REVISION OF OMS OVERVIEW

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP84-00022R000100020013-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 21, 2014
• Sequence Number: 13
• Publication Date: January 25, 1972
• Content Type: MF

Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/21 : CIA-RDP84-00022R000100020013-8
25X1
? S.
ET ?
MEMORANDUM FOR :
FROM ?
SUBJECT
25 January 1972
Historical Officer,
Office oi medical Services
Support Services Historical Officer (SSHO)
Revision of OMS Overview
1. Returned herewith is the first draft of the Over-
view of the OMS. It is a well written and well organized oric
For purposes of the historical program, however, we (both
25X1 L and I reviewed the paper in detail) think that the paper
must ave more illustrative examples and specific source references.
It is certainly legitimate to tell the reader that other of the
papers in the OMS series will have "more detailed discussion," but
some of these specifics need to be extracted for inclusion in the
overview. We have indicated on the copy points at which an
example would help; we have noted various footnotes which, in fact,
should be source references; and we have noted most of the
points in the text which should be given a source reference
number and the document listed in the sources.
25X1
2. Although most of the items listed below probably have
been noted on the copy, these are the kinds of items which might
be expanded in your report:
Korean War demands, pp. 13-14.
Growth of training demands in 1951, pp.23-24.
Growing demands from OPC, p.25.
Research activities of PCD, p. 29.
Psychiatric services, p. 34. What kinds of service
to OS and DDP? What was DDI interest in group
therapy?
U-2 project, p. 37. What did OMS do?
Personality studies, pp. 41, 55, 86. How done and
how used?
Health of on-duty personnel, pp. 76-77. What steps
were taken after the BOB directive?
Research on defectors, pp. 81-82.
000224
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/21 : CIA-RDP84-00022R000100020013-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/21 : CIA-RDP84-00022R000100020013-8
SECRET
3. I would like to bring to your attention the
following comment made by because I also think
that the emphasis on recruiting is rather heavy:
" I feel that the overview paper should say some-
thing about major problems -- in addition to that of
recruiting qualified physicians. A few suggestions:
DDP resentment of medical holds on overseas assignees,
OTR gripes about delay in processing JOT's, alleged
preferential treatment for people of higher grades,
the OMS lean-over-backwards posture to avoid trespass
on the territory of private practice. Probably there
were more important ones that I know nothing about."
4. With the suggested revisions, there is no question
but that this paper will be a most useful history. If you have
any questions, please call me. Incidentally, I am very pleased
that we now have first drafts of most of the OMS papers. The
Psychiatric Staff is going forward for final review by this
Staff, but Psychological Services will be coming back to you
for extensive reworking. I hope to take an initial run on
Field Support before this week is out.
SECRET
a
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/21 : CIA-RDP84-00022R000100020013-8
25X1
25X1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/21 : CIA-RDP84-00022R000100020013-8
17 January 1972
Jack:
Herewith the Medical Services overview. It's well
organized and well written. My editing is largely of the
nit-pick variety. There are, of course, a few problems.
The only sources are those given in the footnotes --
a total of about eight, most of them references to other
OMS papers. Perhaps the writer feels that an overview
paper need not be sourced -- that's done in the component
papers. He may be right. Do we need a policy decision?
I agree with you that the paper needs more specifics,
but again there's a question of principle -- should the
specifics be covered in the component papers and left out
of the overview? I don't think so, but neither do I think
that the overview should repeat all of the specifics of the
25:0 component papers, refers the reader to other OMS
papers for "more detailed discussion," which is fine, but
I think that this paper should have enough illustrative
examples to let it stand on its own merits. Here are a
few things that might be exemplified:
Korean War demands, pp. 13-14. Examples?
Growth of training demands in 1951, pp. 23-24.
What were they and how manyY
Growing demands from OPC, p. 25. Specific examples?
Research activities of PCD, p. 29. Examples?
Services of Psychiatric Division, p. 34. What kinds
of services to OS and DDP? What was the DDI
interest in group therapy?
OMS in the U-2 project, p. 37. What did OMS do?
Personality studies, pp. 41, 55, 86. How were they
done and how were they used?
Health of on-duty personnel, pp. 76-77. What steps
were taken after the BOB directive?
Research on defectors, pp. 81-82. Specific examples?
I feel that the overview paper should say something about
major problems -- in addition to that of recruiting qualified
physicians. A few suggestions: DDP resentment of medical holds
on overseas assignees, OTR gripes about delay in processing
JOT's, alleged preferential treatment for people of higher
grades, the OMS lean-over-backwards posture to avoid trespass
on the territory of private practice. Probably there were
more important ones that I know nothing about.
000225
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/21 : CIA-RDP84-00022R000100020013-8
25X1