say there is nobody standing in line for this.
I wonder if it would do any good to postpone
the discussion on this until our next meeting so we can bring in here the individual
who has been bird dogging for somebody for this job.
25X1A9a I don't think that's the point. Another thing,
if the Director wants to extend this fellow because he has particular qualifications
and the DDP thinks that only this man can fulfill this job, that's up to the Director.
But from the point of view of this Board and the administration of the retirement
policy of this Agency, it would be well to retire him -- from that point alone.
I could buy that if this were not a brand new
function that has just been established--
don't think it has anything to do with the function.
25X1A9a I do.
MR. ECHOLS: Well, it certainly is not the intention of the
Agency to deny itself the use of the competence it must have -- but I think we
question that the DD/P doesn't have plenty of equivalent talent to handle this new
job being undertaken.
25X1A9a By the same token, I don't think it's the function
of this Board or within its competence to decide the operational worth of an
individual in a given job. It is for that reason I feel we should speak on the
general principle that it's not good for the System to extend anyone, including
this fellow. Somebody else will have to decide if it's such an exceptional case
they're willing to extend him even though it has adverse repercussions as far as
the administration of the system generally.
I don't agree with you, Paul. Sure, the
principle is there, but if what you say is true, there is no room for exceptions.
What the DD/P has proposed comes under the room for exceptions -- so you're
debating the exception--
25X1A9a That's not the point at all. The point is
Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CILE~I3092A000500060002-6
 Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500060002-6
SECRET
that if this was a peculiar job for which nobody else was qualified, there would
be no question. That's the exception.
25X1A9a But that's what the DDP have said -- they have
proposed him as exceptionally qualified for this job.
This is a personnel management job. It isn't
as if or any of the people selected for this job have had an opportunity
to particularly distinguish themselves in that field. They may all do good jobs
by virtue of their background. But that's a little different from saying :
We have a project that requires a . . . . background, and many years of
living there, and a knowledge of Urdu, or something of this sort -- and here's a
fellow that has it. This personnel management is just a commonsense,
good judgment type of job -- and it's pretty hard, it seems to me, to say only
could do it.
I heard what Mike and Vern said -- they looked
25X1A9a at their problem and at this function, and was very early identified
as an ideal candidate for it. That doesn't necessarily mean there aren't any
others -- that's too exclusive -- but they have presented a case for exception
to the general rule.
25X1A9a And at least some of us don't find it qualified
as an exception.
That's why I was taking issue with Paul, because
he was saying there shouldn't be exceptions--
25X1A9a I didn't say that. I said in a case like this.
Obviously a hardship case is an exception -- or operational necessity. This
at best is operational desirability, and I think that is even open to argument.
But I don't think there's a case for operational necessity here, or like the case
of a specialized linguist or something like that.
It is my understanding that the DD/P gave
attention to the creation of this little office as a result of a desire on the part
of the Director that we have a counseling service set up. I think he wanted it
13
Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIAIt"tr92A000500060002-6
 Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500060002-6
SECRET
originally for the Agency, but it was decided that perhaps it could be better done
within each component to have this senior counseling service. The DDP came
right back and had the DDP/OP think in terms of the best type of counseling
service that could be set up to accomplish the wishes of the Director, and they
settled on these five people, three of whom were still in the field at the time
they settled on these people -- experienced, old hands - this was their last tour
they were going to be doing in the Agency, and they looked for the broadest type
of experience in all types of fields - administration, reporting, operations,
supervision - anything you could think of - in order to have very qualified people
to do this job. And they pinpointed all of these people. One of them - Bill
_ - has not yet come back -- two others were in the field. It's my 25X1A9a
understanding that they were specially picked for this job.
25X1A9a All the Director has to do is say: I agree with
Tom -- the Board doesn't know what it's talking about, and I overrule them.
What you (indicating Mr said isn't an argument for us to go along-25X1A9a
25X1A9a MR.
I'm not arguing you ought to go along with it,
I'm just indicating the facts that are peculiar to this particular case.
D
lk
o you want to ta
i
What kind of counseling?
Yes. The Clandesti
particularly criticized for deficiencies in personnel management. This is
basically a step toward centralized management of Clandestine Services personnel.
