THE 166TH MEETING OF THE CIA RETIREMENT BOARD CONVENED

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-03092A000900130002-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 17
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 22, 2000
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: October 7, 1971
• Content Type: MIN

Approved For Release 2001/08/02: CIA- -192A000900130002-4
. . . The 166th meeting of the CIA RETIREMENT BOARD convened
at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, 7 October 1971, with the following present:
Mr. Harry B. Fisher, Chairman
MR. FISHER: Well, I did ask the Office of Security to send down a
gentleman -- Jim has come down to talk to the point of the 60 versus 62.
I was rather impressed with the strong wording that Mr. Wattles used in saying
that we understand that he has had ample opportunity to know of and be briefed
on the age limitation of the CIARD System. (Justifiably he's being included
I
post-60 in CIARDS) , Here again I had planned really to take a look at the
case first and then address ourselves to that. Can you address yourself
to that point?
of the problem regarding 25X1A9a
I can address to the point that he is aware of the
fact that 60 is the age limit on the CIARDS, but whether he was aware of it
before I told him I don't know. He came down in August and I talked with him
and generally I just in passing said, "Well, I think, Brian, you are doing better
than I'm doing because I'm going to have to retire at 60 because that's the age
limit of CIARDS, and you have the benefit of an extra two years. " Since he
showed no surprise that this was news to him I assume that he knew that.
was invited to answer questions on one phase
Murray's got some input on that, Harry.
Approved For Release 2001/08/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000900130002-4
'SECRET
"031 ,g ats i
dedsoNtCatlett
 iT
Approved For Release 2001/08/02 : CIA-RD 78-03092A000900130002-4
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
It's in his file here. was one
of four people -- the Office of Security at that time said they were going to
hold those four cases until the test case of finally cleared the
Board. Then _ was approved in late 1966. Then in 1967, I think, they
start to resurrect this. A memo says that requested that his
case not be processed -- requested his case, in 1968, not
be processed. The papers came down in November 1966 for these four people.
MR. FISHER: He was in the sense offered the opportunity to be con-
sidered and requested that he not be ?
This is a pencil notation in the file which in
November of 1968 it' says, "Per has talked with
the Retirement people and decided to drop application for the time. " This
C Ves~,'sC-
was in November of 1968. He had previously gone on record as ig to
go en CIARDS and then as you indicated that four men from the
Office that were interested in it -- they were holding them.
MR. FISHER: What happened with the other three?
25X1A9a 7 ,o
They were put in. A4+4hTzre of them were put in.
That was not under my jurisdiction. I don't
know what happened with their particular cases.
MR. FISHER: Is there actual correspondence to him and responses
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
No, not in that particular case. The four cases
Approved For Release 2001/08/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000900130002-4
past age 60. And the other two were put in.
MR. FISHER: And this was in 1968?
2
 Approved For Release 2001/08/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000900130002-4
That he indicated that he didn't want to continue
processing for admission. He indicated this to Stan -- he was probably
Deputy.
I don't know who wrote it, really. This situation --
most of the time this fellow was under the jurisdiction of IOS and I'm PTOS.
Stan could probably address himself to that better than I could.
MR. FISHER: He's over in the office, isn't he?
No, he's downstairs. I can get him up here.
MR. FISHER: Good. Let's get him. There's a phone right next
standard eligibility. He was told of not being eligible for admission.
He would have had to retire in 1969 at the age of 60.
He may have talked to me back then -- I've had several people talk to me about
this type of thing.
MR. FISHER: ArC0other people did apply and ift-re a`rC' did get in and
one didn't get in because of the age.
In the earlier memo to you dated 7 September of this
year he does say --
MR. FISHER: His explanation of this was in his original appeal to me.
Dated what?
MR. FISHER: This is the very recent one. September. When I NM
said he had ten days to appeal to the Director of Personnel.
(Mr. Fisher read letter. )
Approved For Release 2001/08/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000900130002-4
SET
 SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/08/02 CIA-RDP78-03092A000900130002-4
MR. FISHER: Then he begins to go into 0 his cover. Now here
(Mr. Fisher continuing to read letter.)
Again, he's hitting this "always been a member of Agency field force
and for more than four years now quite isolated --
(Mr. Fisher continued reading letter. )
The point we are trying to get at here -- he's obviously pleading
isolation -- he's pleading lack of information. We are aware that other
members of the office have applied for and been accepted into the
Agency Retirement System. One, was not because he was past
age 60.
appeared and was invited to address the Board. )
MR. FISHER: We were trying to zero in on his decision not to apply
after the old famous - case. Security at one point said they would hold
off on these others until they got a decision on this. Following that we did get
three more and there is some indication that he made a decision not to apply.
