(UNTITLED)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-03092A000800040005-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 14
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 23, 2001
• Sequence Number: 5
• Content Type: MIN

25X1X4
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 :CIA-RDP78-03092A000800040005-2
Next 12 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 :CIA-RDP78-03092A000800040005-2
 Approved For Release.,,Z001/07/12 :CIA-RDP78-03092A00080Q~0005-2
SEC~E
25X1A
ecommend we approve them.
is motion was then passed
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
on You have June 1953 to November 1955 as 48 months.
And it also doesn't add up to the total of qualifying service, but I don't
think it makes any difference.
28 months, right. He still has the
60 months -- but we might as well correct the arithmetic.
Thank you, Jay.
Then we have five year designations on 14
individuals who appear to meet the criteria.
Recommend approval.
Second.
. This motion was then passed
25X1A
Then we have some requests for
voluntary retirement. The first one is He has 36
25X1A
years of Federal service, 20 years with the Agency, and fully qualified
25X1A
otherwise. -likewise well qualified. And
25X1A -another OC type - 55 years old, 35 years of service, and
otherwise qualified. May I have a mation on these three requests for
voluntary retirement?
25X1A
Move the requests be granted.
Second.
This motion was then passed
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CI ~1~~~3092A000800040005-2
25X1A
 Approved For Release~,001/07/12 :CIA-RDP78-03092A00080~,40005-2
SECRET
25X1A
25X1A
We have somewhere in the
neighborhood of 10 additional ones who have applied for 31 July retirement
since the Board last met.
W e even had one today asking - "I wonder
if I could get domestic qualifying service and go out under the CIARDS" --
And Idon't know what my legal basis would be, but I just feel like saying -
"I'rn sorry, you're too late. " It isn't really spelled out anywhere that
you have to give notice 30 days ahead of time, but I just think it's
ridiculous for someone to come down to the 22nd or 23rd of July and say,
"Act on this so I can retire by 31 July. "
25X1A He asked for an estimate.
efore we leave this point, I'd like to
ask Ben or John, is there some way we can tie this thing down --
We can always do it when we want to, but suppose they come down on the
25X1A 30th of July and say, "I'd like to get domestic qualifying service" --
You can put something in the Regulation -
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
some reasonable period.
I don't understand your concern about
the processing time -- because this man would have to be on leave without
pay until some action was taken on that decision, so you can build into this
all the processing time you need -- you dan't have to guarantee him a
decision by 31 July.
But supposing he says he wants out by
31 July or not at all -- do you put him on leave without pay?
You mean one that might involve a
question of adjudication. You say - "Okay, but you must understand it
takes an orderly process to review this, so as of 31 July you are going to
be on leave without pay. "
So we could make it tough and say leave
15
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA~D~~092A000800040005-2
 Approved For Release~,?01/07/12 :CIA-RDP78-03092A000800`40005-2
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
without pay? We could enforce leave without pay?
You have to do it leave without pay.
If it's disapproved, then they can use annual leave.
We just checked the law and Comptroller
General decisions again, and once a man has stated his intent to retire
he then forecloses the opportunity to use terminal leave unless the
Agency says --
Harry, I think the Board ought not
to break their backs to get it done in 24 hours, and if he is willing to
live with leave without pay for however long for an orderly review of his
case, then it hasn't changed anything. Then if everything is approved
and the Director's decision would be 31 July, then you wash out the
leave without pay.
It's the kind of language that you can't
very well put into the Regulation, I guess, because you're saying:
Unless you get this in to us 30 days ahead of time --
The application says you are supposed
to submit it 90 days in advance.
That then gives us a basis for saying we
may not be able to process it in a shorter time. This is not a bad
answer to give somebody, that "We will go through the normal process,
but you may have to go on leave without pay until it is adjudicated. "
And you don't want to convene a
special meeting of the Board?
No, I don't think you should. This
man has had plenty of time to make up his mind on the 5. 6 and that sort
of thing, so why should this Board convene a special meeting?
had to because she was going Civil Service.
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CI~
-~3092A000800040005-2
 Approved For Release~D01/07/12 :CIA-RDP78-03092A000800~D005-2
ECRE~
25X1A
25X1A
You could still place that woman
on leave without pay and if disapproved here you go back and you effect
a retirement under Civil Service as of 31 July. You let her carry the
burden of her delayed application.
ay. Then that takes us to case No. 5
on the agenda, and his case has been withdrawn.