For that reason we need men with considerable prestige
... (inaudible)...
to deal with Division Chiefs. They have just gotten under way -- they have
mapped out a program. The first thing they're tackling is the CT's -- they're
interviewing all of the current class of CT's, and they will monitor the careers
of these men until they reach the level of a GS-l2, at which time the direction of
their careers should be pretty well set out how they're going . .
Then they're going to work ... (inaudible)... mid-career ...
But there are only four of them at the present time. This is a very time-consuming
14
ne Services have been
Approved For Release 2000/09/08: CIA- R- 92A000500060002-6
 Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500060002-6
77, ,
SECR
thing. They do a lot of interviewing - calling people in, consulting with the
Divisions and various components. They have to be just absolutely top quality
individuals, if it's going to work at all. is one of these rare 25X1A9a
individuals that we think can help get the thing going. A whole new look at it
will be taken in July of 1969, when most of the present encumbents will be
(retiring), and see if we've got it going and if it's worth continuing. In many
ways it's something of an experiment.
MR. ECHOLS: It seems to me the Board has to do one of two
things. Either we accept the DDP's evaluation of the services of these
individuals, or, judging from what I've heard, you would have to say to the
Director: The Board forwards without recommendation the request of the DDP
25X1A9a for the extension in service of
I don't think they're the only alternatives.
to be performed by the DD/P Personnel Management Staff could be done equally
well by other available officers who have not yet attained mandatory retirement
age.
I don't think we have to say that at all. We
can accept what the DD/ P says, but we can also say that if the Board has a role
in attempting to administer the Agency's retirement policy we feel that it would
have an adverse affect on the Agency as a whole.
MR. ECHOLS: I was going to have a third provision here:
The Board regrets the apparent necessity to retain in service employees who
have attained mandatory retirement age under the CIA Retirement System in the
belief that so doing undermines Agency morale and acceptance of the general
age 60 retirement policy.
I think that is too broad.
25X1A9a
I don't know exactly how it should be worded,
but I think that is the thrust of my concern.
S
Approved For Release 2000/09/08: CIA-
3092A000500060002-6
 Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500060002-6
SECRET
GS-12 and above specialists in some categories--
25X1A9a
25X1A MR. ECHOLS: Doesn't that undermine Agency policy?
Nobody is seeking his job -- he is blocking
nobody -- he is needed -- he is almost irreplaceable. I don't think that is
undermining Agency policy.
MR. ECHOLS: I think it does indeed -- even more, perhaps,
because here's a man who really says - "I won't" --
I don't mean a guy who says "I won't". But
if we have a rare combination of a scientist/ linguist who is willing to work as
a linguist, that can't be replaced, reaches age 60 - - and we have extended one
or two such cases -- I don't see that type as undermining Agency policy.
MR. ECHOLS: I think if the individual is recognized by his
colleagues as having unique skills, there's no question, but if he is not
recognized as a specialist having unique skills then it's bound to incur
resentment.
25X1A9a When you're dealing with the CIA Retirement
System it's a very different ball game. I grant you there are provisions there
for exceptions, but we argued for early retirement and they gave us early
retirement, and certainly the feeling was that by and large there would be very
few exceptions. If, having said what we did about the Agency in terms of
youth and vigor --
25X1A9a
Mike, this is an administrative requirement
as opposed to an operational requirement?
25X1A9a That is what it ends up in, yes.
As a personnel management concept I think
it's very sound -- I think they do need good people, with prestige, to make it
work. I'm only saying I cannot really accept the fact that
is the 25X1A9a
only one who can do this - or necessarily the best one - to the extent that he
should be extended.
25X1A9a I don't know if anybody would be
16
Approved For Release 2000/09/08: CIeI '13092A000500060002-6
RL.
 Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500060002-6
SECRET
available even if we were to shift bodies around.
But I don't think we need to go through all of this. It
seems to me we have stated the position of the DD/P, and it seems to me the
public
issue is - the DD/P feels that is in the/interest, and if the majority of the
Board feel that it is not in the public interest then that should be your vote --
and if we split four to two, or three to one, or six to nothing, that should be
your vote -- if the majority of the Board does not feel that it's in the public
interest to extend. But I don't think that we need to go into all of this other
business, and set precedents on other types of cases - the type of GS-11 or
GS-9 that MrM was talking about -- I think those ought to be considered as 25X1A9a
individual cases.