And that's what we are trying --
As Chief of the Security Staff and Office of Special
Projects, Brian was assigned to his present job
25X1A6a
Early in 1969,,I expecthe came down and I told him that the folks in the
Retirement Division wanted to talk to him and he said, "Well, who do I get
in contact with? " He said, "Is there any way I can avoid talking to them? "
There was a general reluctance to confront the issue of retirement at the time.
He did go down. I understand he was in it for a couple of days and I said,
"Well, you better get in touch with these folks," and I never did get -- I was
never faced with his sending any type of a memorandum requesting information
on retirement. I can't recall that. If there was I'm not aware of it.
Approved For Release 2001/08/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000900130002-4
ET
 SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/08/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000900130002-4
MR. FISHER: Can you identify the handwriting?
That would probably be 25X1A9a
That's not mine, certainly. No, I can't identify it.
MR. FISHER: This is a memorandum for the Chief, Admin in Security,
Appeal to be Designated as a Participant in the CIA Retirement System. And
it reads --
obviously, attention: and the subject is:
(Mr. Fisher read the memorandum.)
This is signed b Special Assistant to the Director, ^
There is a little note on the bottom -- "Come around 3 January" - this
is November - "and will come by and discuss at that time. "
This would have been in reference to the period that
I'm talking about.
MR. FISHER: There is a note on top - "Per
1969. " Good Lord! That's quite some time later. Six months. Mr.
has talked with Retirement people and has decided to drop application
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
for the time. So now about that time he's up to March and I assume realized
that if he applied then he'd be out in September. And this could very well be
(indicating notation).
I think so.
Well, it says, ' You don't recall
Just the conversation that I referred to before that said
he had been down here on TDY and it could very well be this period - that
March 1969 period. He said he had other matters to discuss -- he had a
5
Approved For Release 2001/08/02: CIA-RDP7 3092A000900130002-4
(bLU
 Approved For Release 2001/08/02: CIA3092A000900130002-4
voucher problem that he had to resolve as a result of his transfer to_
and at that time I recall saying, "Well, the Retirement folks want to talk
to you", and I referred him to the Personnel Office of OSP, who ism
or something. I understood he had gone down to Rosslyn
to talk to the people.
Is that notation accurate ?
Yes, I think it is, John. It's my recollection. He had
been down here to see about things and I think that 13* did refer him to Retire-
ment. It was my understanding that he did talk to the people in Retirement.
to apply for CIARDS.
Well, as I gathered, the thrust of that is he declined
I can't speak to that.
Well, then, it isn't accurate.
25X1A9a I can't testify to that. All I know is he talked with the
Retirement people.
Does the note say that-said that also?
MR. FISHER: It just says, '
20 March 1969,
It says,
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
has talked with Retirement people and has decided
to drop application for the time. "
Well, that's a lot more specific than you have indicated,
Well, it doesn't say CIARDS or anything.
What else would he be applying for?
I don't know about the Agency Retirement Board. He
was approaching age 60 at the time and to my knowledge he hadn't applied for
CIA Retirement. My recollection is that he went down to talk to the Retirement
Approved For Release 2001/08/02 : CIA-RD~78-03092A000900130002-4
SECRET
 ET
Approved For Release 2001/08/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000900130002-4
people and I cannot recall whether it was under Civil Service Retirement or
CIA Retirement that he had discussed.
Well, then it's interesting that he has never mentioned
that period of time and having been denied the opportunity then to appeal and
come on in.
MR. FISHER: Here is a letter to the Special Agent in Charge,
(Mr. Fisher read this letter.)
So he obviously had warning. This is in terms of Civil Service.
He claims that he didn't see that. And I called
MR. FISHER: They are rather unusual initials because he actually
capitalizes the "F" and the "G". An unusual spelling. I had to correct the
letter going out. Then it says -- I did want to just mention this. It's a
28 April 1966 review of certain security careerists designated as non-participants
in the CIA Retirement Disability System -- "The following careerists who are
stationed in ou Office have submitted requests that their designation
as non-participants in the CIA Retirement System be reviewed. " So obviously
he was told, "you are not in, " and he requested the review and that included
They are explaining to him when the
decision is reached in the case of~ve will be in a position to process
additional requests.