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
There will be a new action. ~ you may remember we had the
last time and I noticed that the language got a little confused, and in
checking on this one I find that in all innocence _. really thought
we would first get him extended and then later on we would put him in
25X1A
the CIARDS. So when we told him if he was approved it would be with a
letter explaining to him he would foreclose on CIARDS:" They have now
pulled it back and are trying to write up a case for domestic qualifying
service for the period of time to get him in the CJARDS. And they will
probably ask for an extension, but as I understand it they will ask for a
shorter extension, We will see what it is -- but, in any event, we don't
have to address ourselves to it today.
So we move on to the case of Mrs. 25X1A
hich is a request for extension under the Civil Service Retirement25X1A
System from 30 April 1971 until 31 July 1972, This is a GS-7,
working She will not be eligible for retirement until
April of 1971 when she hits her 62nd birthday, but at that point she would
actually be retiring at age 62 with approximately only 18 and three quarters
years of service. Notes to myself: She is a secretary - GS-7 __ 25X1A
she doesn't have 20 years of service -- she is
where the recruitment of a replacement secretary might be more of a
problem -- she is a widow -- and she will get only $3300 a year.
Harry, before you get to discussion
of the merits here, I am reminded of that memo from Col. White to all
17
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CI >~03092A000800040005-2
 Approved For Releas~.001/07/12 :CIA-RDP78-03092A00080~0005-2
s~cRE~
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
of the Deputies that said they were supposed to take a position, and I
notice here that all has done is to forward it. Do you find
this consistent with that admonition from Col. White?
Of course all of the Deputies have had a
bit of trouble on the compassion cases --
You remember the thrust of that
was you really buck it on to the Director and/or to the Board - and they
have to sort out a recommendation. But there is no recommendation
here -- this case has merely been passed to the Board.
I'm a little sympathetic to their problem,
too. I get from this the rather favorable approach that if we can see our
way clear to giving her an extension based on compassion, that they will be
glad to have her -- as opposed to:"We really don't think you should give
it to her. "
There is certainly no negative thrust.
And I don't know how they could get into it
without a real invasion of privacy where they ask for a complete picture
of her financial situation and then they sit and judge whether it's a compassioni
case or not. So I realize Col. White told the Deputies to take a position.
but I haven't been pushing them on the straight compassion case other than
to at least say whether they would be happy to have the person stay on. So
I'm willing to ride with this one.
Jay, they say they can continue to use her.
Does that mean they would be happy to continue to use her ?
Oh yes, she is doing a very fine job out
i and she has certainly been there for a long enough period
of time so that she knows the business thoroughly -- and this is an under a
cover operation -- so I think it would be highly advisable to keep her -
and she wants to continue working.
It's this sort of thing that does remind me -
18
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA>~i092A000800040005-2
 Approved For ReleasgZ,001/07/12 :CIA-RDP78-03092A00080~0005-2
25X1A
25X1
A
and we are still facing it - is hiring people now and projecting down the
line and saying, "Gee - you know, they're not going to have a full career
when they hit age 62. " Somehow when it's 17 years away, you think it's
going to work itself out, but invariably they wind up by pleading to be
allowed to stay a few more years. And you do feel badly about turning
somebody out with less than 20 years of annuity. So we're trying to be
tougher in terms of age limit when we're hiring, to block this out, and we
do get them to sign apaper - for whatever that's worth - saying that they
do understand --
You don't run afoul of the fair practices
You might -- discrimination because
of age --
We might. So we're saying, "We are
not discriminating against you but you must recognize that it is our policy
that you will retire at age 62--" It weakens their case a little bit when
they come to the end of the line -- whereas now we have people who are able
to say, "Gee, when we came with you we had reason to expect that we
would be allowed to work until age 70. "
Well, how do you all feel about this?
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
I'd grant it.
Jay, would you like to make the motion? 25X1A
Yes, please. I move that
~e granted the extension until 31 July 1972,
econd.
is motion was then passed
There was no reason to make it
30 June rather than 31 July, I suppose.
19
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 :CIA-R 3092A000800040005-2
 Approved For Releas~001/07/12 :CIA-RDP78-03092A00080~0005-2
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
~CRE~
No. She is looking for completing the
20 years and get an extra $40 a month. And I feel we have the tone
from the Director on these GS-5, 6, 7 widows. 25X1A
Then we move on to M He
is requesting an extension under the Civil Service Retirement System from
30 June 1971 until 30 June 1973. He is in DDI/C7ER.
He is not requesting it --
It's being requested for him. My next
words here in my notes are: Request is actually by -based on
25X1A
operational need. I'm just going to read you what I have written here.