25X1A9a In the transmittal letter from us to the Director
it would seem to me that something has to be said-- I mean, I certainly agree
with saying the Board considered it and recommends against it, but then I think
we have to add something -- and I like Alan's point that the affect on the overall
implementation of this program would be a very negative one -- and obviously
those voting against extension were not convinced that there was no other
suitable candidate. Now I'm not trying to write it, but I don't think you can
send this thing up in a vacuum--
25X1A9a
But I think Mike has a point here on the voting.
What Mike was addressing was the terms of the statute. Yours (indicating
were supporting reasons why you say it is not in the public interest.
But the real issue is - if DDP says it's in the public interest to extend and the
Board votes against it, the Board votes "it's not in the public interest for these
reasons". But I think Mike is absolutely correct in identifying the issue here.
Now you can support that vote with reasons, as certainly Mike has done on
behalf of the DDP in favor of the extension.
But "in the public interest" is a pretty broad
But that is the statutory term. That is the
17
Approved For Release 2000/09/08: C1M~7E13092A000500060002-6
 Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500060002-6
SECRET
25X1A9a Even the DDP hasn't said they think it's in
the public interest.
25X1A9a
contrary to the public interest.
25X1A9a
He wouldn't have recommended it otherwise.
They wouldn't have recommended it if it was
Yes, it is so stated. The last sentence of
memo says: This action will meet the needs of the Clandestine 25X1A9a
Services and is considered in the public interest.
So they have stated it.
25X1A9a I'm sorry -- I apologize. They have stated it.
Emmett, I'd like to say that looking at it
from my point of view I'm kind of torn -- because it seems to me the DD/P are
in a position to know whether the man will do the job that they want done, and yet
I agree with the other thing - that when we do let people, particularly those in
the high grades, go ahead without just a very, very clear-cut reason, that it is
detrimental -- and I, too, hear some comments that all you have to be is up at
the top and you can keep on working as long as you want to -- and from that point
of view I think it's bad -- but I also feel that the DDP IS in a position and I am
NOT in a position to say whether this man is the man to do the job that they want
25X1A9a You're charged with making that judgment,
though, based on what they have presented.
MR. MILLER: I'll vote when the time comes. But all I'm
saying, there are two points of view.
It's a dilemma.
MR. MILLER: I do believe it's detrimental -- I do believe, on
the other hand, that at least they know better than I do whether this man will
fit the job they have.
25X1A9a That's what I said -- I thought we could accept
the DD/ P position, but in the interest of the attitude of the entire Agency toward
Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIP ~I3092A000500060002-6
 Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500060002-6
'SECRET
its own retirement policy, I would have to recommend against it.
25X1A9a And I guess this would put the D/Pers on the
spot, because all he does is say - this is what the Board recommended, and
.I concur - or I don't concur - in the Board's recommendation.
MR. ECHOLS: We could say something like this: The Board
believes that each extension in service beyond mandatory retirement age is
detrimental to general administration of Agency retirement policies. The
Board does not feel competent to evaluate the merits of this specific case.
But the Board is charged with doing it. I think
that is what the Board is charged with doing -- we are charged with weighing
these issues.
25X1A9a How about first having a vote by the Board --
because if a majority of the Board would favor extension-- Or we could still
make this notation on it. But I think the view of the majority of the Board
ought to be expressed on this.
MR. ECHOLS: How many would endorse the DD/P
recommendation? indicated they 25X1A9a
would endorse the DD/P recommendation.)
How many would not endorse the DD/P recommendation?
(Messrs. Echols, indicated they would not 25X1A9a
endorse the DD/ P recommendation.)
All right, that's five members . That could be reported
to the Director as essentially a negative vote, in these proportions, and any
explanation desired.
of the Board did not uphold the DD/ P position. They did not uphold the DD/ P
15X1A9a recommendation that be extended. I find no fault with the DD/ P
position -- I accept it -- but I don't accept the recommendation that this man be
extended, because I feel it has a detrimental affect on the Agency at large.
