(UNTITLED)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-03092A000500200002-0
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 17
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 15, 2001
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: November 6, 1968
• Content Type: MIN

. Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500200002-0
I must admit there has been a little second-guessing,
. . . . The 100th meeting of the CIA RETIREMENT BOARD
convened at 1:30 p. m. on Wednesday, 6 November 1968, with the following
present:
25X1A9a
25X1A9a Mr. George E. Meloon, DDS Member
25X1A9a
I have a couple of things I would like to
cover with you before we move to the agenda. It isn't a very long agenda.
25X1A9a
soul-searching on my part, based primarily on some experience we had with
the case we're going to move ahead with on retirement -- and then
who is the next case.
25X1A9a George (Meloon), you are excluded from this, because
this was before you joined the Board.
25X1A9a
equested a two year extension and
SECRET
we turned it down. She asked to work until February 1970. Then she came
back -- and I don't know whether we missed it or we considered it -- it isn't
terribly clear from the verbatim record -- but, in any event, when she came back
the second time she said: I just took it for granted I'd get an extension -- now
it's short notice -- and I request extension until February 1969. The second
time around she was really only asking for a year, not two years -- and we in our
wisdom extended her until December of 1968 - - in other words, we cut short two
months of what she asked for. She subsequently said, "I am not going to retire. "
And in retrospect it looked a little sad that here we had generated a problem case
25X1A9a
based on only two months. I asked to get with her and tell her that
maybe we could work something out on these two months, but she backed off and
said, "No -- I'm going back to my February 1970 date now. "
25X1A9a
I think you're misreading that a little bit.
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIAS
I i ?:o J-1
092A000500200002-O 4
? ,} ,
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500200002-0
SHU
She may be using that as an excuse, but I had extensive talks with this woman when
her case first came up -- and I don't think we need to worry about those two
months -- we're not at fault here, I don't think.
25X1A9a
All I know, she asked for February 1969 and
we approved December 1968, and she is now a case that is going to require
separation action.
Now, all I'm leading up io, I think Col. White sort of
indicated that if it's a difference between somebody walking out reasonably happy
or not happy, and we're talking about two or three months, it is a little foolish,
probably, to dig in. I hate to go back on cases we spent a lot of time on--
Now if you're saying, Paul, that she would have come in again and asked for
another year - well, that I don't know - - but her request did say February 1969.
25X1A9a Was it a hardship case?
I would say we were well within our
rights not to give her those two months. What happened, I think, we felt there
had been a lot of delay and therefore it would be awfully short notice, so we took
it to December. But thinking about it now, maybe we should have given her until
February -- given her two more months.
25X1A9a
Can I say a word about it? She feels it's
hardship. It's not financial hardship. She says: I intend to work until I'm
6Z -- I'm not going to work after that -- you're asking me to make another career
for myself for a period of no more than two years, and perhaps less than that --
I feel it is a hardship for me to start a new career when I know I'm only going to
do it for a short time.
What was her grade?
25X1A9a GS-8, I think.
The fact is we now have a full fledged
problem case. I'm still hoping she will back down -- but if she doesn't we will
have a 102(c) separation case on our hands.
25X1A9a
Now, we have - - and we did
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 :CIA-~~1 a f092A000500200002-0
 'Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500200002-0
SECRET
STATSPEC
STATSPEC
discuss this case at some length. This was the lady in= who said: "I'd
like to take home leave and go back for a second tour which will end in April
of 1972. " At that time- said she is going to retire from overseas so it
isn't very critical whether she finishes that second tour or not. The fact is
she is entitled under the 3-letter business to extension until 31 December 1971.
So it's another case of a woman saying: "I'll be happy if you give me three
more months -- until March 31st. " I checked wit again, and 25X1A9a
said: Jack, did you have any particular reason for saying don't give her the
three months she asked for? He said, "No -- I'd be delighted to have her
for another three months. " I'm only throwing it back to the Board: Do you
feel that we should dig in and not give her the three months, or say: "Well,
it's just another three months" -- and, again, if she leaves happy, isn't that
worth something? When you ask yourself this question after you have a
problem case on your hands - when she says "I'm going to fight it" - was it
worth it for the three months? I think this is really what I'm saying.
