(UNTITLED)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 30
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 22, 2001
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: August 1, 1968
• Content Type: MIN

Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
. . . . The 94th meeting of the CIA RETIREMENT BOARD convened
at 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, 1 August 1968, with the following present:
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
airman
DDP Member
Member
T Member
lternate DDS Member
e, Legal Adviser
Executive Secretary
Recording Secretary
First, there was one little thing I did want to tell
you. We went to great lengths to extend quite a few people to give them this
advantage of the new pay raise in their lump sum payment of annual leave.
There has been a Comptroller General decision saying they would have been
entitled to it in any event. In other words, if they left on 30 June and
they had two months lump sum annual leave that is considered pay for the
month of July and yugust and they were entitled to get it at the higher rate.
I point this out so we won't have to go through the same thing next year.
Shall we consider the Minutes of the 18 July meeting, Are
25X1A9a here any changes, additions or deletions?
I would simply point out in Item 3 - I think this is
25X1A9a out the way we had it - we were going to ask
for something.
John did kind of excuse himself from that assignment.
25X1A9a There was some talk at the tail end of the meeting about
a letter of appreciation for those who served on the old Board. None of this is
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
reflected here. I thought we had agreed to make this a matter of record.
When I wrote the Minutes I didn't know it was the last
time for the old Board.
written.
we leave.
We will do that in these Minutes and get some letters
This will be the groundwork for a good send off for when
If there are no changes other than that, and that really
isn't a change - we will pick this up in the current minutes - then they stand
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
You will be interested to know that on the case the
Director gave him the six months extension.
I'm glad.
In other words, he carried him through till 3eptember
rather than April.
25X1A9a On
the Board recommended against extension and he
disapproved it and granted her a one year extension. I like to tell you when he
has voted against us.
25X1A9a
you will remember was a Security type who had 45 months
of overseas qualifying service and went through all this hazardous and unusual
duty and that was signed immediately.
We can move on to Item 2.
25X1A9a
Do we ever get any feed-back from upstairs other than
that he has disapproved so that it might serve as some guidance on similar cases
in the future or do you think he arrives at a decision on that particular individual
case'and it is not setting a pattern or policy?
25X1A9a It is very much case by case. Ordinarily he goes along
with our recommendation but occasionally he does not when he possibly has
some knowledge we don't have but he does not send back his reasons. 25X1A9a
25X1A9a : I was asking what happened on the case. I
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
returned 17 December. Apparently went back. This one says he will retire
17 December 1968.
think it would be useful to be told where a case like that stands and why.
That one did not go through the Board - the last action.
It went around the Board and he gave him a few more days.
riginally he gave him six months.
It was recommended he be placed on LWOP in October and
I think the whole purpose was to extend him to a point where
he could get his accrued annual leave in the next fiscal year so he wouldn't
have to pay so much tax.
The next one is
I move we offer him an election.
I second the motion.
. . . . This motion was then passed . . . .
ar
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
25X1A9a
Then Item B. The following participant has applied for
25X1A9a voluntary retirement -- He is 55 and has 28 years of Federal
service and 21 years of Agency service.
25X1A9a I move we recommend favorable consideration to the
request that he retire.
25X1A9a
-: I will second it.
. . . . The motion was then passed . .
25X1A9a I am sorry that we have this each time but I have
25X1A9a
these two voluntaries. They are all 30 September and we would like not to delay
any further in getting them up to the Director. The first one is
She is an OP/DDS Careerist, age 53 with 22 years Federal service, 15 years Agency
service and requests voluntary retirement on 30 September 1968. She is fully
qualified and not controversial as far as I am concerned. 25X1A9a
Why don't I run through them all? He is a Commo
type also requesting voluntary retirement on 30 September. He will be 50 on
25X1A9a 28 September, Federal service 21 years, Agency service 18 years. Larry is a GS-l3.
We have another OC type, He is ready to retire on 30 September
at age 59. You recall Newt has been in and out of our system and now he is back
in and has gotten himself a job and is ready to move and OC is ready to see him
25X1A9a move. All of these have the concurrence of their career service. Finally we have
for whom the Director approved an extension. He has obtained
a job and is ready to move out at age 59 with 23 years Federal service and 20
years Agency service. We might vote on these four. Do I have a recommendation?
MI move we accept the retirement of all four of these.
25X1A9a Second.
25X1A9a
I'm sorry but I hate to bring these up but the time
pressure is great. The two disabilities are very routine. The first one is
The Board of Medical Examiners sat on this one on 12 July. They
apparently convened previously on 28 May and recommended his application for
disability retirement be approved. case indicates it is an emotional
25X1A9a
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
problem. We have verified it is not a potential BEC case so we have a request
for disability retirement for
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
I want to ask if we have a 25X1 A9a
sworn statement that there are no BEC implications in this case.
25X1A9a
Yes I have one. I really think John is still missing
something in this. The fact that he is entitled to disability retirement and
we so recommend does not in any way stop him from persuing a BEC claim and if
later on years from now he is granted it he has the opportunity of going back and
electing one or the other. I don't really see why you would stop this action
pending a final determination of whether it is a BEC case.
25X1A9a I think John merely wants to be assured the Agency is not
overlooking something that might be to the individual's benefit.
25X1A9a This type is obviously one of the tougher ones but it is
tough from both standpoints. It is very difficult to get a BEC ruling that an
emotional case is caused by the stresses of the job. In any event we have
discussed it with the Medical Staff and --
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
How old a man is this?
He was born in 1922 so he is 46.
The second medical case is
Again a Medical
Board sat on this case and their diagnosis was rheumatoid arthritis which is
25X1A9achronic and they expect the symptoms will gradually increase in severity.
The Board of Examiners say the disability of permanent and they
recommend his application for disability retirement be approved. I do not have,
because it just came in, the BEC statement but we will get it and --
25X1A9a M Can you indicate what grade and age he is?
He was born in 1927. He is 1+1 years old and a GS-9.
He is an NPIC clerk intel assistant photographer.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
M They don't count against our 1+00 -- disability cases?
No.
Do I have a motion?
I so move
Second.
. This motion was then passed . . .
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
I guess maybe I am too
technical but ray thought after reading this was to send it back and say - "Don't
ask us to change the regulation for this action. If you want to do that let's
do it separately. Why don't you come forward with a straightforward request for
a review of his domestic service as possibly qualifying service?" There is an
implication they want us to handle this contrary to the statutes - "';`ven though
he does not have his five years, don't put him out of the system."