MR. ECHOLS: Well, there's one problem there -- and I guess
19
Approved For Release 2000/09/08: ClISE 1 092A000500060002-6
 Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500060002-6
SECRET
we really ought to take more time writing the explanation -- there's an
implication there that you don't care how unique the requirement is for a fellow,
the overwhelming thing is that it's detrimental to the system--
25X1A9a
If what I said implied that, it was not
We agree with everything you say, Mike, but we
still think it would be so detrimental-- Maybe there's just a fine line between
us, Mike, but I'm sort of saying -- and I've thought this one out to the best of
my ability -- it seems to me the requirement for the extension of Mr.
for this purpose is not sufficiently unique to require an extension which would be
to the detriment- And I can see where the very next one would come along
and I would say, "Gee, that guy is really different- So I'm trying to make a
distinction in the nature of the requirement--
That is why I suggested if we could postpone
this until our next meeting and have the person who made the selection of these
people come before this Board and explain this, maybe he could explain that
away- -
He is certainly not going to explain away my
misgivings about the impact on the Agency--
25X1A9a
And I think, Mike, you and Vern gave a good
statement -- and I kind of agree, but not enough.
MR. ECHOLS: Mike, would you care to make a motion that
we table this _ case to hear at the next meeting an amplification of why 25X1A9a
the DD/P considered this--
25X1A9a Yes, I move that we table this and that we
have someone here from the DD/P to explain why these particular individuals
were selected for this particular function.
Only one individual -- we're not talking about
20
Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : Cl R IIP- UET
 Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500060002-6
SECRET
And I would say if they're going to do that, they should
do a better job -- they should satisfy me - I'd like to see someone come up
with a list of other candidates - or even has it been considered that there are
others.
25X1A9a But isn't that what you would ask the person
who made this selection?
MR. MILLER: I second Mike's motion -- because I am in a
quandary and I would like to hear a little bit more about their reasons -- because
I could go either way here.
. . . This motion was then passed
MR. ECHOLS: I think in this case -- if I may throw this in the
hopper here -- I think this was determined upon a long time ago -- I believe it
probably has already been submitted to the Director and he gave some assurance
he may approve it.
That's fine, but I think this is a very good
vehicle to alert the Director to this potential problem--
This case was tabled in November 1967.
25X1A9a
hink it would be useful -- I don't know if it's
possible to do so but I think it might be useful to really know whether or not
higher grade people are favored when it comes to retention is service either
through extension or in some other manner. I know that we have had a great
many extensions of lower graded people. I would like to be able to say whether
or not the statistics, the experience shows that higher graded people do or have
had a better chance at extension, or whether this is really not so, because if it's
really not so, then when these people come to you and make this claim you can
refute it.
25X1A9a If you're talking about the CIA System, I don't
believe there have been any extensions other than--
25X1A9a Mostly the middle grades - 12's, 13's, 14's -
21
Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : Cl IN KR 3092A000500060002-6
 Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500060002-6
SEGfit
in the CIA System.
25X1A9a
I think the point is that the spotlight focuses on
the higher grades because we cry that we have a major problem of the blockage
of higher grade positions and that this is keeping young people from moving along.
Now, we're giving the lie to this each time we extend someone who is--
25X1A9a
This has been the subject of an article in
Fortune magazine, and they point out that in business quite often you will find
the bookkeepers and people like that staying on until age 70 because they've been
there for years and know their work, but that if you're going to have an
effective retirement policy it's the President and the Vice Presidents that have
to leave at 65 -- and they're very strict about it.
I think you're going to find such an examination
is going to reveal very few supergrades have been extended. I think if there
has been any ill feeling about this it has arisen out of those called back on
contracts after retirement.
25X1A9a I think so, too, Mike, but how do you get that
story across? I mean, they say they see the same old faces walking up and
down the corridors and in the cafeterias -- and they don't know what the
situation really is.
MR. ECHOLS: Well, the = case is tabled, then. 25X1A9a
Let's take up the next case - Tab 5 - request for extension
under the Civil Service System -
25X1A9a
I move that
extended for a year, as requested.
MR. M Second.
. . . This motion was then passed . . .
be 25X1A9a
25X1A9a MR. ECHOLS: Tab 6, request for extension -
MR. He makes the assertion in paragraph 5 of
his memo that he has been loo ing for a post retirement career and that the
Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : Cl t RV$ .3092A000500060002-6
 Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500060002-6
SECRET
results of his efforts have been communicated to the Agency. Do you know,
what efforts he has put forth? 25X1A9a
25X1A9a If I could interrupt -- in his last letter to this
Board these were enumerated - the people he contacted, the executives, the
companies -- and his last request for an extension is part of the record before
this Board.
