THE SUPPORT SERVICES HISTORICAL SERIES THE DEVELOPMENT OF RETIREMENT POLICY IN THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, 1947-68

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 165
• Document Creation Date: November 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 8, 2000
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: June 1, 1971
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved ForRelease2000/06/01 : CIA-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
SECRET
CIA Internal Use Only
Access Controlled by DDS
CIA HISTORICAL STAFF
The Support Services
Historical Series
THE DEVELOPMENT OF RETIREMENT POLICY
IN THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, 1947-68
SECRET
OP-4
June 1971
Copy 2 of 3
Approved For Release 2000/06/01 : CIA-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/01 : CIA-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
WARNING
This document contains information affecting the national
defense of the United States, within the meaning of Title
18, sections 793 and 794, of the US Code, as amended.
Its transmission or revelation of its contents to or re-
ceipt by an unauthorized person is prohibited by law.
GROUP 1
Excluded horn automatic I
downgrading and declassification
Approved For Release 2000/06/01 : CIA-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release
CIA Internal Use Only LT2.-. ---
Access Controlled by the Directorate for Support
THE DDS HISTORICAL SERIES
OP-4
THE DEVELOPMENT OF RETIREMENT POLICY
IN THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
1947-68
25X1A by
June 1971
25X1A
Harry B. Fisher
Direct
Director
of Personnel
HISTORICAL STAFF
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
Approved For Release 2000/06gWRATRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0?WMIRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Contents
Page
I. Introduction 1
II. Beginnings 7
A. Introduction . 000000000000 7
B. Early Policy . 00000?00? 0 0 0 10
III. Moving Toward Retirement Legislation . . . 13
IV. The Agency Retirement Board . . . . . . . 20
A. The Origins of a New Policy . . . . . 20
B. The New Board at Work .
0 0
. 25
V. Retirement Policy in the Clandestine
Service . ?00000000 0 32
A. Introduction . . g DO 0 0 32
B. The Need for Legislation . . . 0 . . ? 33
t C. The "Hump Study" . . . . . . ? . . . ? 38
D. The New Retirement Policy 44
-E. Retirement Policy and the Public . . 45
F. Conclusions . . 0 . . 0 0?0 0 0 0 0 49
VI. Retirement Policy and the Support
Services . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 0000 52
A. Introduction . . 00000000000 52
25X1A
B. The
Case . . 54
Approved For Release 2000/0WR-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06?W64TRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Page
C. Printing Plant Personnel 60
25X1A D. 63
25X1A
M===1
. 0 0. 65
F. Conclusions ........ . 66
VII, Retirement Happenings in the
Intelligence Directorate . . . . . 00 . 68
A. Introduction . 000 00 0 0 0 0 0? . 68
B. The Approach to Policy 69
C. Conclusions . . . . ? ? . 73
VIII. Events Leading to Early Retirement
Legislation . . . . . ...... . . . . 76
A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
B. Discontinued Service Retirement . . . 79
C. An Early Retirement Proposal
D. The Pay Reform Act .
0 0
. 82
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86
E. A Reassessment of Existing Practices . 89
F. Ceiling Control and Retirement . . . . 91
G. Conclusions 0000000000 0 0 . 94
IX. A New Law and New Policy ....... . . 96
A. Introduction .
O00000000
B. The New System at Work . 00 0
C. The End of the Agency Retirement
Board .
- iv -
- 96
. 98
? . 105
Approved For Release 2000/0tRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06?WRWRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
X.
D. Qualifying Service
E. Conclusions . . 0 0 0 0 0 ? ? 0
Another Law -- And More Problems .
0
.
0
.
Page
107
. 113
. 114
A. The Fringe Benefits Act . . . .
.
.
. 114
B. Another Look at the Policy . .
.
.
. 118
C. The Counseling Staff . . . . .
.
.
. 123
XI.
Conclusions . . . . . .
0 0000 0
0
0
. 125
Appendixes
A.
Chronology, 1947-68 . . . . . . . .
.
.
. 140
B.
Retirement Rationale . ...??..
?.
.
. 144
C.
Source References ? . ....
. .
.
.
. 148
v
Approved For Release 2000/0M:atRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06WtWRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
THE DEVELOPMENT OF RETIREMENT POLICY
IN THE
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
1947-68
I. Introduction
This history traces the development of the
Agency's retirement policy. The time frame covers
the period beginning with the early days of the
Agency in 1947 and concludes with developments tak-
ing place in 1968.
The evolution of a retirement policy for the
Central Intelligence Agency has been a difficult and
painful experience. There were times when it seemed
that most obstacles to the declaration and adminis-
tration of a relatively simple and straightforward
retirement policy had been cleared away. But over
the years, a variety of conflicting factors served
to influence policy development with the result that
many changes in approach were necessary.
It can be assumed that the difficulties en-
countered on the way to a retirement policy for the
Approved For Release 2000/0gptAtRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
MEI
awl
Approved For Release 2000/0Egcltfa-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Agency stemmed from the essentially unique nature of
the proposed policy. The effort by the Agency to
require retirement of its employees eight to ten years
prior to mandatory retirement at age 70 was an unheard-
of violation of employee expectations. Only two
Government employment systems in the civilian area,
the Department of State and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, were known to be able to force early
retirement of their employees. Their special legis-
lation permitted early retirements, but there were
added inducements. The Agency, however, was unable
to offer any inducements. Consequently, employees
were told that their retirement was earnestly desired
by the Agency but that, unfortunately, it had nothing
to offer in palliation for any inconvenience or finan-
cial hardship they might suffer in the process. It
is doubtful that any other agency or department of
the Government would have attempted to impose such
a policy on its employees. It is highly unlikely
that it would have been possible elsewhere.
It will be shown that the Agency embarked on
the development of a retirement policy for the purpose
- 2 -
Approved For Release 2000/0?Mk9t-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06?fict&TRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
of providing an additional stimulant to attrition.
Various studies had convinced Agency officials that
attrition rates at the upper grade and age levels
were below those of most governmental agencies. By
stimulating retirements, it was thought that turn-
over rates would more nearly approximate desirable
levels. In theory, this concept had merit. In
practice, however, it was confronted with the inter-
action of contravening forces. The Agency could at
the same time be at or near its authorized overall
strength, while some of its components might be over
strength and others under strength. In another situ-
ation involving a clear confrontation of priorities,
one directorate might be in a recruitment phase
while one or more of the others might be faced with
problems of contraction. The same conditions might
obtain within a directorate. Meanwhile, other pri-
orities existed such as the need for continuing the
recruitment of Junior Officer personnel, and, of
course, there was always the chronically critical
shortage of clerical personnel.
As might be expected in a study covering twenty
years, there have been a number of distinct phases
- 3 -
Approved For Release 2000/066WIWIRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
ask
IMO
Approved For Release 2000/06ficZURDP90-00708R000200140001-2
observable during that period of the Agency's exist-
ence. The first phase of this study dates from the
early days of the Agency when it was young as an
organization and its people, too, were still rather
young. During the years from 1947 into 1960, the.
subject of retirement was rather distant from the
consciousness of most employees. During the phase
which followed, the special nature of the Agency's
personnel problems became more apparent and it be-
came clear that certain special incentives would be
needed. During these days, incentives such as hazard
pay, increased benefits, and early retirement legis-
lation loomed into view as highly desirable objectives.
These benefits, however much they were needed,
were years away, and little credence was given to
suggestions that "early" retirement legislation might
be passed soon. In the meantime, certain interim
procedures were thought necessary to cope with what
management regarded as the problem of the aging em-
ployee population. An Agency Retirement Board was
established in 1960 to deal with this problem on an
overall basis and assist Agency components as much as
possible. As will be seen, one critically important
- 4
Approved For Release 2000/06?VoRairRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06?erPRATRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
event was the much-to-be-discussed statement of
policy promulgated with the activation of the Re-
tirement Board. At the same time, the need for
"early retirement" legislation was becoming unmis-
takably clear as internally conceived and applied
solutions were in the process of being tested.
It will be shown that the needs of the Clan-
destine Service (CS) (the Directorate for Plans --
DDP), as perceived by the leaders in that area of
activity, were the prime movers in the formulation
of the basic retirement policy of the Agency. Ac-
cordingly, it seemed a useful technique to study
the development of retirement policy in terms of
the problems associated with the Clandestine Service,
the Intelligence Directorate, and the Support Serv-
ices in separate chapters.* The influence of the
Clandestine Service on retirement policy continued,
buti once that frame of reference was clarified, it
* Retirement policy in relation to the Science and
Technology Directorate is not discussed in this
paper. Research yielded no pertinent material re-
lating to that directorate and retirement policy
during the period covered by this study.
5
Approved For Release 2000/0EntWARDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06g1cUNTRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
was possible to return for discussion purposes to
the more general aspects of the Agency's retirement
program.
The passage of the CIA Retirement Act must
be regarded as a critical event in the Agency's
history. In relation to retirement policy it was
cataclysmic. The references to the CIA retirement
system in this study are not intended to be compre-
hensive and are included to show the system's re-
lationship to Agency retirement practices in general.
There was other legislation, too, which had profound
effects on Agency personnel and retirement policies.
These are discussed at some length. It is clear
that the CIA Retirement Act was but one of several
employee benefits granted to Agency personnel during
a very, very rich period in terms of benefits lavish-
ed on Federal employees.
6 -
Approved For Release 2000/06MG?MRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/064PRATRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
II. Beginnings
A. Introduction
The retirement policy which went into effect
when CIA came into being in September 1947 was ham-
mered out in the Central Intelligence Group (CIG)
during the spring and summer of that year. The
first known mention of retirement for personnel in
the fledgling organization was contained in a memo-
randum dated 14 March 1947 which directed that
The policy incident to extending
Civil Service retirement rights and
providing for continuity of service
for our employees, in accordance with
the procedures which have been worked
out by Mr- William J- Kelly* with the
U.S. Civil Service Commission, should
be set forth in this directive.1/**
A draft of the requested directive indicates that
at least initially there was some question as to
the applicability of the provisions of the Civil
* Mr. Kelly was Personnel Director from 2 May 1947
to 30 July 1951.
** For serially numbered source references, see
Appendix C.
7
Approved For Release 2000oggcRTAIRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0641q6URDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Service Retirement Act to CIG employees. The draft
stated that "Personnel employed on unvouchered funds
will have the right to all retirement provisions
and benefits" and that "The Finance Division, CIG,
will withhold the proper retirement deductions for
all personnel who, upon their entrance on duty ..
indicate a desire to have such deductions made."
It is important to note that there was no recogni-
tion of the fact that payroll deductions for Civil
Service retirement for personnel employed under
excepted appointment or those having Civil Service
status were mandatory.