Since we are talking about an extension from June 1971 until June 1973, this
in itself will provide them almost two years to train a replacement. Would
a one year extension be more appropriate? This is my reaction. They're
really saying tha eeds three years to replace this. fellow. I just
throw that out. Maybe you can talk to it, Jay.
The answer is yes, and maybe more
time. This fellow is very unique. And there is no doh t we have known
he was going to retire for awhile now, but it has been impossible to recruit
somebody or train somebody to replace him . He has unique knowledge and
capability in dealing with these contacts throughout the petroleum industry
in this country -- and his knowledge of the petroleum industry in the Western
world -- he is just irreplaceable from that standpoint and from an
operational standpoint of intelligence production, and it's just highly desirablF:
that we keep him as long as possible - as long as he is willing to stay.
Well, you know, when you back up now
and figure out how many years it has been known that this fellow was going
to retire in June of 1971, you're not just talking about one or two years for
recruitment now.
They mention in their paper they have some
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA
 Approved For Releas~001/07/12 :CIA-RDP78-03092A00080,~,40005-2
S~~RE~
young fellows but it's going to take a long time --
But I'rn sort of with you, Karl, on how long they
25X1A have had to do something about this.
It's been more like four or five years.
25X1A
25X1A
They have had since 1966, really.
From our standpoint it doesn't matter
how long -- this rnan has a unique knowledge, and I think it would be a
criminal act of the Agency to toss him out. We are saying we need him,
period.
If you were talking about any field other
than petroleum. I would find it easier to believe -- but there are a good
number of people that know the petroleum business inside out. There is
nothing esoteric about it.
25X1A Well, I'm inclined to be sympathetic when
25X1A somebody like ays there's nobody else like this rnan. But it
would just seem like good planniri.g to push to get somebody to replace him.
25X1A Certainly they can replace him with somebody.
But he won't be as good.
So why turn this rnan out? that's right.
Well, mainly because the Agency has a
25X1A Policy that people retire at 60.
We have all kinds of people that come up
at age 60 and would like to work a year or two longer, and we have to tell
25X1 Athem no.
I understand that, but I also understand
25X1~at it is accepted if we say we have an operational need for aperson --
Well, for two years, though, we don't do
too many of those. This is unusual.
21
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA~>~CT3092A000800040005-2
 Approved For Release~2001/07/12 :CIA-RDP78-03092A00080Q,~0005-2
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
memo
of 29 June 1970 says, "This Office has other analysts working on petroleum
but none has depth and breadth of knowledge or enjoys the
reputation he has in both government and business circles. " I think that
says that he really stands out as abolutely unique. I don't know how you
would get a rnan trained in three or four years to do this sort of thing.
It's going to be one hell of a job to get some guy to replace him.
I'm just wondering if we aren't going to
have the same request again in 1973. Isn't the situation going to be the
same then?
25X1A Yes, probably the same. We do have
to recognize that at some point we will have to cut it off. All we are
saying is that he is valuable, that he is healthy and wishes to continue to
25X1 A work, and we want him, so why make him go at age 60 ?
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
was trying to paint out 25X1 A
at the beginning, I'm not clear that the man himself is pushing for this.
Is he agreeable -
Yes, he is agreeable.
Is he more than agreeabl
e - does he
really want to stay on?
I don't know.
Is this a coincidence that in the original
request it was to bring him up to age 62 --
No, I dont think s o.
-- because 62 is kind of the end around
here. A one year request is a little more understandable, I think, than
two years, which is pushing it right to the limit.
Well, s being straightforward
in saying he needs him for two years. Why say one year and then come
up again next year and ask for another year.
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 :CIA-~-~3~92A000800040005-2
25X1A
 Approved For Releas~001/07/12 :CIA-RDP78-03092A00080~0005-2
E~;~E~
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
Assuming that we approve this, does the
Board feel we should condition it somehow with some language to the
effect that we certainly would hope that within this time period his office
will be prepared to seek a replacement or find an adquate replacement
for him. Do you feel it would be appropriate for the Board to say this,
so that we won't be faced with another request at the end of the two years?