I was just wondering what he has done in the
past year, and whether under the new arrangement of outplacement maybe better
service might have been afforded him--
Let's face it, this guy has nothing special to
offer anybody. This is going to be typical of several cases in DCS, where
they become good collectors but they have nothing special to offer. Their
contacts themselves are getting rid of people his age. And moreover, we have
difficulty persuading people to move to the office because of the 25X1A6a
expense of living there. He is already living there, so they would like to hold
onto him for that reason. But the plain fact is that he just started his family
late and he's got a genuine case of hardship.
But has anything been submitted to the
MR. ECHOLS: We have one report dated 13 October 1967 in
which he enumerates his discussions with identified individuals and companies,
and says that none of them have been fruitful. (Reading) "Either by reason
of company policy as to age, or lack of suitable qualifications for the job
openings where age is not a factor, or because of long identification with the
Agency, the persons with whom I talked could offer no promise of employment
in any category. " I replied to this letter in November-
25X1A9a
He was here either in December or January
meeting with the outplacement people. Just a month or so ago he had several
meetings with the outplacement people and I had several meetings with him to
really see whether we could do anything on this.
Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : Cl
23
GR> C i092A000500060002-6
 Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500060002-6
ECRE1
MR. ECHOLS: On 9 February 1968 he sent in a second memo,
and that memo is part of the record here.
When his case came up before I pointed out to
him his situation was going to get worse rather than better and that he would
not improve his situation by hanging on -- I pointed this out to him -- and as a
consequence I think he made as good an effort as any that I know about to try to
get something.
25X1A9a When did we first adopt the policy of
retirement at age 62?
In ' 59 or 160. In '59 we decided on it but
the Regulation didn't come out until '60 -- we started to implement it in '60.
What did we have before that?
Nothing.
We have had a general understanding in the
DD/I that if people wanted to get extensions beyond 65 there had to be very
compelling reasons--
25X1A9a There was no Agency policy, though.
MR. ECHOLS: His annuity, reduced for survivorship benefits,
in July 1968 will be $9, 105. 00. In July 1969 it will be about $800. 00 more.
25X1A9a $9, 964. 00 per annum.
So when the chips are down he would have to
earn $10, 000 in some employment in order to maintain his present standard
of living.
25X1A9a What bothers me -- again, keeping BALPA in
mind, we see it as an Agency problem for the next couple of years -- I just
wonder if there might not be people otherwise walking the halls or in make work
who, if solicited, wouldn't say - "I'd like to have that
job" - and 25X1A6a
with some training could possibly do it. Maybe he's not really blocking
anybody's career progression right now, but we're going to have a problem
placing other people, and you do wonder if somebody, somewhere, wouldn't
24
Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIAff CVEW092A000500060002-6
 Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500060002-6
S ECRET
like to go up to and take that job.
MR. ECHOLS: There will be somewhere between
people returned from overseas under BALPA, and absorbing all of these people
is going to be a most difficult task.
25X1A9a Could I ask a technical question? When
we say reduced for survivorship benefits -- somebody told me once that there
was a minimum reduction that you could take -- is that what these are figured
These are always figured on the maximum --
which most people take.
Which 95% of the people take.
Because if you take the minimum--
The minimum is nothing. You just don't even
take a reduced annuity - - you take your full annuity, and when you die that's
I think it was who figured 25X1A9a
actuarially you got the very best deal financially by taking the minimum annuity -
the $3600 - -
25X1A9a But 55% of $3600 for your wife isn't very
much.
25X1A9a Well, I just wondered how you computed it.
In other words, she is to get 55% of your
basic annuity - - then you take 2% of $3600, and then 10% of the balance.
25X1A9a
I would point out that Mr.= doesn't 25X1A9a
lightly put his name on an extension beyond 62 -- I mean, as opposed to the
age 60 policy - - he is fully in agreement with retiring people at 62. And he
25X1A6a himself has been in and has been part of the discussions about this
case. So this wasn't an automatic approval on his part -- for whatever that's
worth.
25X1A9a Between now and July 1969 would still be well
Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : Cl) 3092A000500060002-6
 Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500060002-6
lEC ET
within the time frame before we have to look for spots in which to place people.
I'd like to make a motion that we go ahead with this
extension and then not wait for the Director to do it but put on it ourselves
that this will be the last request for extension that we will entertain.
25X1A9a
It's hard for me to believe this man can't
find a teaching position, with his background and languages. I don't know
whether he has a graduate degree or not, but he attended graduate school for
two years - international law and foreign relations.