It was evident that the confusion continued
25X1A when the Chief of the Special
Funds Division of the Office of Special Operations
(OSO), stated that
There appears to be, however, some
question as to whether legally all em-
ployees must participate in the retire-
ment plan, or whether some degree of
option can be granted to employees.2/
Proceeding on the assumption that there had not
been a determination that participation was obliga-
25X1A tory, recommended that all but covert em-
ployees be required to participate in the retirement
- 8 -
Approved For Release 2000/0Q1MMERDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06*P.UATRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
plan. The two principal reasons advanced for
excluding covert employees were the anticipated
tenuous nature of their employment and the risk
of compromise of their activities such as in an
audit which might possibly be conducted by outside
sources like the General Accounting Office.
The fact that the issue was resolved in
favor of mandatory participation does not detract
from the significance of these early deliberations
on the development of CIA retirement policy and
practice. The clear desire that there be a dif-
ference between the treatment of covert and overt
personnel in respect to retirement matters was to
appear many times during the ensuing years. Another
significant aspect was that administrators in CIG
(and later CIA) appeared to think that they must
plow their own ground on personnel matters. Cer-
tainly much time and effort might have been con-
served at that time if applicable Civil Service
Commission issuances and those of other agencies
had been adapted for the Agency's use. Also sig-
nificant is the attitude, which may be considered
typical of a young Agency, that concern was
-9-.
Approved For Release 2000/06a1GRMRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06VIC.Ite'VATRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
expressed over the issue of participation in the
retirement plan with no evident concern for a pro-
cedure or policy affecting an employee's eventual
plans for retirement. Several years were to lapse
before concern was voiced over this aspect of per-
sonnel planning.
B. Early Policy
Following this flurry of activity, there were
no developments for a number of years except for
restatements in 1951 3/ and 1952 4/ that employees
with "permanent" or "unlimited" appointments were
subject to retirement deductions as provided by
law.* In 1953, however, the Agency's first state-
ment on retirement policy appeared in the form of
a regulation:
The Central Intelligence Agency will
effect the retirement of eligible employees
in accordance with the spirit and purposes
* Agency employees were hired on an excepted
appointment which, while not limited by time,
provided tenure with the employing agency only.
It did not confer Civil Service status which
affected Government-wide employment status.
- 10 -
Approved For Release 2000/OntiatRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/04AWATRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
of the Civil Service Retirement Act
and will provide assistance and ad-
vice to employees concerning their
current and prospective benefits,
privileges, and obligations.5/
Apart from this statement of policy, the regulation
was largely a restatement of the applicable portions
of the Civil Service Retirement Law. One portion,
which was of some significance in light of later
developments, bears repetition:
An employee must be automatically
retired for age when he has reached
age 70 and has 15 or more years of
creditable service unless he is con-
tinued in service by Executive Order.
However, an employee who reaches age
70 prior to meeting the 15 years'
service requirement may be retained
until this requirement is met.6/
This statement, which set forth the retirement op-
tions normally associated with Civil Service retire-
ment, was to assume major significance in later
years, when Agency policy on this subject was
changed. By December 1953, when this statement of
policy was issued, the Agency had undergone a period
of rapid expansion. Many persons recruited during
this period transferred from other agencies of the
Government fully expecting, as they later claimed, _
that the ground rules on retirement would be the
same in CIA as elsewhere.
- 11 -
Approved For Release 2000/06MbRociRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06*PWRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
One indication of the lack of interest in
retirement matters as such is the absence of re-
tirement statistics for this period. It was not
until mid-1955 that meaningful statistics were
kept on the number of retirements each year.
Until that time, retirements were lumped in the
general category of "separations" for statistical
purposes. Personnel officers who recalled Agency
practices at that time suggested that there was
little concern with the retirement question be-
cause the number of retirements was small - prob-
ably not more than ten or twelve each year. This
seems reasonable, since the Agency was young.
Furthermore, it will be noted that a great part
of the recruitment effort in the early years of
the Agency was among employees of the predecessor
organization and World War II veterans, most of
whom could be presumed to be younger than age 50
in 1955.
- 12 -
Approved For Release 2000/060cRWIRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/064 1bRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
III. Moving Toward Retirement Legislation
In September 1951, a Career Service Committee
was formed to study the problems relating to the
establishment of a Career Corps within the Central
Intelligence Agency, This Committee consisted of
an Assistant Director from the covert components
and one from the intelligence production offices,
the Assistant Director for Personnel, and the Di-
rector of Training. This committee worked until
June 1952. Although its stated purpose may have
appeared to be limited, the committee embarked on
wide-ranging discussions involving such subjects
as a "commissioned" career corps, the degree of
r obligation to be required of an employee toward the
Agency, the desirability of single versus associated
career services, trainees, rotation, and career
benefits. The committee established eight task
forces, all of which submitted reports which were
included in the report of the Career Service Com-
mittee.7/
- 13 -
Approved For Release 2000/Ontlatt-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06?AcUaRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Following dissolution of the committee, several
of the task forces continued their work under a suc-
cessor organization known as the CIA Career Service
Board.8/ One of these, the Legislative Task Force,
submitted a *report which led the Inspector General,
mr. Lyman B. Kirkpatrick, Jr., to say that
Some of these benefits, to mention just
a few, would be accelerated retirement for
different types of service such as hazard-
ous service, service in difficult climates,
service beyond the call of duty; that is,
extraordinary service, etc.9/
This statement on 3 August 1954 led to great hopes
on the part of many, and was the first known, broad-
ly disseminated acknowledgment that such a program
was under consideration.
Kirkpatrick, himself,
was most optimistic as to the future of the proposal.
[The Report] tells us exactly what type of
legislation we need to get the additional
benefits which we feel that career employees
in this Agency must have. Certain of these
measures we will get during the present
session of Congress. Other measures we
may go after in the form of a career Bill,
but more likely by riding on other Bills
which will be passed either in this session
or the next session of Congress.10/
The trials and tribulations experienced with Congress
and others in attempting to obtain passage of the de-
sired legislation over the ensuing ten years are
- 14 -
Approved For Release 2000/060GAtiRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06VPRATRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
beyond the scope of this history.* However, much
of the thinking voiced by Agency officials during
the period prior to enactment of the CIA Retirement
Law is useful in tracing the evolution of a retire-
ment policy for the Agency.
A meaningful assessment of the problem, as
Agency officials saw it in the early fifties, is
not possible without reviewing the ground rules as
they affected an individual contemplating retirement
under the Civil Service Retirement Act at that time.
There were two general requirements which-all
retiring employees had to meet. These were: (1)
the employee had to have at least 5 years of civilian
service with the Government, and (2) he had to have
been employed under the Retirement Act for at least
1 year out of the last 2 years preceding separation
for retirement, unless the retirement was on account .
of disability. An employee had to retire at or after
age 70 if he had 15 years of service. An employee
who met any combination of minimum age and service,
* A study of the legislative history of the CIA
Retirement Act is now (1971) in the process of pre-
paration.
- 15 -
Approved For Release 2000/0qatnecERDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06MYEDP90-00708R000200140001-2
as well as the special requirements (if any) shown
in the following table could retire and draw an
immediate annuity:
Minimum
Service
Minimum Age (Years) Special Requirements
62 5 None
60 30 None
55* 30 None
any age* 25 Separation must be involun-
tary without cause.
50* 20 Separation must be involun-
tary without cause.
any age 5 Must be totally disabled for
service in the position
occupied.
It appears that the impetus behind efforts to
obtain a liberalized retirement system stemmed from
'6onsideration associated with concepts applying to
a c&reer service system. In 1953 a struggle of some
* The annuity was reduced by 1/12 of one percent per
month (1 percent per year) for each year under age
60 and over 55, and 1/6 of one percent per month
(2 percent per year) for each year under age 55.
- 16 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/MMIpP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06?hca&DP90-00708R000200140001-2
proportions developed in the Career Service Committee
over the issue of whether employees 'should accept
an obligation to remain with the Agency.11/ This
idea was rejected, and the committee went on to the
larger question concerning the desirability of having
one intelligence service encompassing all personnel
within the Agency.12/ This concept prevailed. It
seems clear, however, that most participants were
convinced that in order to foster the growth of a
career service certain benefits should be afforded
the members. Many proposals were considered by the
committee, and several were included in recommenda-
tions to the CIA Career Board 13/ and in turn, to
the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI). Of
special significance was the proposal that an effort
be made to obtain legislation which would provide
dIA employees with an improved retirement system.
Background material, particularly an early
staff study,14/ indicates that the FBI and Foreign
Service Retirement Systems contained features which
were most attractive from the Agency's viewpoint.
Not only were the features of these systems desir-
able, but the fact that they were already law, and
- 17 -
Approved For Release 2000/06MCIMRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06Y6URDP90-00708R000200140001-2
therefore useful precedents, made them especially
attractive. However, this was not enough in the
minds of some because
It is assumed that .a liberalized re-
tirement system could not be justified
for CIA personnel purely on the basis
of their CIA employment. Although their
duties subject them to unusual security
restrictions, this situation is not so
unusual in Government agencies as to
warrant special retirement benefit con-
sideration. Consequently, this study
is confined to consideration of a lib-
eralized retirement for CIA employees
whose duties subject them to working
conditions which are substantially
different from those of the average
recipient of Civil Service retirement
benefits. 15/
This assumption led, naturally, to that aspect
of CIA employment which, in our particular frame of
reference, is clearly unique -- overseas service.
Having acknowledged that civilian employees of other
governmental agencies serve overseas, it was then
necessary to identify those aspects of overseas
service with the agency which differed from others.
It was generally agreed that Agency employees assigned
overseas
... work under the cover of some other
Government agency or private enterprise
activity and in so doing must adjust
their personal lives to comply with
cover conditions;
- 18 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/9AGIVATDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06AC.Ig-AIRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
... are members of a career service which
might require them to serve at any post
throughout the world as operational need
dictates;
... are likely targets of foreign intel-
ligence services and, as such, are sub-
ject to unusual hazards.16/
[work under conditions that require]
a combination of mental, physical, and
psychological characteristics which are
found in diminishing proportions as em-
ployees advance past age 50, and partic-
ularly in those employees who have been
engaged in such activity for an extended
period of time.. 177
So far as is known, these concepts were given
their first broad hearing through this staff study.
Although refined and embellished in later presenta-.
tions, these thoughts were the basis for most pres-
entations that followed. The portion referring to
the diminishing capabilities of employees past age
50 must be regarded as an important departure point
in the development of an Agency retirement policy
as well as the basis for "early" retirement legisla-
tion.
- 19 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/9tcRATDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0641WATRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
IV. The Agency Retirement Board
A. The Origins of a New Policy
The Agency's preoccupation with the need for
special retirement legislation was evident during
the next several years. Little if any effort was
made, however, in terms of developing a retirement
policy until the late fifties. It seemed to be
generally conceded that without the desired early
retirement legislation little else could be accom-
plished.