25X1A9a
I came to the same conclusion. They should have said,
"let's consider revising the Agency regulation and if you feel you can revise it
25X1A9a
this case could be brought into it." You recall
raised this problem
a year ago. pie said that the day would come when people will be very close to the
required number of months at the end of the 10 year and tie 15 year review. It
would appear silly to take them out. They are members of a service normally
requiring the performance of qualifying service. He recommended changing the
regulation to allow for that type of case rather than have the individual change
from one system to another and maybe a few months later back into the system again.
As I remember the Board called upon him to come up with some cases and he promised
to do it but to my knowledge he never came up with any cases.
25X1A9a
First of all, in the - case the other day where when 25X1A9
the 15 year review period came we put him out of the system when he was six months
shy. lie then submitted a request saying, "I can work till 62 under Civil Service
but if you take a look at my domestic service and find some of it qualifying I'd
like to get back into the system and I will immediately retire." The Board had
25X1A9a little trouble finding qualifying service. At that meeting ~nd I exchanged a
few words. I said, I guess we learn as we go along and before we put someone
out it would be prudent to take a look at domestic service to see if there is
enough to give him his five years, recognizing it was a bit of a departure from
our previous approach.
M In the case you just cited didn't we find it under (ll)(c)?
25X1A9a
And we had ample evidence for those types of cases but
this is really raising the question of domestic duty equating qualifying duty.
25X1A9a You see, Jim in a sense ticked this thing off. We opened
the door for hint. When his review period came up we went back to the component
and pointed out that he needed six montins and 22 days and that he is not now
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CI 4R~IiP 03092A000500140002-7
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
performing overseas qualifying service and, in a sense, what do you see in
terms of domestic service? We received an answer from Jim - "After review of
25X1A9a the official personnel file and records of this Division it has been determined.
25X1A9a
has no domestic service which is creditable for CIA Retirement System."
That wasn't signed by him. 25X1A9a
No, it was signed by We also have a letter
signed by Jim here which says obviously his service is creditable. We tried to
do the right thing.
Now, one last thing. As of today each Deputy has in hand a letter
from Colonel White which asks that they review all their people who are fully
qualified for entry into the system in the sense that they are 50 and have 20 years
but are not in because they do not have sufficient qualifying service but who have
some overseas service - review their domestic service to determine if any of
these people have domestic service that is qualifying and to submit it to the Board.
He spells out quite clearly we are going to be 147 under quota by projection and
since this system is to be a flexible management tool, make it clear to the people
you talk to this is a one-time sort of proposition because we are under quota and
to look at your qualifying domestic service with possibly a more open eye, but
warning them in the next five year cycle we may not be quite as generous.
25X1A9a This is to identify people who would be willing to retire
now if they could qualify for the system so this would be a planned exercise in
(11)(c).
25X1A9a ich we have already done.
I do think it is going to result in this and we sort of
warned Red that there are bound to be some people raise their hand just to get into
the system and you do have a bit of a problem.
25X1A9a
The object of that exercise is to pin-point a very close
future date of retirement.
25X1A9a I am wondering whether it is a case of management saying, "T
wish I could retire this guy, this guy and this guy," or is it just a question of
reducing numbers?
25X1A9a
This in a sense is what management is doing. They are going
to list the people who possibly qualify and then go over the list and say, "I will
call this one, this one -- "
6
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Qualify under b.(11)(c)?
When you read it there is part of b.(11). I don't think
you have to restrict it.
in the system.
But if they had enough under (a) and (b) they would be
25X1A9a In other words, we would be forced like in this case --
25X1A9a the - case -- if we decided under (a) or (b) then we would put him in the
system.
25X1A9a
We are saying, "Take another look under all of (11). You
may have overlooked something." I said I started out being too technical because
25X1A9a
as you read on in this case they are sort of saying both things.
submits a request for reconsideration and he bases his request on headquarters'
positions supporting Clandestine Services activity abroad, so in that sense that is
25X1A9a
what asks for and that is what the plea is on and then they kind of confuse
25X1A9ait a little and then we have a letter from saying, "It appears this is
comparable to service that in other cases has recently been adjudged creditable
service."
25X1A9a Except it was adjudged creditable service for the
purpose of
immediate retirement.
25X1A9a
And now we are doing it for an intermediate purpose. It is
a change in our own policy but I em afraid maybe the time has come that we face up
to domestic qualifying service at an earlier date.
25X1A9a As I see this the steps would be, do we want to consider
changing the regulation and, if we do, then does he come within it - whatever the
criteria we set up for justifying the change of the regulation?
25X1A9a We are not changing the regulation. We are only changing ttie
Board's ground rules.
25X1A9a
You have to change the regulation because the regulation
says you go out if you don't have so many months.
25X1A9a I am saying all we do is say we have reviewed his file and
find --
We haven't.
We can do that.
-- qualifying service and then we don't change it.
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CI"8 P7 -03092A000500140002-7
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
25X1A9a
That doesn't change the regulation at all. If we fail
to change the regulation or do not want to change it then we have open to us to
consider his domestic service as being qualifying service in which we find the
extra six months and say he has got his 60 months and he is in thesy3tem.
25X1A9a I guess that is what I am saying but I tend to go about
it the other way.
Let's look at it to see if we can put him in the system.
25X1A9a
That is, I think, one of our problems. There isn't a real
good presentation of his service.
25X1A9a I can tell you what that is. He is Chief of Operations.,
NE for South Asia. That covers five branches. He is Chief of Operations and,
as such, he is also Deputy Chief for this NE South Asia area and he acts in place
of the Chief when the Chief is absent. He is the one ultimately responsible for
that entire area for FI, CI and CA operations that take place in South Asia.
That calls for passing judgment on agents, pushing operations, getting operations
going in the area, terminating operations that are unproductive and in effect calling
pitches in all three types of operations. It calls for periodic trips to the
field, being in touch with agents overseas on occasion.
25X1A9a
ie is still doing a little case officering?
He meets them. He was in that area and he has recontacted
people in that area on periodic trips to the field.
25X1A9a He has been doing that all this time? We are only looking
for six months and 22 days.
25X1A9a
of Operations of NE/SA.