I'm afraid each year that passes it becomes
tougher for him, too -- because people are not that interested --
ilitary ?
status in the m?
annuity ?
Do we know whether he kept up his reserve
ou mean whether he is entitled to a military
Yes.
don't know.
MR. ECHOLS: We never got from this man - did we? - a
MR. Yes we did. This fellow has come across and
has been willing to play ball on any suggestion by the DD/I. And he is, I think,
most embarrassed to have to ask for this, because he's the kind of guy that
would like to comply with whatever the Agency wants, regardless of what his
own views are -- and he's not thinking of himself but of his family. I suppose
his attitude is such that one reason I'd like to see us go along, as much as
anything, is because his attitude is so good -- plus the fact that I've talked to
both the head of the and the head of DCS in terms of difficulties 25X1A6a
of getting people at this level to serve and set up housekeeping
Is this the second, third, or fourth--
I believe this is the second extension we are
requesting now.
Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIA01;p092A000500060002-6
 Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500060002-6
SECRET
that the CS has found it very difficult -- two years ago I know the CS was looking
for people and we found it very difficult to find people who would go to 25X1A6a
because of the high cost of living and the move that would have to take place.
I don't know how it is now, but I know it was bad back then.
I simply wanted to satisfy myself that in all good faith
he has made efforts over the course of the past year, and you have satisfied me
to that effect.
MR. ECHOLS: Well, we don't know, really, Mike. A man
can say he contacted 500 people -- but whether he really made any effort,
used his own imagination, and so on, we don't know.
Some of these older people that are getting to the
point of retiring and are turning in an indifferent performance, we wouldn't go
to bat for. This fellow is doing a real fine job today.
people here have done anything --
25X1A9a
The placement people? He has talked to them --
as recently as two months ago he was here and spent a couple of days with them.
I haven't had any report since then -- except when he left here he said - well,
it didn't look too promising.
25X1A9a I move that we offer this gentleman an
extension for another year and add a proviso to the effect that he continue his
own efforts to try to find additional work on the outside, or another career,
and continue to work with the outplacement office during that period.
25X1A9a
Mike, don't you think he might accelerate that
effort if we let him know in more positive terms that this extension was the
last one?
25X1A9a M And I'd like to have assure 25X1A9a
Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIA
C E f092A000500060002-6
ADJm
 Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500060002-6
S [CREI
me that all this conversation led to some positive action.
25X1A9a is not in the business of finding jobs
for people.
to help- -
don't like to put it that strongly. He's there
I'd like to see this because, as I say, I
'1 A9a
find it difficult to believe that a man with his qualifications can't get seven,
eight, or ten thousand dollars a year teaching.
MR. ECHOLS: Or employment even in a law firm.
I don't know -- to get a teaching job at his age
is rough.
"Contact specialist" means going out and
meeting people and, in effect, trying to persuade people to give up something.
I don't know if that would be in the sales field or not, but I would think his
experience might be helpful to qualify him for sales work.
I don't know why but when you read about
company attitudes when you're talking about somebody over 62 - my God,
they almost have to find a job like these little old ladies at turnstiles! One
guy took a job as a night watchman.
25X1A9a applied to General Foods, the
Rockefeller Foundation, Bulova Watch Company. I don't know for what
position.
MR. ECHOLS: Does anybody second Mike's motion?
Second.
Did it incorporate the proviso--
MR. ECHOLS: The proviso that he be instructed to continue
his own search for employment?
No -- I mean going one step further and that
he be put on notice this will be the last extension.
Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CI JSI 1 .gE 73092A000500060002-6
 Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500060002-6
I don't know, I don't go along with that, as a
Board member -- but the Board might want to do that. I think if you have a
hardship case you can't judge in advance what the situation will be. I think
it's all right for Red White to tell the Director something like that, but I don't
like to see the Board do that in any case.
But it's going to come back that way--
All right, but let's not be parties to it--
25X1A9a
But I feel like being a party to it.
I agree with your position, Harry.
I would assume most people being asked to leave
at 60 are very much in the same position he is -- they would all like to make
some more money--
25X1A9a But they don't have their oldest child just
entering college-
25X1A9a I was talking about job seeking. In my
opinion the main reason is managerial -- that you're having a rough time
replacing him.