In April 1959, Mr Gordon
a
Director
of Personnel, discussed the establishment of an
Agency Retirement Board at a meeting of the Career
Counci1.18/ The proposal involved a small board
which, rather than being concerned with case-by-case
reviews, would review the work of an Executive Sec-
retary who would be provided by the Director of
Personnel. The Executive Secretary would, as a
matter of practice, ascertain by interview or letter
the retirement plans of all personnel approaching
retirement age. It was reasoned that if people
- 20 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/nOWFDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0WPC4ZRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
knew they were going to be approached on the subject
and were aware of this well in advance, their re-
actions to offers of assistance and counseling in
advance of retirement, would be considerably more
positive. Under such conditions it was thought
that discussions in depth which involved setting
a retirement date might be more fruitful. The
Council members endorsed the concept and agreed
that it should be adopted. It was thought possible
that the plan would be even more useful if and when
early retirement legislation were passed. 19/
In July 1959, Mr Stewart briefed members of
his staff meeting on his views regarding a Retire-
ment Board as follows;
The plan for such a Board provides
for careful consideration of the retire-
ment plans of Agency employees as they
reach an age at which their length of
service qualified them for optional re-
tirement under the Civil Service Retire-
ment Act. It is designed to bring about
a judicious review of the individual's
current and prospective usefulness to
the Agency if he were to remain until
mandatory retirement.20/
The plan involved rather detailed procedures within
the Office of Personnel with a slight departure
from the concept outlined at the Career Council:
- 21 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/M3WERDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06W:WRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
... names would ... be brought up
with the Retirement Board for dis-
cussion and determination regarding
whether the individuals should be
approached regarding optional re-
tirement. No individual will be
approached without the approval
of the Board and the concurrence
of his career service.21/
That there was intent that this mechanism was
to be equipped with teeth was patently clear:
When a reasonable period of time
has elapsed and an individual has not
followed through on retirement, or if
he has expressed reluctance or unwill-
ingness to do so, he will be afforded
an opportunity to present his case to
the Retirement Board which will deter-
mine whether he should be retained or
referred to the Special Assistant to
the Director of Personnel to institute
involuntary separation proceedings .22/
In a memorandum for the Director of Central
Intelligence dated 17 September 1959 requesting
f that the proposed notice setting up the Retirement
goi 'Board be approved, Mr. Stewart said in part that
The reason for having such a
Board is that employees, as they
approach retirement age, are con-
fronted with the decision whether
to retire or not. It is important
that in making this decision they
have the benefit of sound advice.
Furthermore, from a manpower point
of view, we believe that the
Agency will be better off in the
future if it becomes accepted prac-
tice for employees to retire when
they can, unless they are asked to
remain in service.23/ [Emphasis supplied.]
22
Approved For Release 2000/06/MMIERDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/064PRATRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
As far as is known, this is the first appearance
of this type of philosophy in the Agency. Later
in the same memorandum it appears in a slightly
different form:
It will be explained to each
individual that it is the practice
in this Agency that one retires
when eligible unless asked to re-
main. 24/
The body of the memorandum contained the information
that the proposed notice had been concurred in by
the Deputy Director for Intelligence (DDI), the
Deputy Director for Plans (DDP), the Deputy Director
for Support (DDS), the General Counsel, and the
Inspector General, all of whom, incidentally, were
members of the Career Council which had approved
the proposal initially.
The concurrence of the DDI in this approach
interesting in itself. As will be seen later,
senior officials in that directorate had signifi-
cantly different views on the subject of "retiring
when eligible." There were clear indications that
there was some disagreement with the approach taken
in the proposed notice. In a meeting between the
Board's Executive Secretary Designate and the DDI
- 23 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/%1EMERDP90-00708R000200140001-2
MO
co*
Approved For Release 2000/OW:W-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Administrative Officer, which took place about 90
days after the proposed notice was forwarded to the
Director, it was learned that the representative
25X1A of the DDI ( interpreted
the notice rather differently than some when he
noted that DDI policy
... goes along with "asked to remain
in service" but does not say that "an
employee will norMally retire when he
becomes eligible for retirement";
... asked that all eligible personnel
be interviewed to determine their in-
tentions, personal and financial cir-
cumstances, without pressure of any
kind in the direction of retirement;
mei
... intends to use this announcement
to start eligible people thinking
about retirement;
... indicates that the DD/I believes
that their situation is far different
from that of the DD/P; that there are
any number of eligible people who are
doing a satisfactory job and should
neither be asked to remain or to leave. 25/
The notice, signed by the DCI, appeared three weeks
later on 5 January 1960.26/ The Agency had taken a
long step, despite indications of differences, in
departing from the traditional, rather permissive
approach to retirement existing in most agencies
of the Government. It was characteristic of most
- 24 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/gtca*FDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/08*PlgAIRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Government employees that they believed that the
decision to retire rested with them, assuming of
course that their performance on the job remained
at acceptable levels. To put it another way, they
felt that as a matter of right the option to work
until they reached mandatory retirement age was
theirs. In the Agency the option appeared to be
with the employee no longer since:
The Board will act with the under-
standing that it is the practice of
this Agency that an employee will
normally retire when he becomes eli-
gible for retirement unless he is
asked to remain in service. In
reaching decisions the Board will
give full consideration to the per-
sonal plans, preferences of each
employee. 27/
B. The New Board at Work
The Retirement Board held its first meeting
oh 20 January 1960.
,the 25X1 A
Board's Executive Secretary, reported that after
numerous interviews with people at or approaching
retirement age the problem cases being surfaced
appeared
... to fall into groups - those indi-
viduals who, because of financial com-
mitments feel that they cannot consider
- 25 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/WffittirP90-00708R000200140001-2
INN
.E?
am,
Approved For Release 2000/0ERP:W-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
retirement in the immediate future,
and those who are happy in their
positions, would not accept employ-
ment after retirement from CIA, and
have no intention of retiring until
mandatory conditions are met.28/
The board members agreed that as a procedural matter
they would review problem cases only. They were -
most interested in any procedures which might be
established within the directorates. The chairman
stressed the desirability of general uniformity on
procedural matters. However, differences were
already apparent.
Otto E. Guthe, the DDI rep-
resentative, thought that a number of cases in the
DDI area would develop into problem situations.
Dr. Guthe noted that the DD/P had
taken a more positive and firm atti-
tude than the DD/I, that, while every
DD/I eligible had been interviewed,
no one [in the DD/I Area] had been in-
formed that he was not being asked to
remain .29/
The situation in respect to procedures in the other
directorates, and the reactions of employees who
were contacted, were not as precise. However, there
were indications that resistance to the new policy
was developing.30/
Clarification of procedure and policy on re-
tirement within the Support Directorate was not
- 26 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/WaligliDP90-00708R000200140001-2
old
owl
Approved For Release 2000/06/WW-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
long in coming.
Lawrence K h
On 26 February 1960, Colonel
the DDS, advised the Retirement
Board of the following:
In order to comply with the spirit
and intent of the referenced notice, I
believe that once the program has been
implemented and all employees have had
reasonable notice they should retire
when eligible except when for cogent
reasons they are asked to remain.
Variance in the personnel needs of
the three major agency components may
necessitate application of different
criteria in that it would be desirable
to have an Agency policy rather than a
separate one for each major component.
I propose, if the Retirement Board
concurs., to use the following retire-
ment procedures in DD/S components.
Employees eligible for retire-
ment at the time of the issuance
of the reference and those who
become eligible between 5 Janu-
ary 1960 and 30 June 1961 will
retire no later than 30 June
1961. As of 1 July 1961 employ-
ees will retire as they become
eligible.
dui The Heads of Offices and
Staffs may request individual
exceptions to this policy sub-
owl ject to my approval. However,
I wish to stress that these
exceptions should be limited
to those individuals who have
unique qualifications, since
roi
- 27 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/W.aih1pP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0HcW-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
repeated exceptions will greatly
weaken ?the effectiveness of the
entire retirement policy.31/
Once policies and procedures within the var-
ious directorates were fairly well delineated, it
was possible for the board to establish guidelines
for its own use. Since the board's procedures were,
in effect, interpretation of policy, examination of
these procedures in some detail may be useful.
Requests for extensions -- that is, delays of
retirement -- were usually submitted by the employee
three to six months in advance of the scheduled
retirement date. The board was unwilling to con-
sider requests submitted earlier due to the possi-
bility that the individual's circumstances might
change. Requests submitted later were unwelcome
f because a decision could not be rendered on a timely
basis. The board required that all requests for
extensions be forwarded through the head of the
individual's career service and the deputy director
concerned. Normally, these officers commented on
the need for or usefulness of the employee's con-
tinued service.
- 28 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/ghdatDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0g1:WRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
In attempting to arrive at a judgment as to
whether or not the employee's request for an exten-
sion should be approved, the board examined the
employee's situation in considerable depth. Finan-
cial questions involved: the amount of annuity
expected; eligibility for Social Security benefits;
entitlements from military (Reserve) duty; income
from bonds, stocks, other annuities, rents, etc.;
and outstanding obligations, including short-term
debts, mortgage payments, educational expenses of
children, support of other relatives, etc. The
board appeared to be equally concerned about how
he was doing in his present job.
Factors considered were (1) whether
this employee was performing satisfac-
torily in his present position, (2)
whether he was standing in the way of
the career advancement of other employees,
and (3) whether he would have to be
replaced by external recruitment.32/
The board's interest was not limited to answers to
those questions. It was apparent that the needs of
some employees involved working many years beyond
the specified retirement date. In this connection
All those requesting extensions were
advised that it was their responsibi-
lity to seek other employment prior
- 29 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/nol4yFDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/OW:WRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
to the projected retirement date
and if an extension was granted,
to actively continue seeking other
employment on their own and with
the help of the Retiree Placement
Service. If a suitable position
was found prior to the end of the
extension, it was understood that
the individual would retire imme-
diately. In some cases the individ-
ual had made a concerted effort to
find other employment without success.
Knowing that an individual had really
tried, the Board might in some cases
grant a further extension if nothing
had been found by the end of the
initial extension.33/
The detached observer may wonder at such a
broad extension of authority in light of the rela-
tively mild wording of the Headquarters Notice
which merely stated that It is the practice of
this Agency that an employee will normally retire
when he becomes eligible."34/ One unfamiliar with
the circumstances at the time might theorize that
Certain positive inducements in favor of retirement
were offered. That was not the case. There were
no special benefits offered or available. Individ-
uals were placed under pressure to afford themselves
of retirement benefits which were there for the
taking, regardless of Agency policy on the matter.
Their entitlements had been earned through years of
- 30 -
Approved For Release 2000/0WEnaerRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/OVERMIW-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
service and cash, contribution to the Retirement
System. In a literal sense, they were being pres-
sured to retire at the earliest date they became
eligible which was several years prior to the man-
datory retirement date.
Needless to say, there were many who were
reluctant to retire when this did not suit their
plans or wishes. Yet, many did, and as of the end
of 1967 all retirements under the Civil Service
Retirement System by personnel below age 70 were
considered "voluntary" since all such retirements
were the result of an application signed by the
retiree. In the strictest sense each employee who
retired did so on his own volition after he had
signed and submitted an application for retirement.