25X1A9a
For at least the last two years sincehe has been Chief
It strikes me there is a fallacy in saying, "let's change
this regulation," for there is a real reason for the 15 and 5. If you bring a
person into the system without the 5 years of qualifying service they can retire at
the mandatory retirement age without the 5 years of service becais e the regulation
doesn't specifically say you have to have 5.years of service. One of' the reasons it
does not is that it is implied you couldn't have gotten in at the end of 15 years if
you didn't have five years of service. On the other hand, without 5 years of service
you have a vested right in the system but you couldn't retire voluntarily nor could
you be involuntarily retired because you don't have 5 years of service. So, there
=3
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA- RDPI -03092A000500140002-7
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
is quite a basic change required to get away from this five year concept. You could
even be depriving a person of something. For example, he could have 30 years of
service and then under Civil Service he could retire on the optional basis at 55.
He could have, yet you can't bring someone into the system who has less than
15 years of service and 5 and he could hit age 60 with only 10 years and 3 years
of overseas service and retire him mandatorily. So you need something in there to
stay consistent with the statutory requirement of five years.
One thing bothers me - dragging people in before they are
ready to retire. There are the minimal requirements. Now why should we endeavor to
qualify someone who doesn't meet the minimal requirements? We are trying to say,
"`.Phis much or more" and anybody who doesn't come up to the threshhold - at least
that we require - we shouldn't try to find ways to keep them in.
I agree with you except I wouldn't want to prejudge that
he doesn't have domestic service that is qualifying. I think we have a subsequent
case that gives you a lot more trouble.
25X1A9a I think for a man who isn't about to retire we shouldn't face
this issue
What is the significance of bringing a man in as opposed to
leaving him out. Where does he benefit?
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
get a higher annuity.
25X1A9a
then left the meeting . . .
The feeling of a little more security. The wife would
Let me follow my thinking. I would have thought that
this is the way they should have presented this - take a look to see if we should
change the regulation and then if the Board did decide later on we would see whether
he met whatever criteria we set up. Failing that we would look at this man and say
we don't have to consider those questions if we can find in his domestic functions
he has easily 60 months of qualifying duty which would give him the 6 months, put
him in the system and give him an election. So we don't have to face that
unless you want to go back to CS Career Service and say something about this
suggestion to look at the regulation.
Approved For Release 2001/07/12: CIA-R8 7 L"fii. 92A000500140002-7
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
25X1A9a
We owe Tom Karamessines a letter and I think we can point
out some of the reasons why it might not be wise to change that regulation, but
even if we wanted to -- and Dick probably can talk better on it than I - the
regulation would have to go back to the Committee. There is a big question of
whether we can, on our own, change the regulation and if we could, more important,
would we really want to? In any event, I don't think it answers
25X1A9a
problem to wait until we try to get the regulation changed. What I am also
25X1A9a
thinking about it going through another case where we put him out
of the system and then in two years he says, "I'm now ready to retire. Will you
please take a look at that service that I had," and there is little question in
my mind but that we would find it qualifying.
25X1A9a Let me explain this. I was invited to the CS meeting which
took place right after a meeting of this Board but it started before the Board had
25X1A9a finished so I was still here. When I went to that meeting they were discussing
25X1A9a
the _ case and at that time made mention of the fact that he had
raised this question and the Board had asked him to come forward with some examples,
feeling it might be advisable in the future to take some action along; these lines,
25X1A9a
and said, "Here is the type of case I was talking about and might
they not now consider that problem of changing the regulation?" He based this
on that very ground. Now it is being presented.
25X1A9a On what ground?
He presented this case as an illustration of the type he
raised here months ago. He raised that question at that meeting and nobody said
anything to him except that it was a pretty good idea.
25X1A9a
I gathered what he was looking for was an adriinistrative way
of holding cases in escrow. That seemed to be in his mind. I don't think it would
accomplish more to say at the end of 15 years you have to have 4 and a half years
qualifying service.
25X1A9a
We have one but only because the man was overseas and
in about 8 months he would have it.
25X1A9a
We administratively lose a paper and not take action for
25X1A9& months but in the =case it looks like we have a couple or three years here
before he may go overseas again.
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIARDP78-03092A000500140002-7
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
25X1A9a
Was that what you had in mind when he raised that
problem? Iere's an exerpt from the Minutes (reading): "...this would result in
many employees being moved in and out of the system many times during their
normal career. It is concluded this was a matter to warrent further attention
25X1 Aga a nd volunteered to present cases that would highlight the
problem." That is what he had in mind at the CSCS Board meeting and this type of
case is Highlighting that very problem. Now we can come to grips with this if
we want to or we need not come to grips with this, although you might want to
a nswer the DDP by simply saying, "Can we find in his domestic service qualifying
duty?" so that it becomes a moot case insofar as this particular case is concerned
and .if you find qualifying duty for 6 months you put them in the system and he is
in and that is the end.
25X1A9a
It is backing off on this one but, again, I am saying
that nobody has offered any alternative. They have only said this self-imposed
anniversary review will cause us problems but they haven't offered any improved
way of administration.
25X1A9a
No, but if we want to consider it --
o you have any thoughts on it, Mike?
I made a review of the discussions before the committee
aid the statements that were made there. TAere was the staterfint made to the
Comirrittee, among other things, that we would have this review every so often and
if we found that an individual hadn't met the qualifications that he would be removed
from the system. I found a couple of references to that but it alwa;rs had to do with
if the individual, before he had a sufficient amount of qualifying service, had
moved into some other field of activity that didn't normally call for performing
qualifying duty. Now I think that maybe we could change the regulation to take care
of cases where the man continues to meet all the qualifications for participation in
the system and that he still works for a service that normally performs qualifying,
duty and the only thing that is lacking is that minimum number of months, but I
also recognize it would be difficult because I think you would have to go back to the
Committee.
25X1A9a
Section 203 of the Law says (reading): "Ary participant
who has completed fifteen years of service with the Agency and whose career at
that time is adjudged by the Director to be qualifying for the system may elect
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 :,GIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
pp`lryyy~yiM Y'.~ i
to remain a participant of such system for the duration of his employment
by the Agency and such election shall not be subject to review or approval by
the Director."
25X1A9a In other words the Statute is that he gets a vested interest
in the system after 15 years and if he doesn't have the 5. years then - I am going
back over this story I went through - you are giving a man a vested right to
stay in this system for which he cannot completely qualify in terms of either
vcxluntary or involuntary retirement.
25X1A9a
I assume it is on the theory that after 15 years he s;iould
have the qualifying service.
25X1A9a This is one of the restraints we placed into the system.