25X1A9a I seriously doubt the wisdom of asking our DCS
people to go around to their clients from whom they're seeking information to
try to make a deal about a job. We had one case recently that is beginning to
backfire already. It's bad business. In fact, I think they ought to be
discouraged --
25X1A9a I think they will go on forever asking for
extensions. Because there are other people that could write the same story --
they don't want to leave. But on top of that, it's a hard job for you to fill.
. . . Mr. George Miller left the meeting
at this point . . .
MR. ECHOLS: I don't know yet if we have a second to the
29
Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CI 8.-03092A000500060002-6
 Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500060002-6
It's Mike's motion.
It didn't have the rider on it when I seconded it.
It was our experience on the old Board,
you will remember, Paul, that where the individual on the record did not appear
to have been in good faith making attempts to find work on the outside, that the
old Board simply said this is the last extension, but where the person had made
definite, bona fide efforts to try to find something on the outside they didn't
want to preclude his coming back at the end of that period and asking for another
extension if the situation were one of true hardship, and so they simply said:
We will grant you an extension for another year provided you continue to try to
find work on the outside. And that is the reason I didn't add the additional
proviso in this case -- because I have accepted the allegations and statements
made by Paul that he has tried hard to find additional work on the outside.
25X1A9a Actually, I think that proviso wouldn't preclude
anybody coming back -- because they will say - "I know this is what you said,
but that was a year ago -- this is the situation today -- I'm going to ask you to
reconsider. " If anybody comes to me, I am going to so advise them - that
if they're in bad shape not to let the Director's statement govern their request.
It may govern the eventual outcome of the case but it shouldn't govern his
submitting his request if there is a genuine case of hardship.
MR. ECHOLS: Mike, are you riding with your original motion?
25X1A9a
Yes.
MR. ECHOLS: Is there a second?
25X1A
. . . This motion was then passed . . .
MR. ECHOLS: What bothers you, Alan -- I see you frowning --
next eight or nine years.
I don't know how it's going to improve in the
ye r
I don't either but there will be one less qpw of misery.
30
Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : Cl MET P7 3092A000500060002-6
 Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500060002-6
SE ,ficT
MR. ECHOLS: We have one other piece of business. You
recall we wanted to somehow standardize and get the word to the Career
Services as to what is desired in the way of the timing of extensions. I
drafted up this hand out. George Miller suggested paragraph 4 should be
changed -- at the very least - and maybe you have other suggestions --
that this paragraph should say: The Retirement Board recognizes exceptional
circumstances may require earlier or later submissions but requests that
these circumstances be explained so they can be included in the Board's
deliberations and recommendations to the Director. Aside from including
this, do you think this memorandum is okay?
I think it's fine.
MR. ECHOLS: Okay. I'll have this retyped and send it
down to you, Murray, and you can send it out to the Career Services.
Any other business?
25X1A9a
there any action you want me
25X1A9a
Is somebody going to ask
to take on the = ase?
I'll ask him.
Is 25X1A9a
MR. ECHOLS: Could I give you one little report? Remember
at the last meeting the Board felt uneasy about a disability retirement case
in which there was no assurance that the case had been reviewed by the Agency
in terms of possible BEC application. I have been assured that this specific
point has been considered in this case - the case - was
considered, was thoroughly discussed, and in no one's opinion was there any
conceivable BEC attachment. I have also been promised that in all future
disability cases a straightforward statement will be made that this has been
done.
Very good.
MR. ECHOLS: The point was made, however -- I think with
great validity -- that the function of the Board is to determine whether or not
the individual qualifies for disability retirement. Our concern appears to be
31
Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CI ; j- 3092A000500060002-6
 Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500060002-6
SEMI
in the best interests of the Agency to know we haven't helped a mistake to be
made -- so on that basis they're happy to go along with this. But do you have
any doubts, John, as to whether the Board has any responsibility, as such,
for examining disability cases to see if there is BEC--
Oh absolutely not! I have no intention of
interfering in command channels. All I want to be assured is that it has been
looked at. If Ben says it doesn't qualify, that's sufficient. But we have found
a case or two where it hadn't been looked at- -
MR. ECHOLS: Ben said he would be perfectly happy to explain
to the Board the issues involved.
No, no -- I don't think so.
MR. ECHOLS: Okay.
. .
. . . The Board adjourned at 3:25 p.m.
Approved For Release 2000/09/08 : CIIEET3092A000500060002-6