* Physical disability retirements are, of course,
a different matter.
- 31 -
Approved For Release 2000/0%/AtpRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0McW-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
V. Retirement Policy in the Clandestine Service
A. Introduction
It was shown in the preceding chapter that Mr.
Gordon
a
as Director of Personnel was a
prime mover in the formation of a retirement policy
for the Agency. He achieved this in the early
stages through the establishment of the Agency Re-
tirement Board. Mr. Stewarts interest in the sub-
ject of retirement was apparent several years earlier
when he served on the CIA Career Council. At a
meeting of the Council on 9 September 1955, he spoke
at some length on his views regarding early retire-
ffent.35/ He stated that the Clandestine Service
probably would want to depend on a relatively young
group of personnel and that it would be of very
great benefit to the Clandestine Service if some
means could be devised whereby an early retirement
program could be established. He observed that the
Clandestine Service would want to retain some offi-
cers above age 50 for administrative duties and
senior policy work and that some might even fit into
- 32 -
Approved For Release 2000/0WpCRWFRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0WRWRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
other parts of the Agency. On the other hand, he
thought it would be a great burden to carry the re-
mainder on the rolls for another fifteen years,
particularly in view of the Service's inability to
use many of them overseas during these years.36/
B. The Need for Legislation
Most discussions of Agency retirement policy
or proposed legislation on retirement have resulted
in a review of the needs of the Clandestine Service.
In effect, the philosophy expressed by the Legisla-
tive Task Force in October 1953 regarding the dimin-
ishing usefulness of employees past age 50 37/ had
been embraced by the members of the Career Council.*
By this time, it appeared to have been gen-
erally accepted that the needs of the Clandestine
Service would have to be met by legislation
* Other members of the Council present at the meet-
ing were: Harrison G. Reynolds, Director of Person-
nel; Sherman Kent, alternate for the Deputy Director
for Intelligence; Lyman B. Kirkpatrick, Jr., Inspec-
tor General; H. Gates Lloyd, Assistant Deputy Direc-
tor for Support; Director of
Communications; Executive
Officer, Office of Training.
- 33 -
25X1A
Approved For Release 2000/06gMaATRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0McW-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
providing for early retirement. HOwever, the ques-
tion remained as to how such legislation might be
justified. In October 1957 the situation was sum-
marized as follows by the Agency's 25X1A
Legislative Counsel:
Although the Bureau of the Budget and
the Civil Service Commission both favor
some form of special consideration to
civilian employees of the Government who
have served for lOng periods in foreign
countries and who in effect have made
a career of service overseas, they are
not in favor of the retirement proposal
as submitted by the Agency.* Exception
is taken to our proposal both in sub-
stance and in form. As in other per-
sonnel matters, the Commission favors a
uniform retirement plan for all civilian
employees serving long periods overseas.
In addition the Commission views our
proposal as too liberal unless particu-
lar circumstances attach to particular
assignments. They also feel that any
such liberalized retirement plan should
be integrated into a selection-out pro-
gram, such as the program delineated in
the Foreign Service Act.39/
* This Bill provided for voluntary retirement at
age 50 with 20 years of Federal Service, 10 years
with the Agency, at least 5 years overseas with
the Agency, and at least 40 percent of such service
with the Agency prior to age 50 to have been served
overseas. Additional credit was to be granted for
overseas service in computing the annuity.38/
- 34 -
Approved For Release 2000/0MietRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/4PRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
While awaiting passage of the desired legis-
lation,
r. Ly
B. Kirkpatrick
continued to
demonstrate his strong interest in the subject of
accelerated retirement. He wrote to the Director
of Personnel saying,
The more I think about it, the more I
feel that this is one Agency problem that
must be attacked from several different
angles inasmuch as I see no possibility
of any one solution.40/
In order to supplement whatever retirement legisla-
tion might be passed, he urged the assignment of a
number of personnel "with certain special talents"
to other agencies of the Government; the outplacement
of employees with industry, universities, and founda-
tions; and location of senior CS personnel in long-
-4.erm, deep cover positions overseas with a financial
supplement in addition to retirement annuities be
arranged.41/ The thrust of his thinking at this
time in relation to "senior personnel who have passed
the period of greatest usefulness" was as follows:
It seems to me that we are now approach-
ing this problem from the right direction
and if we couple it with some form of man-
datory retirement, we may be able to arrive
at a solution which will enable a fair
proportion of senior professionals in the
Clandestine Services to retire at the 50-55
age bracket.42/
- 35 -
Approved For Release 2000/0%/RtieseDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06kPcURDP90-00708R000200140001-2
At about the same time,* discussions were under
way in the Office of Personnel which were designed
to lead to the identification of meaningful personnel
problems then facing the Agency which might be pre-
sented to the Killian Committee. Several problems
were submitted to the DDS (Colonel Lawrence
white)K.
for his consideration. One of them, which identifies
the need for a young work force, is of particular
interest.
The problems of personnel morale found
in all Government agencies, are aggravated
in CIA by the special need for a young work
force. Keeping a youthful work force and
still abiding by Government regulations
and practices under our democratic Amer-
ican system causes Much frustration for
the Agency group which is responsible for
clandestine activities. Older employees,
keenly interested in job security, wish
to remain in the Agency until they are
eligible to receive retirement benefits.
Attrition of younger career personnel in
the middle and upper grade levels in-
creases when these individuals realize.
that their chance of advancement to
higher grades ?is diminished by the fact
that these positions are now filled by
able men who will remain in the Agency
before retiring. Among these are the
"hangers-on" who are extremely difficult
to identify and then to separate when
identified. Individuals who are doers
* Late November 1957.
- 36 -
Approved For Release 2000/0%/RiFftRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06kPcURDP90-00708R000200140001-2
in the Agency often feel stymied and
resent, and often rightfully so, the
tendency of persons in control placing
job security above getting the job done.43/
This approach to a large problem has been quoted at
length because it is probable that these ideas re-
flected the views of a young and forceful element
of the Agency's population. In addition to the
young and ambitious junior officers, there were
undoubtedly many who were not as young but, never-
theless, still extremely ambitious and ready to
support any concerted effort to make more room at
the top. Colonel Whites
comment on the foregoing
statement is indicative of management's concern
with the issue.
This is a real problem. However, we
should insure that we are not talking
about Government regulations which we
have the legal authority to ignore if
we choose. As a problem, however, tied
in with selection-out and early retire-.
ment, this would appear to be a good
one [for the Killian Committee to con-
sider].44/
One other problem thought worthy of presenta-
tion to the Killian Committee for consideration con-
cerned a topic entitled "The Development of Career
Officers," and, once again, problems associated with
the Clandestine Service were highlighted.
- 37 -
Approved For Release 2000/0gpk9t-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06kP&A1RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
The present terrific pressures for
current intelligence make the long-time
development of many of our career offi-
cers impossible. The increasing need
for on-the-spot observers and agent han-
dlers does not allow time to put these
individuals through the step-by-step
journeyman stages. Young men who be-
come activists without any experience
or training as generalists have little
future in the Agency after they reach
the age of 45, when for numerous reasons
such as health, family responsibilities,
etc., many individuals are no longer
able to perform overseas.45/
C. The "Hump Study"
Presumably, many who agreed with these positions
were given a firmer foundation for their opinions
with the appearance of what is now called the "Hump
Study" in November 1959.46/ The "Hump Study" was a
paper prepared within the Office of Personnel enti-
tled "A Manpower Control Program for the Clandestine
Services." Attached to the study were graphs* de-
signed to show the congestion existing among certain
age groups in the Clandestine Service. Accompanying
the Study were drafts of proposed Agency Regulations
* See the accompanying graph. For a discussion of
the graph, see the "Hump Study" (source 46).
- 38 -
Approved For Release 2000/0?Viat-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Number
of
Employees
AprirovediForIlease t000/0g/01 : dIA-RDID90-01*08R0b02004140001!2
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
25 30 35 .40 45 50 55 60 65
Current and Projected CSCS Age Distribution
(D, DP, DI, DM Males GS-9 and Above)
^
1964
Age
SECRET
Approved For Release 2000/06/01 : CIA-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
70
Approved For Release 2000/0?ThYMX-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
25X1A
25X1A
plus a Handbook implementing
prescribed a means
of separating from Agency employment those employees
identified as surplus to the needs of the Agency.
25X1A Regulation was designed to soften the blow
of separation by providing separation compensation
in some cases.****
The following concept explored in the study
is worthy of review in some detail:
Our statistical studies of Agency Man-
power have led us to the conclusion that
the Clandestine Services Career Service
will not be able to maintain its present
level of operational activity unless
steps are taken to provide for the re-
cruitment into it annually of a substan-
tial number of capable young officers and
for their advancement at a reasonable
pace. To be able to recruit these young
officers, the service must separate an
equal number annually. To be able to
promote them, a means must be found to
effect such separations among personnel
Separation of Surplus Personnel.
Separation Compensation.
[Procedures for] Separation of Surplus Personnel.
**** The "701 Exercise" which is beyond the scope
of this study, is discussed in DDS Historical Series
OP-2, Reluctant Retirees: Outplacement, "Second-
Career Counseling," and Retiree Placement, 1957-67.
- 40 -
Approved For Release 2000/0?p6A+RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/01WW-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
occupying medium and higher grades.
Attrition does not at present accom-
plish this nor will it in the future.47/
In addition, there was found to be an imbalance
as to age and grade distribution of male officers.
The existing attrition rates, plus retirements under
the Civil Service Retirement System, "show that the
Clandestine Services will be staffed by a predomi-
nantly old group of employees by 1974."48/ In order
to correct this situation
... the Clandestine Services must take
steps to achieve an acceptable distri-
bution of personnel by age groups and
must also be equipped with the legal
and administrative authority needed to
maintain such a distribution. As a
first step, we have drawn up what would
appear to be a reasonable distribution
of Clandestine Services personnel by
age groups and also a distribution of
positions or spaces by grades.49/
On the assumption that these goals were desirable,
it then became necessary to establish
... the legal authorities required to
separate personnel involuntarily and
to grant separation pay ... to those
who qualify ... ;
... the procedures to be followed in
identifying personnel to be separated
and those to be granted benefits; and
? ? 0
- 41 -
Approved For Release 2000/06M6RhatIRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/aBgREIX-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
... an estimate of the effect ... on
morale and on the Agency's efforts to
recruit personne1.50/
The question of legal authority was resolved on the
basis that section 102(c) of the National Security
Act of 1947, as amended, contained the authority
necessary to separate any surplus personnel. As to
the procedural question, it was intended that the
category of personnel designated as "surplus"
... would include those individuals who
are part of the hump and ... not ... re-
strict this category to those affected
by an overall reduction in staff strength.51/
No proposal was offered as to how the effect on morale
would be measured. It was felt that since there
could be no amelioration of the hurt, the best ap-
proach was, as Mr. Stewart put it, "do it as quickly
as possible, and then start afresh. Take your public
beating, and expect that the incident will soon be
forgotten. "52/
The last point of significance to be made in
relation to the presentation of the "Hump" concept
is found in the transmittal memorandum to the Deputy
Director of Central Intelligence (General Charles
P. C ell).
- 42 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/WftFiDp90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/08W.Rak-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
25X1A
25X1A
Regulation is intended for
use both as an instrument in effecting
manpower control operations in the in-
terest of long-range planning and as an
instrument to be used in any planned re-
duction in staff. It is therefore ap-
plicable to the DD/I and DD/S services
as well as to the DD/P. The procedures
as given ... (for] the Clandestine Serv-
ices can easily be altered to fit the
need to effect a reduction in staff.