I think it was well thought out. The one filter that you put in before this 15
year election in which he gets the vested right is that you must have 5 years of
service.
25X1A9a
I see no reason why the Board can't find what is wanted here.
This man's career is adjudged by the Director to be qualifying for the system and
we look at the whole career -- not only with clearly qualifying service like overseas,
but some of this domestic. Again, it's doing it on a case by case btsjs. It is
not setting a precedent and I don't see any reason why the Board can't say, "Yes,
we find this man's career to be of qualifying service."
25X1A9a position I believe is, here is a man who
is dedicated to overseas duty. At the time you make the review he is just short of
the minlmimi number of months. lie has been begging to go overseas, but for the good
of the Agency and good of the Service he is being forced to stay here and he says i.t
that type of case where it is for the good of the Agency, could you not find some
way of restating our regulations to permit that?
25X1A9a That is what I think he had in mind.. - some way
of getting
around it and not really changing the basic regulation. Well, let us consider thi.3
and answer the DDP's letter. I frankly don't see any way around it. First of all,
to say.a man is completely dedicated to this overseas business --
M We would all like to go overseas.
25X1A9a
-- and at the end of the 15 years he doesn't nave the 5
years so you take him out then he comes back in whenever he makes it. It isn't
all that critical, but we are also saying now that there is certain domestic
service that is qualifying and we are going to be seeing more and more as qualifyi
I would guess so therefore why not look at that now? Again, and I am repeating myself,
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 78-03092A000500140002-7
12
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
but we have been pretty consistent - we will do it when the man is retiring. Here's
an intermediate - we either have to pull him out or keep him in. I have checked
25X1A9a
with Finance and I think tended to make more of this than is really
the case. They said, "Don't worry about us in reaching your Board decisions
about the administrative problems of putting these people in and out. It isn't that
great a problem and there certainly haven't been that many cases."
25X1A9a Three in three years.
Yes, but there is going to be more and more of these
cases where we say it is kind of silly to take them out and we sit down and look
at the individual case to see whether his domestic duty equates qualifying duty
so we don't ha\e to face the other.
25X1A9a Why don't we make our regulation sound like this passage
25X1 A9a in the law that you (indicating ) referred to?
25X1A9a Let me say this: we really need time to do a little more
in-depth study to give you a more technical answer. My feeling is that we have a lot
more leeway on the 5 and 10 year review.
25X1A9a It seems to me we could handle the regulation in a case
like this where the individual meets every one of the qualifications for being a
participant in the system except the full 60 months of qualifying duty under the
regulation. The person still working in a service that normally performs qualifying
duty and meets all the requirements but one, and I am thinking of the next case where
the girl is lacking 11 days. In that case if she had been transferred to a service
that normally does not perform qualifying duty -- and it is not like the case of
25X1A9a
who is still in the service and could be sent over tomorrow -- but if the
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Office of Personnel said that this girl is still in that group of individuals that
the Office of Personnel normally sends overseas she would be meeting all the
qualifications except she is lacking 11 days. Now does it make sense to take her
our of the system because she is lacking 11 days only to put her back in 4 months
from now when the Office of Personnel wants to send her on a TDY?
The fact remains if you put nto the system 25X1A9a
without recognizing he has qualifying service of 60 months he is in a system
where he cannot voluntarily retire nor can he be involuntarily separated.
I'm with you there. I think there is something that could
be done to take care of this administrative burden, if it turns out to be an
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIARF $-03092A000500140002-7
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CI DP78-03092A000500140002-7
administrative burden. It may be the disadvantages outweigh the advantages and
25X1A9a I would like to recommend that we take a look at service,
25X1 A9a based on our oral
y (indicating ) presentation, based on
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
statement, and based on his own statement of what he has done and
consider it qualifying service.
y do you say he can't voluntarily retire? The only reason
I see is he isn't old enough but once he reaches 50 --
We haven't decided he has 60 months of qualifying duty.
ut we are going to give him that 5 years.
No, we were saying, can we leave him in the system and --
- change the regulations so that the Board does have some
What you are doing is granting him qualifying service.
Do I have a motion, or has there been sufficient consideration
t hat his service that we see totals qualifying service of 60 months based on a
portion of his domestic service?
25X1A9a That's why I say we have made a review. Admittedly we
haven't had all the records.
25X1A9a Do you agree that the type of duties being performed by
him today which I described orally is in conduct of or in support of clandestine
operations?
25X1A9a Yes, it comes under the meaning of the regulation.
Not the way I read it. I never have agreed with your
interpretation. The way I read the regulation is it is in support of clandestine
operations overseas. You just read it as in support of clandestine operations no
matter where performed.
25X1A9a We have been given that opportunity.
I have gone along because of the retirement aspect but not
in this case. There, the system is serving management's objective of getting
people out earlier than otherwise possible. This was the major objective of the
system.
25X1A9a
I think we have got to face that fact and discuss these
cases and I'm sorry that we brought the Board to only four or five members. We should
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
25X1A9a
have looked at this while we had a fuller Board. We have got to face this problem
and there is a case on the table right now before us.
I have been like Paul -- reluctant to consider domestic
service other than for retirement purposes. I am now ready to take one more
step forward and say I am willing to consider it when there is a question of
putting the man out of the system which he obviously is going to be qualified for
and, therefore, I would be willing to construe 6 months and 22 days of domestic service
as qualifying.
25X1A9a Isn't that, Harry, taking a view of the man's entire career
and all of his service and putting him into the system.
25X1A9a We haven't taken that step yet. A little of it is defensive
in that we could get literally thousands of cases.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
I object to it. Grant him 6 months here but if you go along,
suppose that man had never gone a day overseas. Why would you not admit him to
the system if that type of duty is qualifying? I can't draw the line.
Here is a man who has 4 and a half years overseas, he has
always been in that career service, he is fully committed to going overseas again.
You are taking the whole situation and considering it. The very next fellow may 1,e
up for 6 months and I wouldn't want to consider it.
I would say he has served 15 years but he still fails to
meet the minimal requirement of.5 years and therefore we take him out of the system
even though it may be necessary to invite him back in in a very short time. You
have got to draw the line someplace. I'd rather draw one guy out than have a hard
time keeping hundreds out who can make about the same story except they may not be
at the 15 year review.
Yes, and it is critical to our decision.
25X1A9a
MI would like to set up alternate approaches to the problem
here and see if we can't sift out something workable within our own interpretations.