25X1A9a
You know, it's very hard for the members
of this Board to sit down and very carefully consider these cases, and, whether
they arrive at a three months extension, or six or nine months, to recognize
maybe this is going to be a case that will give us trouble. And then the case
goes upstairs after we have turned it down, and they look at it and say - "Why?
for three months ! You could have given this person three more months. "
Then when you do extend them they come back and raise the dickens with you -
"Why did you extend in this case? " In all of these cases behind sight is just
fine if a problem is going to be caused upstairs -- but ... (inaudible)...
they should accept the ruling of this Board.
25X
I'll tell you one thing -- I guess we all like
to feel we have been doing what we thought was right all the time, but I must
admit there's a little bit of "What will get by up there? 11 I'm all for calling it
as we see them -- because you can't please them five days a week, week in and
week out. I think if we do our best job and call them as we see them, we can
1A9a
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : Cl 70-03092A000500200002-0
VVIL i
 25X1A
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500200002-0
Next 1 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500200002-0
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500200002-0
SECRET
25X1A9a
Well, even if we wanted to turn it down, I
There's a footnote here. You remember
we turned it down because there was no justification. Now Murphy's memo
you will see was dated way back, was not included in the package that came to
me, was not included in the package that came to this Board -- so we said we
were turning it down because they hadn't done their homework. So I went back
and I said, "I can't believe that there wasn't some recommendation by the Office
Director" -- whereupon they dug that memo out. Then they told me Mr. Smith
was concurring in Jim Murphy's position, and I said: "Well, that didn't come
through in our record at all, so put it through again, and get him to put his
endorsement on that same piece of paper. " Let me explain that this is
not retroactively concocting a memo of justification.
It is dated 16 August, and Jack's is dated
October. Well, actually, ame down to see me--
Jack's signature was on it when it came
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
through earlier, but at the time Jack signed this was part of the package addressed
to the DD/I Admin Officer and it was removed as part of the documentation as
being superfluous.
certainly don't think we can word our statement that we see no basis on the needs
of the service -- which would be flying in the face of this . We could still reject
it -- but I think at the very least we have to rewrite the Minute on it. How do
you feel about it in light of this recommendation?
25X1A9a
For one thing, Murphy does have justification
for it on the -problem. Secondly, generally speaking the DD/I likes to 25X1A
have 6Z as the retirement age, although it has been stated it's primarily on behalf
of production analysts, and particularly economists.
25X1A9a
Yes, the policy does say the DD/I would expect
to make some use of exceptions to meet its needs. And it sounds reasonable
They say 62 in August, but actually it
25X1A9a
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : Cl E ' f . f 3092A000500200002-0
 25X1A
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500200002-0
Next 1 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500200002-0
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500200002-0
St;RET
Next, we have 17 employees with at least25X1A9a
five years of Agency service and appear to meet the criteria for designation as
participants.
I move we designate them.
nd.
This motion was then passed . . .
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
age 55, 25 years and 7 months of Federal service, 19 years and 6 months of 25X1A9a
Agency service, and 24 months and 8 days of verified qualifying service. He is
:requesting almost three years of domestic qualifying service.
I must admit I find this one awfully tough. Mike,
would you like to talk about it? 25X1A9a
You know, his wife was an Agency employee
who I think in the not too far distant past was retired on the grounds of disability --
and he would like to get out, and the CS is perfectly happy to see him go. And I
don't know whether this would have been submitted had it not been for the 31 July
1968 letter -- but it just might have. His functions in the CI Staff, which, if
the Board found qualifying duty would be enough to give him the 60 months of
qualifying duty, are as follows.
25X1A9a
Mike, let me just be sure I understand one
thing. Regardless of the sensitivity, he is an EDP man, isn't he? a data
processing/programing type? 25X1A9a
No, not only that -- it's because he knows
that end of the business they have put him in this job.