It will be seen that once it is estab-
lished that a career service is over-
strength for any reason the steps pre-
scribed in will be appli-
cable.53/
The space devoted to the analysis of the "Hump
Study" may be more extensive than necessary; however,
it seems such detail is necessary if one is to spec-
ulate as to how much weight this study carried in
the development of retirement policy. Certainly the
concept of the "Hump" - depicted as a mountain on
graph paper - moving inexorably to the right, evokes
thoughts of tragic consequences for the Agency as a
huge proportion of the Agency population retires or
dies all at once. It seemed evident from these pre-
sentations that a clear need for an early retirement
program had been demonstrated. The specifics of the
age-grade congestion were now apparent.
- 43 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/11DP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/bc:PGWRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
D. The New Retirement Policy
It is apparent that much work was done within
the Clandestine Service in advance of the activation
of the Retirement Board; in fact, it is probable
that senior officials were made aware of the con-
clusions contained in the "Hump Study" prior to its
publication.54/ At any rate, on
the DDP
Richard M. Bissell,
1 December 1959
.) stated that
he had completed a review of the status of person-
nel in his directorate who were eligible to retire.55/
His directions to staff and division chiefs within
?the DDP complex outlined his policy, as well as the
procedures to be followed:
I request that you or your deputy
arrange for an early interview with those
persons now in Headquarters where a deci-
sion has been made to postpone retirement
for a time. This interview should stress
the details of a proposed Agency Notice,
an advance copy of which is ... attached
on a restricted basis, and the fact that
you and I would like to avail ourselves
of their continued service for the stated
period. During this interview I would
like for you and the individual to come
to an agreement on the date of retirement.
Thereafter I shall expect the agreement to
be fulfilled unless you obtain my concur-
rence in an extension for cogent reasons
- 44 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/TEMMDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0?ThcMk-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
For those persons whom we feel should
retire as early as possible, the Director
of Personnel has designated the Executive
Secretary of the Agency Retirement Board
... as the individual responsible for
conducting personal counseling interviews.
If the individual ... indicates ... that
he is not prepared to retire within the
following eighteen months, he will be
invited to discuss the subject with one
of the Board members. The Board will
then review his case and render a deci-
sion as to the length of time the indi-
vidual will be expected to remain in
Agency employment 56/
E. Retirement Policy and the Public
In the years which followed, few changes in
this procedure were made, although one refinement
involved a distinction between "need for continued
service" and extensions for "compassionate" reasons./
In the latter case extensions were based on financial
hardship. Projections as of June 1961, showed that
annuities would range from $663 to $3,231* and aver-
age approximately $1,500.58/ Confronted with these
appalling figures, the Agency adopted, rather
* In terms of 1971, these annuities are barely be-
lievable. It must be remembered, however, that an-
nuities at that time were still based on the "high-
five" and that they predated the Many-legislat4Are
pay increases passed by Congress later in the sixties.
- 45 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/CrittOP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0eW:W-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
belatedly, a policy that recruitment would be limited
on the whole to individuals who, upon entrance on
duty, could be expected to have sufficient time re-
maining in their working careers so that they would
qualify for full annuities at age 62. Of course
there was the usual proviso for exceptions.59/
In April 1961, the Agency's policy on retire-
ment was the subject of.a column in The Washington
Star. Joseph Young, the author, seemed to have a
clear understanding of developments on this subject
within the Agency. He wrote that the new policy
"would give younger employees a greater chance of
promotion to more important assignments."60/ After
reviewing the rules governing retirement under the
Civil Service System, he commented that
Some CIA employees are unhappy over
the new policy, declaring that the Gov-
ernment is losing some of its best talents
with many years of invaluable service and
experience behind them.
CIA officials say they are not "forcing"
the employees to retire, but admit they
- 46 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/n6ittliSP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06*P.WRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
25X1A
have not yet had any cases where em-
ployees asked to retire have not agreed
to do so.*61/
He said a check with the Civil Service Commission
revealed that the Commission had no intention of
adopting CIA's approach.
However, there would be nothing to
prevent departments and agencies to
adopt (sic) a policy "encouraging" em-
ployees to retire at age 60 or 62 if
they were eligible for full retirement
benefits, it was conceded. But CSC
officials say they know of no such pol-
icy being considered by the Kennedy
Administration. 62/
The Agency's policy had been in force over a
year at this point. Mr. Young's article, among
other things, prompted a review of the status of the
retirement program by the Career Council. When
asked to comment on the activities of the Board,
Mr
Lawrence R. Houston, Chairman of the Board (and
the Agency's General Counsel), commented as follows:
We started to work - Otto
Guthe, and myself - a year ago January
... we have gone ahead and developed
* A typewritten note attached to a copy of the ar-
ticle reads as follows: 11111111111Isaid that Col.
White indicated that he gave out the info to Joe
Young. BB" The initials are those of
Executive Officer, Office of Personnel.
- 47 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/gtcCAttOP90-00708R000200140001-2
25X1A
25X1A
Approved For Release 2000/064c.leaRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
25X1A
working arrangements for the Board and
its Executive Secretary, and policy
statements which I believe are within
the Director's overall policy but differ
somewhat for the three major components.
The DD/P is the most stringent; in fact
very, very few policy exceptions are
made by him - and he wanted the earliest
possible action on those eligible. The
other extreme is the DD/I, who has a good
many people who work well and sometimes
better as they get older - even after
the mandatory retirement age; however,
the DD/I follows the policy but in a
somewhat more elastic manner than the
DD/P. The DD/S is closer to the DD/P
but has a little more elasticity in its
application .63/
After reviewing the statistics of the year's activ-
ity, Mr Houston gave the Council his views on the
force of their methods in support of the program in
the handling of certain difficult cases.
At the present time there is only one
Agency employee flatly fighting retire-
ment ... saying he won't do anything
about retiring, although he is currently
eligible, and that is a special case,
because his case is up in the Director's
office for possible separation on other
rounds. * is the only
other one who indicated he might not
accept the policy as applied to him, but
* An OTR employee, GS-13, age 63. This case is
discussed at greater length in the chapter dealing
with the Support Directorate.
- 48 -
Approved For Release 2000/06%atipP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06V-1q1gATRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
he has come a long way around. It's
quite interesting - some of the ones
who were adamant at first either by
persuasion or some other approach have
come around.64/
In effect, the last sentence of the foregoing quo-
tation epitomizes the practice and the power of the
Board. While it is not suggested that harassment
was the tactic, it is known that the pressure on
those eligible to retire was unrelenting. Again,
speaking of the work of the Board, Mr. Houston said;
"I think this brings pretty hard pressure on the guy.
That is, as far as I can see, the main function of
?the Retirement Board at this time."65/ He went on
to say that this role was necessary in view of the
Director's unwillingness to use his authority to
enforce retirement.
Conclusions
. The initial phase of the development of retire-
ment policy in the Clandestine Service was so closely
associated with the administration of the Retirement
Board that they were barely separable. It was seen
that the DDP had previously determined his policy
and was poised to make his pronouncements with the
publication of the Agency Notice in January 1960.
- 49 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/nL9MIDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0&c:W-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
In the next several years little change in policy
was noted. These years were largely a period of
implementing a policy having great initial impact
on a group relatively small in size, but the long-
range implications were of very broad proportions
in light of the fact that sooner or later everyone
would be affected.
In reviewing the workings of the board as it
made and administered policy, discussions relating
to the impact of them on various employees have been
avoided in the interest of limiting discussion to
the broader aspects of the problem. Many references
have been made to the matter of morale, but manage-
ment, generally, appeared to think that the impact
of the Agency's retirement policy on morale had been
exaggerated. However, it is known that a number of
employees whose plans for the future were abruptly
altered by the new policy felt that there had been
significant impact on morale. Cases which support
this statement will be discussed later.
It seems beyond challenge that (1) the pressure
effected by the Agency Retirement Board on the more
elderly population of the Agency, (2) the elimination
- 50 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/gt?cCDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0i/WW-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
of "surplus" personnel, and (3) the predictable
effects of early retirement legislation represented
a powerful and well-balanced program designed to
change the character of the Agency's population and
equip it well for the years ahead. It could not be
foreseen that the "701 Exercise," as it came to be
known, would be such a failure and that another five
years would elapse before Congress passed the much-
needed retirement legislation.* The absence of new
retirement legislation probably resulted in even
greater pressure to obtain results from the "701
Exercise." In the absence of the retirement law
and the failure of the "701 Exercise," the pressure
to move people out as "voluntary" retirees through
the Retirement Board mechanism was accentuated.
See DDS Historical Series, OP-2 (footnote.****,
page 40, above).
- 51 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/9tcRMRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0McW-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
\a. Retirement Policy and the Support Services
A. Introduction
Some difficulty was encountered in arriving
at an acceptable methodology for the study of the
development of retirement policy in the Support
Services. While the Support Services shared cer-
tain of the problems of the Clandestine Service
in respect to the age curve and cover considera-
tions, it was never shown that the problems in the
Support Services were as pressing. In the develop-
ment of retirement policies, and, later, in the ad-
ministration thereof, the Clandestine Service and
the Intelligence Directorate were able to adopt
policies which were singularly direct and clearly
adaptable to their purposes. The Support Services,
on the other hand, consisted of a large variety of
occupational groups, many of which were not notice-
ably different in their more general duties from
occupational groups employed by other agencies and
departments of the Government. Moderating this
similarity with other agencies, however, was the
fact that careerists in the Support Services
- 52 -
Approved For Release 2000/0eabRoTRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/1k4/T-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
probably would be called upon to serve tours in the
other directorates in the performance of their sup-
port functions. The significance of this, of course,
was that the need for mobility and general conformity
with the characteristics of the receiving components
was introduced. As a consequence, the DDS found it
"desirable to have an Agency policy rather than a
separate one for each major component."66/
Pronouncement of a policy was one thing, ad-
hering to it was another. From its inception, the
Support Services employed many people who had worked
in other parts of the Government. As a consequence,
they had come to take for granted the guarantees
and rights accorded employees subject to the per-
sonnel policies of Civil Service. Therefore, the
rather abrupt change in Agency retirement policy
appears to have had a more noticeable impact on
people in the Support Services than elsewhere in
the organization.