I think you can frame some language that will give this Board some discretionary
power that it has got to have.
25X1A9a
I think we have it.
But we have been defaulting by passing these on to the
We have made recommendations of "in" or "out" in every case.
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : C I~-fup 8-03092A000500140002-7
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
25X1A9a In my mind it is still logical, and I certainly understand
everything you are saying, Paul, and I think it is just a difference of opinion
25X1A9a on this one but when the - case came up it became clear to me that we had a
second category. Heretofore, we said we are going to really be pretty strict in
our interpretation of qualifying service unless the man is ready to retire and then,
in retrospect, we will look back in his career and say it qualifies him and he
25X1A9a retires. After the _ case, where we made a yo-yo out of him and gave him credit
for the very service that he had when we took him out, I felt we had one further
step to go. The 15 year election time is another time we would consider such servi.ce.
I don't think we are going to have a lot of cases. We would have to pull this
individual out of the system we are pretty well assured he is coning back into and
if he elected to retire without going overseas again we would have little trouble
in finding some of that service as qualifying. I'm not sure where you are, Mike,
in this discussion.
In this discussion?
25X1A9a Setting aside for a minute the changing of the regulations.
I think we ought to take a look at it and wee if this
domestic service that I have enunciated constitutes qualifying service so we can
25X1A9a
find if he has 60 months and give him that election as we did in the - case.
25X1A9a
I know - and I know what he does and you have further
25X1A9a
explained that. It is on the record. has made a statement and 25X1A9a
Tom Karamessines has made the statement. I think we have enough. Are you saying
you think we need more?
25X1A9a
I am saying, let's decide the question --"does he have
60 months of qualifying service based on his whole record?" The question as to
whether we should change the regulation can be put off till some other time.
25X1A9a I think all we need now is a motion to that effect unless
you feel you would like to defer it until there is a full Board. The motion would
have to be that the Board reviewed the man's domestic qualifying service and his
overseas service of 4 and a half years and determined he had 60 months of qualifyixnr
service --
25X1A9a
-- for the purpose of giving him the vested interest in the
service at the 15 year review.
25X1A9a If that is what it's going to be I will move that without
repeating it.
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA- Dt7 8-03092A000500140002-7
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
SK,
25X1A9a
25X1Ag
a We are going one step further. First of all., we are
saying what you just said -- that we reviewed his total career which consists of
h- and a half years of actual overseas service and an extdnsive period of time in the
Clandestine Service in support of clandestine operations and in total we see a full
60 months of qualifying service which therefore qualifies him at this 15 year
point to have a vested interest.
25X1A9a He has his 15 years now.
Paul's point is we are sort of indicating we did this on
his 15 year election point.
25X1A9a I will accept that but I think I'd like to add that I
think we have got to come to grips with what constitutes qualifying service of a
domestic duty.
25X1A9a But that is an outgrowth and not a part of what we are
deciding here. It is going to be terribly difficult to try and define it better
than that very broad loosely worded regulation.
25X1A9a I think there are going to be cases which fall into a
pattern more easily than others.
25X1A9a wrote a paper here once and I ari sure we can
find it which began giving a feel for this. He was tying it all up in a package
but you still don't wind up defining it any better than (11)(a), (b) and (c) did
which I think is very broad.
25X1A9a One thing you could do to define it better is to decide
whether support of clandestine operations means that you have to be abroad when
you conducted this support or whether where you have done this suppo.,ft from is
immaterial and I think this is where we part company. From General Carter's
testimony there would be many, many people in the DDP here at headquarters who would
not qualify for the service. There would be many people abroad who were not in DDP
who would qualify, and this was one of the very sharp distinctions made --"where were
they when they did the work?"
25X1A9a Right now I am trying to face the reality of Fitting opposite
the Executive Director who is saying to us: "You have the ability within this Act
to make up this quota by seeing qualifying service for --
25X1A9a -- for retirement purposes. That's the only reason he is
Approved For Release 2001/07/12: CIA-R1 7 f192A000500140002-7
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
asking us to go after more names - to move them out.
25X1A9a
But you have got to go by the definition for retirement
purposes.
25X1A9a I think if you take it at face value you could do it all
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
by computer and you wouldh't need this Board. I think the reason we have a Board
is it is recognized there are going to be cases that don't clearly fall in or outside.
We would really have no problem if you say you have got to
be outside the continental limits.
You have hazard and there is a question of whether you have
been deprived of competitive advantages if you leave the Agency. Just because a
guy is
in correspondence with somebody overseas, to me he hasn't done one thing t3u.t
25X1A6a is more deserving of credit for retirement purposes than one who is writing letter,.
to somebody in
25X1A9a
I take issue with that one. I think there is a distinction
in these cases and it is the amount of responsibility and1he amount of direct
support that is being lent to operations abroad that should be the determining
factor. I can see a person being overseas for 4 years and being brought here
and put in an analytical job in the CS that is far removed. It supports no doubt
operations abroad but far removed from the direct support of the type of operation:
we run abroad. I could see that that person would not get into the system and it
is that person General Carter was talking about when he went before Congress. I
can also see a man coming back after 4 years directing people who he hired overseas,
through his station chief, as a branch or chief of operations where he is calling
the pitches on the very operations he had built up overseas. There is a distinction
that man is predominantly involved in operations overseas, but in the absence
of the man's immediate retirement
--
25X1A9a Nothing is spelled out in (11)(c) -- "just for retirement
purposes." T11-iis job of running agents abroad is a departure from the normal type
of Government employee. It is the type of work that he'd find great difficulty
in explaining to anybody.
25X1A9a If we say that (11) (c) is riot g)ing to be reserved for a
person who simultaneously submits a request to retire, then I think what I have
said hits that on the nose (reading): "...on a continuing basis which would place
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
 approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
the individual at a distinct disadvantage in obtaining other employment either
because the skills and knowledge are unique to the clandestine activities of
the Agency and are not in demand elsewhere..." We stop there and use (11)(c)
and that hits this case perfectly. I don't think anybody else in Government
is calling the pitches on spy activities overseas like this fellow, 25X1A9a
He is directly involved.
25X1A9a We are only trying to take one more step here at this
15 year review. Should we take a little different look?
25X1A9a That really should be the point where we are most strict
in the standards used for admissibility to the system.because you are giving him
something Where the next day he may be off to the races and he can keep what you
give him no matter what he does. If this man were not in and came to us today with
this record would we put him in the system?