Approved For Release 2001/07/12: CIG113092A000500200002-0
 25X1A
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500200002-0
Next 1 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500200002-0
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500200002-0
SECRET
MR. MELOON: Can't the D/Pers rubberstamp it for that
25X1A9a
Well, again, I don't like to have to use this
too many times, if it's not necessary.
hen read the following memorandum
to the Board members:
9 October 1968
MEMORANDUM FOR: Director of Personnel
SUBJECT: Request for Change in Retirement Date from
29 November 1968 to 31 January 1969
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
REFERENCE: Designation of GS-12, CI Staff, as a
Participant in a irement System and Retire-
ment 29 November 1968, dated 7 August 1968
I originally requested a retirement date of 29 November 1968 as
indicated in referenced memorandum and assumed that this date would have allowed
about ninety (90) days to settle official and personal affairs.
Final action on my request is still pending and since I did not anticipate
the amount of time necessarily required for processing it is requested that the
initial retirement date be changed to 31 January 1969.
I plan to leave the Washington area and settle in Florida and need about
ninety (90) days to settle affairs here and seek housing and employment possibilities
in Florida.
I have accumulated forty-five (45) days annual leave prior to calendar
year 1968 and would prefer receiving pay for this leave after 1 January 1969 which
would be of great financial aid in computing my income tax return.
Favorable action on this request will be appreciated.
/S/
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
I think in all fairness, - started the
ball rolling on the 7th of August, and it is now the 6th of November -- and we
couldn't really put it all through by 29 November even if we wanted to. So he is
saying: I had assumed this date would allow me about 90 days to settle personal
and financial affairs, etc. , etc. -- I request that my retirement date be changed
to 31 January 1969. He's also saying that he will actually take off on the 1st of
12
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : Cli F1 I3092A000500200002-0
 25X1A
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500200002-0
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500200002-0
 "Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500200002-0
SECRET
MR. MELOON: I did a little figuring here if the cost of
living increase goes through, and with that I figured she would get $7283, as
opposed to ($7263). So I don't think she is going to gain anything by staying
longer - other than to be able to say, "I worked for 31 years. "
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
I don't see any grounds whatsoever to grant it.
I'd hate to be sitting in office
in a couple of weeks and seeing that this is a problem case and the reason it's a
problem case is because we didn't give her a few more months.
25X1A9a On the other hand, though, you have a policy,
and this Board is trying to follow that policy.
25X1A9a
this, you know, so
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
And this fits neither hardship nor needs of
It fits nothing here, except trying to avoid trouble.
Or have people leave here happy.
That word gets around, too, Harry.
But we have already turned down cases like
turn around and approve this one?
Do we have a motion?
I move that we not go along with it.
MR. MELOON: Second.
. . . This motion was then passed . . .
Next case, She wants a
three year extension - from March 1969 to March 1972.
I would like to point out, Paul -- and I guess we are all
a little guilty on this one -- but here, again, she wrote her request for extension
on the 2nd of August, Vance wrote his letter on the 5th of September, Proctor
concurred on 30 September. It's before the Board today, 6 November, and it
will take another week to write it up, and another week for the Director to sign
off. So she winds up with four months' notice that she has to retire. I have no
14
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA C EJf092A000500200002-0
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500200002-0
SECRET
sympathy for her other than it suddenly is very short notice.
I'm saying if she doesn't get this until the
25X1A9a
beginning of December--
MR. MELOON: Call her on the telephone and let her know.
And my guess is that when this cost of living increase is approved she will want
to retire earlier -- or if she has any sense she will.
I don't see any indication here that anybody
has been giving her any reason to think she might get an extension. So she
ought to have been thinking a bit about it.
All I had in mind was to give her until the
30th of June, or something like that.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
I was for giving her six months and telling
her that she is to work with outplacement and on her own to try to get herself a
job on the outside. Her retirement will only be $2848, and she owes about
$2000 on a house mortgage and $900 to the Credit Union. I'd be for giving her
six months beyond her present date in order to work with outplacement, but
specifically with the instruction that she is to work with the outplacement office
and on her own to try to get outside employment. I'd be for giving her until six
months beyond 31 March 1969. 25X1A9a
That would take her into the next fiscal year,
and I bet John Vance is counting on getting this slot by June 30th. He referred to
this in paragraph 2 of his memo. We have people like this -- we want those
slots on 30 June.
MR. MELOON: Why not give her until 30 June, then. She
would have almost eight months if you gave her to 30 June.
Yes, let's settle on 30 June.