Development of retirement policy in the Sup-
port Services in the early sixties was a fairly un-
complicated process and was, of course, consistent
with the notice of 5 January 1960.67/ Implementation
- 53 -
Approved For Release 2000/06g0A6RWIRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0&/4kiaRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
during the years which followed was likewise con-
sistent, and took place within the framework of
Colonel White's previously discussed statement of
policy guidance to the Retirement Board.*68/ It
appears, however, that the real story of the impact
of the retirement policy within the Support Services
can best be told by examining some of the challenges
to the policies raised by individual support officers
Some representative cases are discussed in the fol-
lowing pages to illustrate this point.
25X1A 3?The Case
On 28 January 1960, hardly more than three
weeks after the appearance of the notice establish-
ing the Agency Retirement Board,
, Office of Training Careerist (grade GS-13,
age 62), requested an appointment with the Chairman
of the Retirement Board, Mx Lawrence R. 3?11st?n'
Mr. Houston gave the following account of this in-
terview:
25X1A
25X1A
said he initially was
informed by his supervisor that the
See pp. 27 ff.
- 54 -
25X1A
Approved For Release 2000/06/Cgv6MEITP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/CacW-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
Director was invoking his statutory
authority to effect retirement at
the proper time and that, therefore
would retire on 1 July
1960. said he discussed
all his retirement benefits and re-
lated matters with Personnel officials
and was then told by his supervisor
that he had been in error as to the
threat of termination but that his re-
tirement was still desired as of 1
July 1960.
said subsequent to
this he found that a number of people
he knew in the Agency in their 60's
were perturbed about the retirement
program and not clear as to how it
would operate and he wished to know
if the program had been further de-
fined. I told him the Board was
still feeling its way but that ba-
sically it was clear that there was
no legal compulsion involved. I
said our aim was to approach this
matter in an orderly way and, there-
fore, the Office of Personnel ...
was doing the staff work for the
Board and would approach each Agency
employee of retirement age, except
those who had been designated for
retention for special skills or
capabilities.
I said that as I saw it there
would be three general categories
which would come up for review.
A certain number of people had al-
ready indicated that they were
thinking of retiring and had pre-
sented retirement plans which were
quite compatible with Agency wishes.
At the other end there might be peo-
ple of retirement age who would ap-
pear to their supervisors to be no
- 55 -
Approved For Release 2000/066VeRWIRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06*4.-VATROP90-00708R000200140001-2
25X1A
longer qualified to perform their
duties and that they would not
come under the Retirement Board but
would be handled through other pro-
cedures appropriate to their situa-
tions. The Board's concern was pri-
marily with the middle group --
those we would retire at an early
date under the Agency's policy but
who, for any of a variety of reasons,
do not want to retire until a later
date ... . I said the aim was for
the Board, as objectively as possible
to compare the individual's desire
with the stated needs of the Agency
and try to arrive at a reasonable re-
tirement plan ... . There would be
no further compulsion on the man than
the knowledge of the Agency's desire,
but there is no question that this
would exert pressure in varying degrees
in varying cases.69/
won a delay in the retirement
deadline given him, but about a year later reopened
the issue with a letter to the Director which was
referred to the Inspector General,
Kirkpatrick,
Lyman B.
kpatr ok chose this occa-
sion to suggest a re-examination of Agency policy
on retirement. In doing so, he noted that Mr.
25X1A latest communication was "not an appeal
for relief in his own case, but rather a mere ex-
pression of his strongly held views."70/ In con-
nection with this point,
- 56 -
Kirkpat
k noted that
Approved For Release 2000/06MeRWIRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0aPai:RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
25X1A
Houston had suggested that an investigation
might disclose whether or not there might be a
considerable body of unexpressed resentment against
the program. Mr. Kirkpatrick reported that his own
staff had informed him that:
... there is currently no considerable
amount of resentment against the pro-
gram, although several of the employees
affected have protested that since they
entered on duty relying upon the pro-
visions of Agency regulations and Civil
Service legislation providing a manda-
tory retirement age of 70, the introduc-
tion of the pressures of the voluntary
retirement program which causes some
but not all employees to retire at age
62 constitutes an unfair change of the
rules .*71/
was not easily discouraged.
Letters written by him in May 1961 produced a rather
strongly worded memorandum from Mr. Houston. Clearly,
the time for plain talk had arrived:
Since the Civil Service Commission
is responsible for all normal Govern-
ment employment policy, the fact that
we consulted it and got its endorse-
ment [of our policy] certainly cannot
be considered meaningless.
kpatrick also indicated that in his mind
questions had arisen as to the efficacy of the policy
as it had been presented to Agency personnel and the
practices which followed from it. The issues raised
by him are part of a larger discussion covered later
in this history.
- 57 -
Approved For Release 2000/06RIGIcteciRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/bqkURDP90-00708R000200140001-2
... I think that it would be fait
to say that we are at least as con-
cerned as you with the problems of
morale in the Agency ...
we cannot prevent you from ad-
dressing a letter to the President.
However, you should understand that
prior to its adoption the Agency's
policy on retirement was cleared
with all appropriate components of
the Executive Branch, including the
White House, and with appropriate
congressional committees.
... there is nothing incompatible
in regulations which say that we
will participate in Civil Service
retirement and which point out a
compulsory retirement age of 70
and a policy that employees in
this Agency will retire earlier
if eligible for their normal bene-
fits. I believe your logic is
faulty in saying that these regu-
lations establish a compact ... .
... we cannot prevent you from
talking, writing, or forming groups
on this subject, but in view of the
fact that the retirement policy is
firmly established ... any activities
such as suggested by you can only be
corrosive in their effect. I would
advise against them.
I have talked these matters over
with you personally at some length;
the Retirement Board has considered
a series of letters or memoranda
from you; I have asked the Inspector
General to take action on a letter
you addressed to the Director, and
he has done so; and the Director
- 58 -
Approved For Release 2000/06gVeRWIRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0?14WRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
25X1A
himself has responded to you. It
seems to me that the time has come
to call a halt. *72/
The case and the long-drawn-out ex-
change of correspondence came to an end with Mr.
25X1A termination on 6 April 1962.** In many
ways this case, except for its final disposition,
was typical of several which arose in the Support
Services. The attitude of disbelief on learning
that retirement must take place on rather short
notice was observable in many instances. "Why me?"
was a phrase frequently used. "But I thought I
could stay until age 70" was another.***
25X1A
* It will be recalled that during this period Mr.
Houston, as General Counsel, reported to the DDS.
Therefore, in preparing this correspondence he was
acting as the representative of the DDS as well as
in his capacity as Chairman of the Retirement Board.
** At the same time that these exchanges of corre-
spondence were taking place was in the
process of being separated as "surplus" under the
terms of formerly known as
After an unsuccessful appeal to the Director, Mr.
John S. mcCone, was terminated pursuant
to the terms of section 102(c) of the National Secur-
ity Act of 1947.
*** There is little, if any, documentation in sup-
port of these comments, but many Agency Personnel
Officers who were involved in counseling the people
who were affected recall the unhappiness voiced by
the targets of the Agency's retirement policy in the
first two or three years of its operation.
- 59 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/gtdlAzpDP90-00708R000200140001-2
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
Approved For Release 2000/064cRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
The case was also significant in
that the fist of iron concealed in the velvet glove
was rather clearly revealed. In effect, the Agency
lost patience with him. His threats went unheeded
-- his bluff was called. In the end, he apparently
decided not to have recourse to the only avenue
which might conceivably have led to resolution of
the issue in his favor - the Courts. He did seek
assistance from Senator Byrd of Virginia, who
appeared to have been satisfied with the explanation
given him by the Agency.
C. Printing Plant Personnel
25X1A Although was unable to gain
acceptance for his argument that the Agency's early
regulation on retirement constituted a compact
with its employees, a closely related variation of
the same argument was in the making. In May 1961,
the Director of Logistics
(Mr.
James A. Gar
rison.)
in a memorandum to the DDS, had proposed that eight
employees in the Printing Services Division, who
were then eligible for retirement, be allowed to
defer their retirement for varying periods. Three
- 60 -
Approved For Release 2000/06?VoRhetiRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0E5CO43.UATRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
v
principal arguments were offered in support of this
proposal. One was based on financial hardship; one
on quality of work done by the employees; and the
last was based on the organization's commitment to
its employees. In relation to the first two argu-
ments in support of retention, the Director of
Logistics stated that:
Many of our employees at the lower
grades who are now eligible for retire-
ment, will face severe financial hard-
ships if forced to retire. Their re-
luctance to retire has resulted, in
nearly every instance, in requests to
remain beyond optional retirement dates.
In addition to the common financial pro-
blem, we have noted that supervisors
have uniformly supported continued employ-
ment on the grounds that (a) replacements
would be recruited at or near the same
level, (b) no headroom would be created
by the retirement, and (c) production of
these employees is highly satisfactory.
In fact, supervisors consider these em-
ployees distinct assets to their organi-
zations.73/
Pleas of this type had been presented on behalf of
retirement eligibles on many occasions prior to this
appeal. Of special importance in this instance was
the fact that several of the named employees had at
one time worked for the Government Printing Office
(GPO) branch which was located in what was then
known as the Agency's Administration Building. In
- 61 -
Approved For Release 2000/Ogptk9t-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/061KA:WRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
January 1957 the Agency absorbed this plant and most
of the GPO people employed there. The GPO employees
transferring to the Agency did so voluntarily, after
having been given assurances that their conditions
of employment would remain essentially the same as
they had been under GPO. In retrospect, it appears
that the Director of Logistics may have missed the
significance of the commitments to the GPO personnel
because his language on the subject would seem to
have been rather mild:
Insistence on their retirement
prior to their attaining mandatory
retirement age establishes ground
rules quite different from those
of the GPO. To our knowledge,
none of our employees have raised
this point, but strict adherence
to Agency policy would appear to
represent a break in faith.74/
The Director of Personnel,
ett
D. E
was asked to review Mr. Garrison's memorandum and
forward recommendations to the DDS.
hal
Echols ap-
parently had no opinion on the issue of the commit-
ment to the former GPO employees, and chose to dis-
cuss the matter in relation to the merits of the
various cases as they had been presented. In his
reply to the DDS, he said:
- 62 -
Approved For Release 2000/gWthpiA-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0&ecHWRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
I think it would be consistent
with the discussion at the recent
Career Council Meeting regarding
retirement for you to approve these
cases and recommend that you do so.
I would suggest, however, that you
stipulate that each case be reviewed
annually to be sure that the condi-
tions warranting extension still ob-
tain ... . If, for any reason, such
review should indicate that continued
extension is not appropriate, I be-
lieve the individuals concerned should
be given adequate time to adjust their
personal planning.to an advance in their
retirement dates .75/
The DDS approved the memorandum and the various ex-
tensions as proposed by the Director of Logistics
with no reference to the commitment issue.*
25X1A D.