25X1A9a M That's a good question.
After 15 years I suppose we wouldn't. There would be no
Yes there would be. A man might have 54 months overseas,
service and lack 6 and at the end of his 15 years like to have a review of his
record because he could die in his 16th year.
25X1A9a I think Paul's point was if a man was coming to us now
saying: "I have 3 years of service and you haven't let me in. How about taking a
look at my domestic service." I would not feel the compulsion I do now. Here's
a man who is in the system and we are about to put him out. Somehow I feel
different about the fellow who isn't in yet.
25X1A9a I find that difficult to accept. I think if you are goir:ig
to apply it in one case we can apply it in another.
25X1A9a M. must be some reason for putting (11) (c) in.
If you look at the Act and some people are citing the
Act to us and they say you have got to meet one of two things -- in support of Agency
activities abroad hazardous to life and health, which we interpreted as overseas,
or so specialized because of security requirements as to be clearly distinguishable
from normal government employment and he says, "I am calling the pitches on spies
overseas. Who else is doing that? I don't see how you can keep me From getting
into the system." We, unfortunately, have come up with (11) (a), (b) and (c) which
1_
Approved For Release 2001/07/12: CIA-RD
; 3092A000500140002-7
CTS
icy i.
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIR4 03092A000500140002-7
I don't think sufficiently defines the case under Section 203 (i) and (ii) of
the Act.
25X1A9a This is what I think we ought to look at very carefully and
this is what I was trying to suggest - look for alternatives to the language in
the regulation that in my opinion would come a little closer to the ;ct.
MI trtink the fact is broader than our regulation.
25X1A9a
We got the regulation to make it easier to reach a
In our regulations we have narrowed it.
I agree. I think Section 203 is easier to live with but
(11)(c) is narrowed only in our minds.
25X1A9a Some have (a) and (b) as duty overseas and looking at
(c) as only applying to retirement because we were told (c) was stuck in there to
take care of people who wanted to retire.
25X1A9a I think the statute clearly contemplated two categories o:'
people -- those who are overseas and then those who are not necessarily overseas
but do highly specialized work.
We are obviously constantly reviewing this and at the end of the
5 year cycle there was an intention that it would be an appropriate time to possibly
go back and try to sharpen up the regulation where we think it needs improvement
and obtain a decision from the Legal Counsel as to whether we can do this internally
or go back to the Committee. We did feel a 5 year period of experience with the
regulation would show quite a bit of patience and thoroughness on our part so I
am not at all hopeful that we can come to a decision on a regulation to be effective
iri time. I think today we either have to put him out of the system or take a
judgment on his domestic service as being qualified.
25X1A9a - These two people are willing to act on this (indicating
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
this is healthy.
25X1A9a
I am
Aye.
The aye's have it. It will not be unarinous. I think all
I am a nay.
. This motion was then passed . . . .
This next one is 11 days --
25X1A9a
Approv se 2001/07/12 : CIA-ROJ ?8-03092A000500140002-7
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Personnel for DDP or just for the Office of Personnel?
No, she is in the Security Office Personnel Branch.
I recommend this be rounded off to 60 months, which is the
closest whole period, and that she be considered.
This is ray instinct. In view of the fact that it is with-U
11 days,the Board saw her total serviceland if you asked me right this minute where
I would cut off I don't have an answer until the next case.
25X1A9a The way things are handled administratively the slippage
is possible for these 11 days.
25X1A9a
I think we have a motion and second and four ayes.
The motion was then passed . . . .
There is no reason why, if her services were desired,
that she couldn't go - there is no hold on her?
25X1A9a No, and she is not saying she won't ever go but we can't
say we have a planned overseas assignment for her.
25X1A9a
Does she belong to the part of Personnel who go overseas.'
All of Personnel could go overseas.
Then she meets all the requirements except for those 11
We are not identifying a specific period of service as
qualifying -- okay?
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Clandestine services through
25X1A9a
materialized for
She is shy 3 months and 9 days. The
has said, "No overseas assignment
and since none is anticipated in the foreseeable
future, she would not qualify under the provisions of the to continue
as a participant in the CIA Retirement and Disability System." She has been a
secretary steno, admin assistant and so on.
How do we reconcile this case with the previous one?
25X1A9a
MI don't like to deal with anything over 3 months.
That's beyond the margin of error.
I feel like Paul does - when it's within a month or a
matter of days it deems to be easy enough to deal with.
25X1A9a If you were going to retire the girl I would look at it again.
RAT,
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : ci aw 8-03092A000500140002-7
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Is there some reason she doesn't go overseas? Is there
I don't know except for - statement that there
25X1A9a
is no overseas assignment and none is anticipated.
25X1A9a
She hasn't been over since 1960. You look at it and say,
"Does she meet domestic qualifying service?" and here my feeling is she doesn't
My feeling is she is not in that type of assignment.
25X1A9a She is not really in the overseas contingent.
This was written on 21 June.
I don't understand why she wouldn't turn up in someone'
overseas station. It almost seems to me they want to keep her out. This is
very terse and there must be something.
25X1A9a Let me look into this one.
If they wanted to between now and her 15th anniversary
they could find a TDY trip.
25X1A9a
to go --
25X1A9a
If they tried to send her to Saigon and she didn't want
Something happened since September of 1966. It was
then she was designated a participant in the system and she had 56 months and she
was put in on the assumption by DDP that she would meet the requirement for 15 years.
Mike, would you want to follow up on this and see if there is something more that i.:~
missing?
25X1A9a Yes.
25X1A9a Okay, that case is tabled for some further research by Mr.
25X1A9a . The next case is
which in many ways, Paul, is worse
than any of the situations we have reviewed thus far in the sense that it is not
at the 15 year - well, he does have 17 years, so if we see this as qualifying
service he becomes a participant with a vested right but he is not in the system
now.
25X1A9a The extenuating circumstances that I have been able to fine. when
25X1 A9a looked into this a bit --
25X1A9a Do you have a copy of the letter? It is a long letter.
then handed a document to
25X1A9a
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
25X1A9a Here's what happened. When I went to to
25X1A9a ask him for more detail on Jim's DDP and OSA services, John begged off on the
grounds they are phasing out a big chunk of OSA and would it be all right if
Jim himself did prepare something. I have a letter from Jim which Enmett and I
went over together but, because I didn't know how to classify the thing, I put
"Secret - Limited Distribution" and we elected not to duplicate copies, but
25X1 C
everybody is welcome to look at it. Anyway, the extenuating circumstances I see
X1A6a
50. He will at that time try to decide whether he should retire as soon as he cal.
become eligible. So there is the background and I feel quite sure the way his career
is going that is the way he will elect to go. So we have a case of something like
33 months or so of kind of verified - I don't know that it is really that verified --
25X1A9a
Twenty-seven is all that is really verified.