(Mr. Fisher continued to read this. )
Apparently missing, although there is a copy here of the nomination
and designation form, is an appeal by to be put into the CIA
System and then followed by the 1968 letter that I read to you -- reference
again to the subject's appeal. The other point that I think is significant is that
the other three people on that list did apply to get in. And that kht-ee wo out of the
re divT R 1e d2@ll/08rnhe C D7e?3t O 09 1=b
 SECRET
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Approved For Release 2001/08/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000900130002-4
appealing the determination that he is not eligible to participate in the CIA
Retirement System -- he is submitting that his whole life has been affected,
etc. We have his letter here so he formally submitted his appeal. Security
said, "We are going to hold up on all these appeals until the -case 25X1A9a
is settled.
What happened on appeal?
That appeal never made its way to the Retirement Board.
MR. FISHER: No. What I'm trying to find, obviously, through all
of this -- three of them went and somewhere along the line this man decided
not to let his move. Now I'm getting a little late in the game. This is 1971.
I presume the other three were younger than him.
No, one was over 60 and not put in.
There ~ were three that did submit and two
were approved and one not approved.
about?f
is still in -- about 57 years old.
On the basis of the same kind of service we are talking
MR. FISHER: We looked at each guy and some of them had overseas
service and we are looking for qualifying service and some didn't have it. Well,
Stan, I'd hoped that you had a very clear recollection of this. It does look like
it fell between the cracks somehow. We never got him to sign something which
says "stop my appeal" and I honestly don't know how it got stopped. Because he
obviously had written one and it never came forward.
they
You know SPT word was that 10 wanted to see
A
in Retirement and I said, "Brian, go down and see the folks in Retirement, " and he
went down and I really didn't get any results from that discussion except his
basic frame of mind was "don't rock the boat and nobody will force me to retire. "
Approved For Release 2001/08/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000'9O0130002-4
L El
 SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/08/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000900130002-4
MR. FISHER: Do any of you gentlemen have any further questions
for either Stan or Jim? Okay, fine. Thank you.
left the meeting at this time. )
Since he apparently stopped by he should have checked this already.
Checked the counselling file to see whether he actually stopped up over there
and what transpired but -- Well, I admit some of this is assumption on my
part - the fact that he has a signed appeal requesting that he be reconsidered
for admission to CIARDS with all his argumentationland that his appeal,
along with others, .were held off,,and subsequently the other three came forward
and his didn't - there is a certain amount of presumptive evidence at least.
Some action had to be taken on his part to stop it.4
He makes no mention of that in his latest correspondence.
MR. FISHER: He talks all around it. He is just - quoting the
regulations. I don't want to go through all the pages he has written. It's
ILLEGIB
obvious he thinks even after he gets into CIARDShe's entitled to an
extension. And that age 65 is sort of what he's shootingrso it isn't as if he's
saying, "Let me in and now I'll go. "
Harry, isn't it also at least a working assumption that
the Board, having turned down the other guy at age 60, could do the same here?
There is nothing significantly different in his case and the other guy's.
ILLEGIB
25X1A9a MR. FISHER: That's what I'm_looking for. On the.
case there was a little stronger evidence. I'm not sure it's much stronger
ILLEGIB than this. As a matter of fact-hey're very similar. Well, this is allig
so, in my opinion, so over-written -- I sort of question how much effort we have
to give to analyzing all of his service in here. I don't know if you have all plowed
through it. It's filled with some things that just have absolutely no bearing. Its
ILLEGIB _got some incidents that are probably qualifying. But the fact that over a
15-year career he recalls some of the minutia in here would seem to indicate
Approved For Release 2001/08/02 : CIA-RD1978-03092A000900130002-4
 BET
Approved For Release 2001/08/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000900130002-4
to me that there is a lot of time not spent on this kind of stuff. So he made
restaurants
a reservation at a motel and reservations to eat a -- to get
there. In total it doesn't strike me that it's five year's worth. But it could
-----------
be a difficult case for us to argue for a couple of hours and then come to the
conclusion that he's past age 60 and had every opportunity to get in.
Apparently his first briefing by ( fc?arr3 Branch
Co .*' e //'/C-
was in March of this year.
MR. FISHER: Nothing before that?
Nothing.
. . . Off the record
Has our retirement at 60 been tested in court?
MR. FISHER: No. This is a possibility. He also is a lawyer --
has legal training.
25X1A9a Do you feel our position is vulnerable? A court test?