25X1A
25X1A
was one of those who saw no reason
why she should retire. She asked for and obtained
f an appointment with Colon
1 La
en
K.
hi
, the
DDS, on 9 March 1961. Her purpose was to ask that
she .not be required to retire on 30 June 1961.
, a Grade GS-09 Illustrator, assigned to
* The question of the commitment to GPO personnel
was resolved in May 1968, when it was determined by
the DCI that GPO people on duty at the time they
were absorbed might remain on duty until age 70 if
they elected to do so. There is a memorandum in the
file of each to reflect this determination.
- 63 -
Approved For Release 2000/0?MRg*-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/065gRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
25X1A
the Visual Aids Unit of the Office of the Special
Support Assistant, DDS (SSA-DDS), was then 62 years
of age. She told Colonel White that she had been
with the Agency for approximately eighteen years,
that she enjoyed her work and felt confident that
she did it well, and that she preferred not to ter-
minate her employment inasmuch as she believed she
could continue to do her work as well as anyone
else for some time to come; more particularly, be-
cause she felt that it would be difficult to find
other employment at an adequate salary at her age.
Colonel White summarized the conversation and his
position on this matter as follows:
I explained to that the
Agency had adopted its retirement policy
in order to try to bring in new blood
and establish a healthier over-all age-
in-grade structure. I also explained
that it was our hope that we could
reach mutually satisfactory arrangements
with personnel affected by the policy
and that we had no wish to be unreason-
able in this regard; however, I felt
that she must think positively about
separating herself at some time in the
not too distant future and that she
should not expect to remain on the
Agency's rolls indefinitely.
While not happy about this situa-
tion, understands it and
is anxious to have the matter settled
- 64 -
25X1A
Approved For Release 2000/0WR9t-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06?.16WRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
as soon as possible. She indicated
to me that she certainly would do
some positive thinking about the
matter and explore outside possi-
bilities of employment. In this
connection I advised that our Out-
placement Service in the Office of
Personnel might be of considerable
help to her and pointed out that it
might be entirely possible that her
skills were easily marketable and
that she could re-establish herself
without too much delay.76/
25X1A took her case to the Retirement
Board which approved two consecutive one-year ex-
tensions. She finally retired in December 1963 -
the month of her 65th birthday.
25X1A E.
25X1A
be approved and recommended a one-year extension
25X1A for .77/ On 25 April 1961 the
Director of Personnel discussed these cases with
These two gentlemen had reached optional re-
tirement age by the spring of 1961. Both were grade
GS-14 logistics officers. desired 25X1A
a two-year extension, and wished 25X1A
to remain on duty indefinitely. The Director of
Logistics (Mr. James
A
Garrison) recommended that
request for a two-year extension
- 65 -
Approved For Release 2000/0?ptkTt-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0iWMX-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
the DDS, with the result that
the Director of Logistics that
chols
advised
In brief, Colonel white will op-
prove the proposed retirement dates
provided the plans are firm and are
accepted by the principals. Should
the individuals not agree, they must
present their appeals to the Retire-
ment Board.78/
hols went on to reiterate Colonel
hite
policy statement of 26 February 1960 to the effect
that requests for extensions should be based on
the need to retain individuals possessing unique
qualifications.79/ Both officers retired at the
expiration of their extensions. -
F. Conclusions
The cases described in the preceding pages
serve to illustrate that the varying degrees of
pressure brought to bear on employees eligible to
retire were, in the opinion of many observers, sur-
prisingly effective. Several unhappy individuals
seemed to be headed for the courts charging "break
in faith," "violation of a compact,".or "failure to
meet commitments" in respect to opportunities to
complete goals of service, average salary level, or
- 66 -
Approved For Release 2000/0EgktaatRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06kcAIRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
financial objectives. However painful the circum-
stances or difficult the employees, all such cases
were resolved short of litigation.
In discussions of retirement policy in the
Agency, much was made of the effect of such a policy
on morale, but no meaningful effort was made to as-
sess its impact. In all probability, no purpose
would have been served in conducting such an assess-
ment. The Agency had decided to forge ahead on its
program, and, since no formidable obstacles were
encountered once the program was under way, there
were no convincing arguments supporting major
changes in the approach. There was considerable
evidence of dissatisfaction with the program at
senior management levels, but that was not to come
to a head for several years.
- 67 -
Approved For Release 2000/06AtiaPfRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0WO-bIR-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
VII. Retirement Happenings in the Intelligence Directorate
A. Introduction
As already indicated,* managers in the Intel-
ligence Directorate saw no urgent need for a retire-
ment policy other than that being followed in most
agencies of the Government. They probably were
singularly unimpressed by the problems associated
with integration into various cover situations of
aging CS personnel. Problems associated with rota-
tion of personnel with growing children seemed to
be of remote interest. There was no pressure ema-
nating from the DDI Area in support of the passage
of early retirement legislation. Obviously, the
DDI regarded the older people in his component in a
rather different light than did his confreres. In
view. of this, it seems strange that the DDI, Mr.
Robert Amory, failed to voice any opposition to the
Director of Personnel's approach at the Career Council
Meeting in April 1959.80/ Nor was there any serious
* See p. 23 of this report.
- 68 -
Approved For Release 2000/0WRRItk-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/OWCP'&-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
objection interposed when the proposal was in the
process of being formalized in a recommendation for
the approval of the DCI.81/ It must be assumed that
Mr.
Amory
viewed the proposed policy as being so
broad and flexible that it represented no conflict
with his philosophy and could be administered in the
DDI Area without difficulty.
B. The Approach to Policy
Whatever the reasons were that prompted Mr.
Amory to concur in the policy issuance of January
1960, it soon became evident that the policy would
be administered somewhat differently within the DDI
Area. At the first meeting of the Retirement Board,
the DDI representative, Dr. Otto Guthe, was reported
, as having
... noted that the DD/P had taken a more
positive and firm attitude than the DD/I,
that while even DD/I [retirement] eligibles
had been interviewed no one had been in-
formed that he was not being asked to re-
main. 82/
In June of the same year, a DDI Notice was issued
on the subject of "DDI Retirement Procedures."
These procedures were consistent with those estab-
lished by the Retirement Board, but the application
- 69 -
Approved For Release 2000/0?NtRCM3RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0McMk-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
of these procedures was, it appeared, along consid-
erably more permissive lines. For example, senior
officials were advised that they should
... inform the employee that continuance
of his services will be recommended to
the DD/I, subject to annual review, for
an indefinite period beyond his eligi-
bility date because of the unique or
special skills and competence he pos-
sesses which are needed by the Office;
or...
... ask the employee to continue his
service to an agreed future date ...
acceptable to the Office and the DD/I,
also subject annually to revision of
agreed date, because of the demonstrated
value and quality of his continuing con-
tribution to the mission of the Office;
or ...
... tell the employee that he is expect-
ed to retire shortly after reaching re-
tirement eligibility since there appears
to be no reason for excepting him from
the normal practice of the Agency; or ...
... advise the employee that, if he
believes that his retirement will create
extraordinary financial problems or other
serious personal difficulties, he should
present these to the Agency Retirement
Board ... .83/ [Emphasis supplied.]
In addition, employees affected by the fore-
going were advised that
... an extension of retirement should
generally not go beyond the retiree's
65th year of age except in the most
exceptional circumstances. 84/
- 70 -
Approved For Release 2000/OWnlabarRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/Ak4MX-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
The permissive nature of the approach of the Intel-
ligence Directorate was reinforced a few months
later when the DDI advised his Assistant Directors
that
25X1 A
Mr
... we should bear in mind the principle
that the DD/I Area often can usefully
continue to employ older employees of
top quality performance who would, if
forced to retire with less than some 20
years' service and at an age below 65,
suffer real financial embarrassment.
Each case must be considered carefully
and treated with understanding and hu-
manity.85/
A few weeks later the Director of Personnel,
t D. Echols, indicated that there seemed
to be evidence that the Executive Secretary of the
Retirement Board was somewhat less than forceful
in arranging interviews and conveying the gist of
Agency policy to retirement eligibles. He went on
to say:
It is my opinion that the Agency must
not allow this program to lag. To do so
would be unfair to those already contacted
in accordance with the policy timetable
who have cooperated with the policy. In
addition, I consider it imperative that
we determine as quickly as possible the
extent of refusals to cooperate after Re-
tirement Board review. This will be an
important factor in determining whether
the Agency's retirement policy can in fact
be carried out without being linked to a
compulsory separation system. 86/
- 71 -
Approved For Release 2000/0?TtAtRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/66fili-t1-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Obviously stung by the implication that not enough
25X1A was being done, the Executive Secre-
tary of the Retirement Board, assembled the follow-
ing statistics which he discussed with Mr. Echols
four days later, on 10 October:
Reasons for Not Component
Conducting an Interview 87/ 0/DCI DDP DDI DDS
Retired or plans well
established for retirement
6 11
Exception or extension
granted by appropriate
official 2 9 11
Overseas, not available 8 2
Medical problem, temporary 1
Case being considered with
that of husband (By Board
Chairman)
Decision not made by com-
ponent
Total
1
1 88
25 88 25
This status report convinced Mr. Echols that the Ex-
ecutive Secretary was pursuing an aggressive role on
behalf of the Board and that there were aspects of
the program which were beyond his control. Of im-
mediate pertinence to this discussion, however, is
the fact that no interviews had been conducted with
- 72 -
Approved For Release 2000/0gphatRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0Ferfal?1/46IX-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
personnel in the Intelligence Directorate and that
decisions had not been made by the DDI as to the
status of any of the 88 retirement eligibles. Ob-
viously, there was no intent within the DDI Area
to push the retirement program aggressively.
C. Conclusions
by
There was some sympathy for the position taken
y on this subject. In late December 1960,
Echols drafted a "thinkpiece" on the subject of
the "senior employee problem." After reiterating the
rather well-established line of thinking in relation
to the desirability of maintaining a more youthful
personnel complement in the Clandestine Service, he
addressed himself to the needs of the DDI Area.
By and large the passing years re-
present ever-increasing knowledge and
judgment. The problem here lies not
in the age structure of the DD/I and
DD/S directorates but rests with indi-
viduals who for various physical and
psychological reasons are no longer
fully effective in their positions.88/
In effect, the retirement program should not be used
as a smokescreen obscuring what is in fact an over-
all effort to terminate incompetents. Clearly at
one point in time, at least, Mr. Echols agreed with
- 73 -
Approved For Release 2000/0?VtAi-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/CMP-64-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
the DDI that there was no reason per se to sepa-
rate retirement eligibles if, in the process, the
normal supervisory responsibilities for separating
incompetent personnel had been consistently and
effectively met.89/
In connection with this point, Mr Amory told
members of the Career Council at the May 1961 meet-
ing that he intended to.apply a liberal policy on
retirements.