25X1A6a Twenty-seven plus the period of time, but undetermined, at
and some other trips that he may have made. All records are lost and we
have got to then find something like 30 months or so of other service that we wou7.d
consider qualifying to give him the vested right. The alternative is not to put him
in now but wait till the time comes for retirement. If you would like to read this
you can go ahead and read it. It was written in quite a personalized. style.
25X1A9a Did you say he would stay 15 months?
wants to come back for the purpose of kind of assessing
whether that is going to be his career for the next 5 or 10 years, or whether he
will stay in contract agent status, or whether he will retire. That is the decision
he wants to try to come to toward the end of next year. If he decides to stay in
and retire when eligible then he'd go back and get the other time.
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIP 96- ~03092A000500140002-7
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
There is an overall Agency management problem here of a
particularly difficult case for a deserving man who did a fine job completely out
of his element. I think he started as a support officer.
For the first 9 years -- Personnel Procurement, Special
Recruitment -- it looks bad on the profile and it takes it right up to 1959 --
admin officer.
I think one other thing gives us an additional crutch.
He is on a tour which, if he concludes, would qualify him.
It would qualify him. You are talking about 10 or 15
years?
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
If he stays for a 3 year tour he would be fully qualified.
We really have the ability when a man is on orders on a tour --
Not when a person has 15 years.
He has to get his 60 months before 15 years.
We would be in better shape to get him out there and work
on this tour. If he is going to stay a few years there will be time enough to cor
up with a stronger case than they have today and not looking ahead 3 years. Some
of this may never come off.
25X1A9a This letter isn't very well phrased. There szould be a
request that we find the necessary qualifying service in the AQUATONE period some
place. I think we need a different kind of record for that purpose than this sor'u
of thing.
25X1A9a What he covers there it is hard to tell one from the other.
It includes the 27 months here for which he has been given credit.
25X1A9a One year of that is overseas duty.
M He only talked about those periods in addition to the 27
months. I find it a little difficult.
25X1A9a Something like 12 months and 14 days during the period.
25X1A9a
I would like to accommodate and I must admit I had hoped for
Was he really calling the pitches on operations abroad?
es. Dick Bissell was the head but they had both a
developmental project, which was designing and developing the aircra't, and also
an operations group, which was actually planning for eventual deployment overseas
and running of missions, so you had two kinds of activity. Jim, at one time or
24
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-R[P7~-030;92A000500140002-7
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
another was mixed up in both. He really was the key guy in that project for
4 or 5 years.
25X1A9a
Was he the responsible official?
Yes, he was the Deputy Chief.
We have fellows in the system from OSA. How do we treat
a man who does this today? Is he in or out of the system?
25X1A9a Most of the people at ~re Corrno people, 'security 25X1A6a
people, u,nd Logistics people. You have a few 14's or 15's who are DDS&T project
officers. I-lone of them come anywhere close to getting the 60 months of qualifying
25X1A6aservice at The ones who do are the Commo people but they have plenty
of other service.
25X1A9a
How long a period did he serve as Deputy C'-lief of that
operations group calling the pitches on operations abroad?
25X1A9a From about 1960 through 1963. Now we are get-It;ing into the text
area which would be the OXCART area. This is the follow-nn aircraft so Jim stayer'
right in there working with the same designer that worked on the U-2.
25X1A9a
At what time was he in designing or operations so the
things that took place overseas he was calling the pitches on?
25X1A9a One day he would be working with the R&D people and
the next with the operations people.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
He did have a responsibility for the operations.
May I ask one thing? I'd like to establish this case.
think you ought to talk to Bannerman.
Would it be possible for you to write a brief but
_ would sia, assuming we would want to c_o this?
Let me pin down with Bob if there is more to this problem than I indicated I know
about. It is unfortunate it isn't clearly the sort of thing we have been doing.
There would be better reasons. We sort of hate to do it ahead of tine without a
better reason than we have. This letter strikes me more as patting himself on the
back for the tough job he did and the hours that he worked and it doesn't really
come to grips with this qualifying service concept as much as it should, and yet I
think it is there.
25X1A9a MI prefer you talk to Bob before I undertake ary more.
Let's table this case then. He is on his way anyway. We
can't honestly say he is not going to go.
L_
`5
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
I think he is going alone. As I recall he is leaving his
family here.
This, I think, is much more typical o:L
the type case the deputies are to bring up. Here's a man I feel reasonably sure
there is mutual agreement on his leaving at age 59. He could otherwise stay
until 62 because he is one of the three "L" men and he is asking that we see
some of his domestic service as qualifying.
He doesn't want to stay until he is 62.
25X1A9a MI misstated.
4Te can't fight
keep the man is he is doing a prodigious
losing the Chief of the War Plans Group.
the third man who works constantly on war
almost nobody in that office.
get into the system. I tried
his going out. '.Erne reason T want to
job in the War Plans Group and we are
We have lost the Deputy Chief. He is
plans matters and we are left with
I tried like everything to keep him from trying to
to show him how much it would benefit him if he
stayed on till 62 under Civil Service. He still felt that he would like to get
out and he is ready to get out. I'd like to have him at least till the end of
the year. If the Board says, "We will find this qualifying duty. You have to
get out in August," I'd still like to extend him at least till 60.
One correction. I want the man to stay till he is 62.
25X1A9a
You are undercutting his letter. Whether we put him in
or not, he is leaving at age 60. He can do that under Civil Service. He makes
a better case for himself by saying, "If you don't see this as qualifying service
25X1A9aYOu have got me for 2 more years." That made good sense but if you (indicating
25X1A9a
say he is going to leave to 60, irrespective --
I'm saying if the Board said, "You will have to leave no
later than 60, because we don't want to give you the best of the two worlds," I
would still likt to say to the Board, "All right, please let us keep him till the
first of the year because we have some people coming back that could replace him."
If you don't put him in the system he may leave in June 1969, which is where he would
have left when we changed the policy to age 60. We had been banking on that until
he came forward with this paper. We had been banking on his staying with us until
1969, although under the original letter that he received at age 57 he could have
stayed on till 1970, and I asked him if he would consider that and he said he would
prefer to go out.