I suppose I ought to line up with Jay on
this one but I have trouble doing this because of the number of people we
have had to take a firm stand on . In many of our fields we could make
an argument about the uniqueness of qualifications - we could do this very
easily.
Surprisingly, though, we haven't had too
Partly because we have made it clear to
them that the Director laid down a policy, and that this IS the policy.
But I get the feeling that if this guy leaves
that the Agency is going to be, let's say, weakened considerably in this
field.
Absolutely!
o we would
I guess t
lots of physicists, engineers, case officers, and so on, but we don't have
25X1A many petroleum specialists.
25X1A
25X1A
be cutting off our own noses
he fact of the matter is we have
Well, I think we are ready for a motion.
That is what I find so hard to understand,
why we don't -- if we really wanted to recruit a high level guy in this field --
Maybe it's because industry can pay
23
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 :CIA-~~~ ~092A000800040005-2
 Approved For Release~001/07/12 :CIA-RDP78-03092A00080~0005-2
~~~l~1~ 1
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
I think Jay is ready to make a motion.
Yes indeed! I move that M
be extended far two years, until 30 June 1973.
Do we have a second?
Second.
Do we want to add, though, Jay, that during the
interim period every effort be made to get a replacement?
No, I would prefer that that not be
added. I would have no objection to an addition which said there should
be no further request for extension --
I would feel that that is more inhibiting
than merely saying tat the Board in approving this recommendation noted
that there is nav a three year period in which to obtain a replacement for
this man, and we hope they would move in that direction - or something
like that - without closing it out. Because if the Director signs a
statement which says no further extensions, then you may be in more of a
box than the other way around. How does the Board feel about saying
something along the lines I just mentioned?
Yes. I think Jay's suggestion was too
Because -who knows - we could
possibly become involved in the Middle East and his knowledge could be
critically needed for another six months, or whatever. So we would at
25X1A
least be putting them on notice that we would hope they would move on this.
excegg,t~~
Is that okay, then, with the Board? {Board members7i the 25X1A
affirmative. )
I will vote against it for the reason that I
think a two year period should be enough to recruit a replacement for him.
It's just a matter of principle.
All right. Okay.
24
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 :CIA-R~~2A000800040005-2
 Approved For Release~p01/07/12 :CIA-RDP78-03092A000800,~0005-2
REGRET
25X1A We will so record that dissenting vote.
I'm not sure what your point was ? -
25X1A
do you mean two years from now?
Two years from the date of this action.
Rather than two years from June 1971.
Yes.
Naw the original motion -and the one
which was seconded - was a two year extension to June 1973. You all
25X1A xealize that is what you were voting for? (Board members except
ndicated in affirmative. )
Giving him three years.
25X1A
What happens now with a dissenting vote?
It is so recorded.
And it moves forward --
No, not really -- not in the paper to the
Director.
25X1A It's recorded in the Minutes.
Occasionaly we have used words like
"the Board's vote was unanimous". Here we obviously would not say
it was a unanimous vote.
25X1A
If you have a split vote - like we
had one case where we had a 3/2 vote, and we did record that.
25X1A
25X1A
The next case is
a 15th anniversary review. Let me go through this just once again. He
really doesn't make it, according to the record. I think you all recognize
that. The Regulation says he must be in an assignment which would
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 :CIA-RDRQ8~~~92A000800040005-2
 Approved For Release~01/07/12 :CIA-RDP78-03092A00080Q9,~0005-2
SECRET
satisfy the qualifying service requirement indicated for the review involved.
He will complete 15 years of service with the Agency in December 1970, at
which time he will still need six moxe months of qualifying service. But
the Board has had sort of an ad hoc policy that if they are within six months
we would administratively delay the case So this is really what I'm
asking for, that we accept the fact that he will be within six months of it,
and he is now overseas in an assignment. I don't know haw I can really
ask the Board to vote on something like this, that we administratively lose
the papers. Let's say we informed the Board that this man will be
retained, based on his being overseas at this time, and the Board interposed
no objections.
We are telling you it looks as though
once we get all of the facts together we may have to remove him from the
S ystem , but by the time we get all those papers we may have found our
earlier advice was in error.
. . The Board adjourned at 3:10 p. m.
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CI~~3092A000800040005-2