Let me read this note from
on the Retirement Counseling Staff. one of our counselors,
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
15
Approved For Release 2001/07/12: CIAmu E p92A000500200002-0
 25X1A
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500200002-0
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500200002-0
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500200002-0
should completely ignore what the head of the Career Service says, but our job
is to find whether there is hardship and we should extend, or whether because
of the needs of the service we need to extend--
MR. MELOON: But there are no needs of the service to
keep her on. The only reason I was willing to go along on the six months
was because, as Harry said, this case was delayed for a period of time.
25X1A9a
Incidentally, is there anything we can do to
speed up these requests? We keep on getting them just a few months ahead of
time--
MR. MELOON: Harry, I don't know if you have dealt with
any of these people, but it's like pulling teeth to get them to come in and talk
with you about it. It's quite an experience, I'll tell you! They delay, and drag
their feet, and take sick leave, and break their appointments with you, and
everything else, to avoid talking about their retirement.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Well, may not consider this
a very favorable action on our part, but I think it really will be about four months'
notice when she gets it -- it's going to take that long to get this together, write it
up, get it to the Director, and then prepare the correspondence to her. So, she
will have December, January, February, and March -- 4 months.
Do we have a motion for 30 June? 25X1A9a
so move.
I'll second 30 June.
. . . This motion was then passed . . . 25X1A9a
25X1A9a
The next one is in Logistics.
As I read this, this fellow is saying give me a year and I'll walk out of here a
happy man.
25X1A9a
Give me a year each year!
MR. ME LOON: We read the riot act to this man when he
got his extension before, and we told him we had no intention of recommending a
Approved For Release 2001/07/12: CI f 3092A000500200002-0
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500200002-0
SEC bi
second postponement of his retirement. So, he comes right back and asks for
a second one! But I just decided that this is it. Now, we can keep him --
if you want to extend, we can use him. I want to make that clear -- that I won't
object to your extending him.
Is he going to look for another job?
MR. MELOON: Yes, he's going to try to get one.
I feel like in the case that we just
considered, give him a few more months--
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Well, this one, though, is kind of a chronic
one. He has already had one extension for a year, and he was told at that time
he wouldn't be extended again. I really don't know what you would base another
three months on in this case. That's the way I react to it. 25X1A9a
I think that barring additional evidence, I
don't see why the Board should do anything except back up Mr. Meloon and Mr.
:Bannerman. He's been their man, and they have been managing him, and they
know what their situation is. I don't know on what basis you would give him an
extension.
MR. MELOON: It would be on the same basis we gave it to
the previous one here.
25X1A9a
have no quarrel with that. It sounds fine.
When you get right down to it, I really
don't find hardship in the same sense that we found it in the other case, because
this man owns his house, free and clear, and his wife is working as a GS-9 and
between them they make 10 or 12 thousand or more a year. I don't find the
same situation here as in the previous case. However, on the ground that,
"This time we really mean it, but we are going to give you a couple more months
to go out and find a job" -- I could do it on that basis. That is the only basis,
though.
25X1A9a
A grace period.
MR. MELOON: I can keep him gainfully occupied if you want
18
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : Clls'-~~I-~3092A000500200002-0
 'Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500200002-0
SEURL
to give him until June 30th -- it wouldn't bother me a bit, and I'm sure it
25X1A9a
It's kind of splitting the difference, I guess.
It sounds okay to me.
Well, I believe extension until 30 June is the motion.
. . . This motion was then seconded and passed . . .
. . . The meeting adjourned at 2:35 p. m. . . .
19
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CItg3092A000500200002-0
 Appro
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
FORM NO. 237
1-67
I L'A uuuz-
i
UNCLASSIFIED CONFIDENTIAL SECRET
OFFICIAL ROUTING SLIP
F
TO
NAME AND ADDRESS
DATE
INITIALS
2
3
4
5
6
ACTION
DIRECT REPLY
PREPARE REPLY
APPROVAL
DISPATCH
RECOMMENDATION
COMMENT
FILE
RETURN
CONCURRENCE
INFORMATION
SIGNATURE
Re rke
FOLD HERE TO RETURN TO SENDER
FROM: NAME. ADDRESS AND PHONE NO.
DATE
OD/Pens 5E56 Hq.
Z Nov68
NCLASS
JECRET
Use previous a itions