It's not without doubt, honestly, Gordon. I think,
again, any time you go into court it does depend on the facts of the case. I
think if we were to, for example, to move in on a GS-4 clerk who sat in this
building his entire career -- I think that would be one thing. Whereas if we
moved in on a DDP type and who had all kinds of experiences and so forth --
that might be another thing. I just can't say because there are all kinds of
about no discrimination because of age. The law applicable to industry,
Presidential statements, and so forth. I honestly can't predict. Now in the
25X1A9a ILLEGIE
case it was clear-cut case in terms of procedure and every-
thing else. We could have taken our chances on it. I'm not quarreling with the
final decision.
Approved For Release 2001/08/02: CIA-RDP78-03092A000900130002-4
 SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/08/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000900130002-4
MR. FISHER: John can talk about this better than I can, but we
think I quote, "The Director can fire for any reasoi and/or for no reason. "
So that's fine. He said that. But this is X-years later. It seems to me
they could say, fine, but let's be reasonable. That wasn't given to be used
arbitrarily just when the Director felt like it or for certain reasons. He
wouldn't use it to discriminate just for age.
25X1A9a J-, do you have the same concern ^about CIARDS' cases?
ILLEGIB
MR. FISHER: No, that's statute. The law says you go out by-
tend to rest on the fact that our law has been interpreted in the past, and I
age 60.
It's law and they buy the benefits as well as the
MR. FISHER: And that very point is a good argument on the other.
We get the penalty but no benefits. And I guess sooner or later we are going
it,
to have tke case.
Harry, I guess you said you hadn't waded through all
MR. FISHER: I did. (Meaning he did read the material.)
We are talking about a period just under 11 years, I
guess. That's the only period that any claim can be made.
MR. FISHER: The four years are out.
And by his own account I don't see how you can find
60 in those -- there are somewhat less than 11 years in this. Some
isolated incident that involved some small unit of time, but not 50 percent of
the time. It's hard to imagine that this could be parlayed into 50 percent of the
11
Approved For Release 2001/08/02 : CIA- ~ P,J$- 92A000900130002-4
 SECR U
Approved For Release 2001/08/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000900130002-4
25X1A9a
ILLEGIB
25X1A9a
I think the Board has to find some positive basis
to recommend to the Director that he waive this 60 year requirement.
MR. FISHER: We don't -- I defer to you on this in the event that
we are going all the way. I feel that we could turn this down on the basis
of no qualifying service in which case the question of 60 to 62 has no bearing --
or you could say we don't even worry about it which might seem wrong because
even if he was qualified he can't get in because of the 60/62 -- or we can say
we don't think he's qualified and in addition even if he was we can't recommend
him.
I don't see the qualifying service. I hadn't even gone
into the age factor. I don't want to wade through any more like that.
I put the age factor aside and looked for the qualification.
MR. FISHER: I'm sure we all did this but I guess what I'm saying
is, it eases the burden a little bit in terms of how much you strain to find
qualifying service when you realize that you have got pretty good evidence
that even if lie got in)he wouldn't make it because of the 60/62. Did you find
anything ?
No, I didn't, Harry. One thing that bothers me is the
other cases. In other words, two other cases from - were-
accepted and if they are the same cases as this then I think we may have a
problem.
With a possible exception -- this is only something
like 11 years. They may_have had 20 and 25 and probably some more.
Of the two that were approved, one had considerable
investigations in
I think spent an awful lot of time in actual
and continually over a long period of time.
Well, he did, too.
Approved For Release 2001/08/02 : CIA-RDP98-03092A000900130002-4
SECRET
 SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/08/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000900130002-4
MR. FISHER: probably came closer to being parallel
to this, but --
25X1A9a Well, you can look at that in detail.
I would have too check. I don't know if
was doing this in a special period or not.
25X1A9a
You mean the (Emek ) case in the 1969 rule. Well,
then, that wouldn't count.
MR. FISHER: Charlie, I can't disagree with what you are saying,
but even if he is a bit similar to ) I don't think that means that
we have to thereafter make the same mistake.
25X1A9a You have to think in terms of going to court and that
case being thrown up in your face as a similar case just 0 like it. The same
factors and so on.
MR. FISHER: But you stand on the fact that five men examined the
details of one and found it qualifying. On this case we didn't. So, there is
periods of service, too. You are down here to 11 years total out of which you
have got to find five good years. You note the next one might have been 20
years of service. I tell you this. We had everything identified by time-
frames and you may have found that, again, I'd have to get it out to recall it
completely. You don't remember when it was considered do you?