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP- 03092A000500140002-7
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
When we look at this coldly, without the information you
supplied, we are getting a man out in 1968 who would otherwise stay 2 more years
and this is what management wants within this current quota rather than in the
next cycle where we are going to be in trouble.
I don't know.
is that the reason why we are being asked to put him in the
C IA system?
25X1A9a its is not one of the kind you are trying to shove out.
This man is saying, "I think the service I performed is
qualifying and I'd like that decided by the Board even though that means I am
through." I sat down with a pencil and showed him if he stayed on till June
1969, or age 60, which he is entitled to --
25X1A9a I think we should look at this strictly, does the guy
qualify for the system:
25X1A9a here are recommendations all the way up the line. He
wants out.
He said, "Put me in the system." The DDP is not
fighting-the fact that he is entitled to it.
25X1A9a It says that he will retire from his current component
30 November 1968.
25X1A9a
You may remember in the early days when we were considering
only overseas duty at the time and this man came forward, as I remember, with a
paper saying that he was entitled to the time he spent overseas for this Agency as
25X1A1d
a We said, "No, you had to be a civilian employee under the Act,"
and he was very insensed about this and since those days he has always felt that
at least the service that he performed for the Agency in his capacity as Deputy
Chief of the Branch was qualifying duty but he never came forward to do anything
about it until just recently. All this time I have been pleased because I was
hoping to retain him in his present job until June 1969, or maybe November 1970,
if he would stay because under the pronouncement of the DCI he could go back to
that original notice. He still wants this to be considered and I have said to
him, "If the Board passes favorably and considers this as qualifying duty and puts
you into the system will you please stay on?"
25X1A9a DDP is saying, "We have all these people coming back and
don't have jobs." This is exactly what they want to do - get - out. 25X1A9a
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-R'{P78-03092A000500140002-7
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
25X1A9a
age 60.
25X1A9a
e Board Minutes say he should retire when he attains
We bring him into the system with the understanding that
he retires at the mandatory age. DDP is going to say they don't have anybody
to replace him with when we are trying to find jobs for these returning people.
25X1A6a
I knew Dick in - . He is not all that much of a genius and I can't believe
someone else coming back home couldn't do that job.
25X1A9a
I think you will get a statement asking you to extend him
till the end of this year.
25X1A9a I want to say that if you ask for 60 days D/Pers may
not see fit to approve it himself. He may, or send it forward to the DCI with
a statement the DDP has no one to replace him. I want to alert you to this.
25X1A9a
I don't have a replacement for the Chief. I don't
25X1A9ahave a replacement for the Deputy Chief and we are losing and I
have four months to find these three people. We push the III button and we
d on't come up with anyone with War Plans experience. We don't have very many
nilitary people.
25X1A9a he BALPA man can replace somebody.
If we asked for it wouldn't you give us a couple months
25X1 A9a ill the guy is trained?
We see your problem and I am sure it is a real one but
25X1A9'e are being pressured by Colonel White. It seems to me you should be hitting
and say, "I need somebody."
25X1A9a I'm looking at papers and files every day, but that
is not the question. Does he qualify to get into the system?
25X1A9a
conduct of FI and CA operations; direct handling of staff agents in - 25X1A6a
direct handling of RYBAT project; action officer for clandestine aspects of a
visit of a high ranking foreign dignitary. To me I don't have much trouble with
this.
I say you have got to consider it on the basis of - "If
you take me into the system I am ready to turn in my suit" - and he is saying that
very clearly. His write-up here says he has been making operational decisions on
FI, CI and CA operations; meeting, under alias, with foreign agents in direct
But we don't have any fellow to replace him.
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-y$092A000500140002-7
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
Y TV' r.3T
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Nov that retirement is close I won't have much trouble
with that detail service. I'd give him some "Brownie points" for the detail
service.
Given a review of the total career, we see it. I was thinking
if the Congressional Committee heard this case I don't think it would sound far-
fetched to them. He also did 3 years overaseas for us - sure, it was military but
it's a factor.
25X1A9a
It tips the balance.
It did for me.
. You cannot include it and therefore it is out as
far as I'm concerned.
25X1A9a I'd have a hard time including some Deputy Chief of one of
the bureaus down there. That's a tough one for me to swallow.
Do I have a nomination - a motion?
I made the motion that he be admitted to the system.
25X1A9a
I second.
25X1A9a
. This motion was then passed . . . .
In the case of there is a bit of compassion
in that he is 58 and has a child 6 and a child 8.
M I'd say it's not a physical disability.
25X1A9a
No, but there was an administrative blunder and the man
really would be getting very short notice. I'm a little concerned. We do have
an opinion that the Agency is not obligated to give anybody five years notice.
25X1A9a The basis of our rationale has always been we are
giving;
5 years and this gives this poor chap only 25 months.
25X1A9a I certainly think he is entitled to it on the basis of that,
25X1A9a plus compassion, and the fact that he is in a unique job where he is not blocking
anybody's progress. Do you (indicating know if he left would somebody
else have to be sent out there to do that job?
25X1A9a
Probably - I would think so - it's liaison with them on the
whole question and it isn't easy to find somebody for that who gets along out there.
25X1A9a It seems to me there is a consensus here that he is entitled
to more notice. We ought to bail him out by allowing him to stay. Do we need
discussion on this or is there a motion to be made?
Approved For Release 2001/07/12: CIA-RDd" 2A000500140002-7
~.:r, Msue
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500140002-7
Me meeting then went off the record . . . .
25X1A9a I think we had a motion and a second. (no response)
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
This is a separate case -- -- Jack
Coffee called me on and said, "What is the climate and how should I ':candle this?"
I told him I thought he ought to take a strong stand for this type of person. This
is not a major problem in obtaining an extension. These are printing shop people
who really don't get in the picture and who have been given all the previous limits
of Civil Service. They are not the dedicated CIA men but are more a part of the
local scene. I told him I thought he had a very good chance of having them all
approved if he endorsed them on the basis they are doing a fine job and terribly hard
to replace and part of a total system that normally contemplates working until
25X1A9a7C years. ~ is the only one at this time.
25X1A9a
I am all for it.
Is it unanimous? (no response) It is unanimously carried.
. . . . This motion was then passed . . . .
. . . . The meeting ended at 3:55 p.m. . . . .
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 :
T8-03092A000500140002-7