25X1A9a
MR. FISHER: He may have spent large periods of time with defectors
and that type of thing that caused us to vote for it. On the ~ case we must
have judged that four or five times.
All laid out in blocks of time. We had all that laid out.
13
Approved For Release 2001/08/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000900130002-4
E 1ET
S
 SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/08/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000900130002-4
Well, Harry, you turned me off once but I won't
be turned off twice. I still say that from the standpoint of the record the fact
that this man doesn't qualify on the face of it -- on the record -- in terms of the
regulations requires a burden of extenuating circumstances about which there
is no allegation even. That is, 62 -- he's not 60. Therefore, what is the
justification for waiving?
MR. FISHER: If you went into court, which way would you prefer?
-- I was more inclined to say we didn't find qualifying
service. But in this case even had we found qualifying service he was past
62 and had every opportunity to apply. As a matter of fact ~ he even put -uv~
application in process -- an appeal in process -- as early as 1966 or 1967.
Did this Board approve his extension to 62 ?
MR. FISHER: No. He didn't have 20 years for retirement so 62
was his retirement age.
This is why you put the 60 rule in the regulations.
You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Unless you can overcome that burden
there is no case and there isn't an allegation of an extenuating circumstance
here.
MR. FISHER: Do you prefer then sort of making the point first in the
documentation as to begin with this man is past 60 and therefore on the
surface not eligible.
I think that stands up in court automatically.
25X1A9a MR. FISHER: In
qualifying service first?
Do it the same way we did
ase did we address ourselves to his
No, I think the main thrust of the memo to him
Approved For Release 2001/08/02 : CIA-RDl! 8-03092A000900130002-4
SECRET
 SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/08/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000900130002-4
MR. FISHER: Well, do we lose anything by making both points?
No, I don't think so.
MR. FISHER: Do you feel we should make the first point and say
that on that basis we don't even consider whether it's qualifying?
MR. FISHER: Well, I think we have a recommendation that he be
We have. I see nothing wrong with that. Further-
more, the Board, in trying to lay out the whole case, found a doubtful if at all
any basis for even qualifying service.
I so move.
Second.
MR. FISHER: If I understand the sense of the Board in this case,
I think whatever we write let's get it up so I can run it by John. That we make
the point first that he is past age 60, that the Board did pursue the fact that
he had at one point started an appeal through, and that it was stopped and that
we also, in considering the whole case, reviewed his records and didn't find
it qualifying. So the two things together made it quite sure to be put down.
25X1A9a I think you could even say the record indicates that he
stopped it.
MR. FISHER: I think we should indicate three other members of the
That point worries me because your evidence for
making the statement is very, very weak.
MR. FISHER: Ben, it may be. We have a signed appeal from him
with an indication that it was tabled and with no further initiative on his part to
pur sue it.
Approved For Release 2001/08/02 : CIA-Rf '78-03092A000900130002-4
IEtET
 E T
Approved For Release 2001/08/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000900130002-4
Say he didn't pursue it rather than stopped it.
You know the rule is age 60 and the burden is on the
applicant to submit extenuating circumstances to warrant deviation from the rule.
His case doesn't contain those extenuating circumstances, period.
MR. FISHER: There& is an indication that he didn't pursue an appeal.
Now, again, you know I wish you -- there is a note on there, ' -
stop all this. "
There is a difference between "he didn't pursue it"
and "he stopped it. "
MR. FISHER: You can't prove he stopped it.
We all suspect it but the evidence isn't clear.
MR. FISHER: He certainly didn't pursue it. I mention this because
25X1A6a of this isolation claim of his. The other boys seem to be able to
stay on target and surely they all talked about it. Let's see what you can
come up with and Ben is with this, too.
When we write up the type of service claimed --
I'm not trying to get out of any work -- but can we just say, "see attached
memorandum? " I can't condense that thing.
MR. FISHER: Okay. Agreed.
25X1A9a
Can I get two voluntary retirements approved?
MR. FISHER: Okay, fine.
25X1A9a 25X1A9a
I have a voluntary retirement on-
31 October 1971; and an involuntary retirement case on
31 October 1971.
16
Approved For Release 2001/08/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000900130002-4
3.C Ei
 SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/08/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000900130002-4
MR. FISHER: I so move and we all agree. Fine.
. . . The meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
17
Approved For Release 2001/08/02 : CIA J TO92A000900130002-4