You see, I have felt that at age 65
they're just as good as at 62, so I'm
pretty tolerant, and if a person doesn't
really want to retire, or if they have a
mortgage that won't quite be paid up at
age 62, I don't require a great deal of
argument to let them go on to 65 -- be-
cause I think the most comparable situ-
ation in civilian life is 65 - they run
65, 66, and 68 -- and it's pretty hard
to tell an economist who is working here
and who has given up any chance at 62
to go to work anywhere except for charity
that he can't work at least as long as
his colleagues in the University of
Wyoming or California, or anywhere else.
So that is why our cases have been set-
tled in the lower court and haven't
gone to the Circuit Court of Appeals.90/
These comments were treated rather incredulously
by some of the other members, especially in view
of the fact that the board was preparing to con-
sider formalizing Agency retirement policy by
- 74 -
Approved For Release 2000/0WRtletRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/thibc-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
promulgating a regulation in lieu of the notice
which had been in effect for about seventeen months.
Amory s views seemed to have little or no effect
on the board's apparent intention of "hardening" its
policy on retirement. Apparently, the views of the
other board members were equally ineffective in con-
vincing
ory
that he should change his approach.91/
- 75 -
Approved For Release 2000/0?Mk9t-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0g61qIX-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
VIII. Events Leading to Early Retirement Legislation
A. Introduction
Although it was disclosed to the Career Coun-
cil in May 1961 that there was some urgency behind
the need to publish a retirement regulation, about
six months passed before it was approved. The new
regulation contained a revised statement of policy
which, while slightly more precise, was quite simi-
lar to the January 1960 notice. The policy portion
25X1A of regulation dated -3 November 1961,
read as follows:
The Agency encourages employees to
retire voluntarily as soon as they are
eligible to do so under the Civil Serv-
ice Retirement System. Employees are,
therefore, expected to plan to retire
upon completing 30 years' service at
the age of 60, or after five or more
years of service at the age of 62, ex--
cept when requested by the Agency to
remain in service.92/
* Apart from policy, this regulation was noteworthy
in that it assigned a number of procedures to the
Office of Personnel, including informational letters
five years in advance of eligibility dates, and pre-
retirement counseling.
- 76 -
Approved For Release 2000/0?ffkRift-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06WMA1RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
By January 1962 the Agency's retirement policy
had been in effect two years. During this time the
Retirement Board had accumulated sufficient statis-
tical data to be able to submit meaningful informa-
tion to the Career Counci1.93/
It becomes quickly apparent from an examina-
tion of the following Table (page 78) that a fairly
large number of retirement eligibles were on the
Agency's rolls as of January 1960. It seems equally
apparent that this number would have continued to
grow unless measures were taken to reverse the trend.
It can be seen that once the backlog of retirement
eligibles was reduced or eliminated, the number of
retirements taking place each year would be rela-
tively small and an orderly contribution to the
t attrition rate would result. It will be seen later
in this history that projections for the years after
1965 reflected an increasing rate of retirements.
It will be seen, also, that the projections as to
retirements for future years (see the Table) were
quite inaccurate.
It has been observed by reluctant retirees
that, while the number of personnel eligible to
- 77 -
Approved For Release 2000/0?Mialt-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0g61q1X-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Statistical Summary of the Agency's Optional Retirement Program
4 January 1960 to 1
January
1962 a/
Persons
DCI
DDP
DDI
DDS
Total
Employees Eligible Through 1961
8
b/
85
100
97
290
Through 1960
7
72
85
79
243
In 1961
1
13
15
18
47
Exempt from Agency Policy c/
0
0
0
4
4
Deceased
0
5
4.
0
9
Retired During 1960
2
14
21
19
56
Retired During 1961
1
28
26
20
75
Retirements Scheduled for 1962
2
28
21
32
83
Retirements Scheduled for 1963
2
7
20
12
41
Eligibles Remaining Beyond 1963
1
Retirements Extended by the
DCI or Deputy Directors
1
14
Retirements Extended by the
Agency Retirement Board
0
7
Eligibles Refusing Optional
Retirement
0
1
Number of Cases Referred to the
Agency Retirement Board
1
19
2
37
59
Employees Eligible for Optional
Retirement
In 1962'
63
In 1963
55
In 1964
64
In 1965
91
a. 94/.
b. Including Cable Secretariat.
C. Unwitting employees. 25X1A
- 78 -
Approved For Release 2000/0?mAile-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0Mcka:RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
retire may have increased, the rate of retirements
could reasonably have been expected to level off
and that eventually the rate of retirements would
remain constant. The argument goes further to say
that the "backlog" of retirees was artificial and
resulted merely from the Agency's change of policy.
Further than this, the numbers involved were small
in respect to the size of the Agency and could con-
tributa only minimally to Agency turnover.. The
statistics given in Figure 1 reinforce the comment
made earlier that the needs of the Clandestine Ser-
vice were the primary force in establishing Agency
retirement policy, since only 85 of 290 (or less
than 30 percent) who were eligible for retirement
through December 1961 were in the Clandestine Ser-
vice.
B. Discontinued Service Retirement
An aspect of the Civil Service Retirement Sys-
tem which had been used very sparingly in the Agency
was brought to bear in connection with the "701 ex-
ercise." Reference is made to that portion of the
Civil Service Retirement System which permitted
- 79 -
Approved For Release 2000/0AtRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06k1cMk-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
25X1A
employees to retire with an immediate annuity under
the following conditions:
... if he is separated involuntarily
through no fault of his own after
completing 25 or more years of service.
... if he is separated involuntarily
through no fault of his own after
reaching age 50 and completing 20 or
more years of service.95/
The annuity paid under these conditions was reduced
by 1/12 of 1 percent for each month under age 60
and over age 55 (1 percent a year) and 1/6 of 1
percent for each month under age 55 (2 percent a
year) 96/ It was thought probable that some employ-
ees who would be reached in the "701 exercise"
would be eligible to receive an immediate annuity
under these conditions if they did not qualify un-
der the usual conditions for obtaining an immediate
annuity. There was concern, however, over the fact
that some personnel might be reached for termination
who were within a short time of qualifying for an
immediate annuity if separated involuntarily. Ac-
cordingly, the Acting Director of Personnel (Mr.
wrote that
- 80 -
Approved For Release 2000/0EgMapTRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0M)cMk-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
In the interest of equity, ... it
is proposed that an individual who
will attain minimum eligibility
(either in terms of age or credit-
able service) for such retirement
within a period of 12 months* from
the date he is recommended for sep-
aration ... be permitted to remain
on Agency rolls until he attains
such eligibility. This arrangement
also depends upon a favorable rec-
ommendation by the Deputy Director
concerned and on the individual's
services being profitably utilized.
Accrued annual leave would also be
employed within the waiting period.97/
The DCI approved this proposal which offered some
relief to the people affected. It is beyond ques-
tion that this proposal was prompted in part, at
least, by humane considerations; it afforded some
employees, who were on precarious footing, the op-
tion of ensuring that they would receive some in-
come, however reduced it might be. On the other
hand, it involved a commitment by the employee to
the effect that he would retire when eligible to
draw an immediate annuity if he were to be separated
involuntarily under the Surplus Personnel Procedures.
* On 7 February 1962 this was changed to 24 months.
- 81 -
Approved For Release 2000/06gtt:RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/63WMIA=RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
C. An Early Retirement Proposal
There was renewed recognition that employees
at or near age 50 with 20 or 25 years of service
should be granted increased financial benefits.
In mid-December 1961 the DDP M
R. ha
d M Bissell
Jr., forwarded a study prepared by some of his of-
ficers and recommended to the DCI that:
The Agency should seek appropriate
legislation to enable the early re-
tirement of selected officers of
the CS [Clandestine Services] and
officers of other components of the
Agency closely affiliated with the
CS in accordance with a program com-
parable to that now authorized for
the Foreign Service.
Only those officers of the CS and
affiliated officers of the Agency
whose unique duties clearly qualify
them will be eligible for early re-
tirement. Hence there should be de-
veloped standards and procedures for
identifying those Clandestine Ser-
vices Officers, and officers of other
career services affiliated with the
Clandestine Services who would be
eligible for early retirement.98/
The DDS,
Colonel Lawrence
White, who was
asked to comment on this proposal, indicated on 10
January 1962 that he was in general agreement with
several aspects of
Bissell's proposal, but a
few rather serious differences emerged. In relation
- 82 -
Approved For Release 2000/0691dRAIRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06WMAIRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
to selection criteria for participation in an early
retirement system, he said:
I feel that there is strong argument
in favor of postponing selection of
the individuals until after they have
fulfilled stipulated terms and condi-
tions and until the Agency is willing
or desirous that they retire early.99/
However, on the matter of seeking legislation on
early retirement, he had the following to say:
I think that there is strong sentiment
in both the Executive and Legislative
Branches of the Government against giv-
ing us early retirement legislation un-
til they see what we are going to do
with the temporary authority already
given us to separate surplus personnel.
The major problem in this Agency effort
is in the DD/P Area and we do not have
the DD/P's final recommendations as to
the personnel to be declared surplus.
To summarize my reactions, I believe
that the study of the DD/P is neither
broad enough nor deep enough and that
it would be unwise for the Agency to
propose early retirement legislation
until:
we have considered and arrived
at a decision on an Agency-wide
basis as to what we want in the
way of an early retirement program;
we have demonstrated by positive
and aggressive action that we are
using to the maximum our temporary
authority to separate surplus per-
sonnel; and
- 83 -
Approved For Release 2000/0WRt:FFerRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/6MA:RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
we know the outcome of con-
gressional action on the Ad-
ministration's request for in-
creased compensation for Fed-
eral civilian employees.100/
He went on to urge that the matter be referred to
the Career Council since the council had given a
great deal of consideration to the subject of early
retirement legislation and had come "to some fairly
firm conclusions as to what we should ask for."101/
As Acting DCI, General Cabell's response of
19 January 1962 left no doubt as to the type of
action he had in mind. A memorandum to the Chair-
man of the Career Council is quoted in its entirety.
The CIA Career Council is hereby
directed to develop an Agency-wide
early retirement program without
waiting for further developments
in connection with the surplus per-
sonnel program or possible legisla-
tive action for Federal employees.102/
Needless to say, action to obtain such legis-
lation proceeded apace. By the summer of 1962,
legislation had been introduced and the Agency's
position on the various aspects of an early retire-
ment program had been clarified. As was stated
earlier, the legislative history of the Agency's
retirement law is covered elsewhere so that
- 84 -
Approved For Release 2000/069cRiRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/bc1?&ARDP90-00708R000200140001-2
references to it in this history will be minimal.
The subject arises at this point for the purpose
of highlighting the great emphasis being given to
the subject of retirement at this time and to show
the various interrelationships of many solutions
to retirement problems. The subject of retirement
was injected into the "701 exercise" so that those
who were eligible could retire, rather than be ter-
minated; and, as a result, some separations were
delayed to afford individuals the option to retire.
The situations encountered in connection with re-
views of individual "701" cases appeared to suggest
to many officials that some individuals labeled
"surplus," or being considered among the "surplus
types," clearly qualified to meet the criteria pro-
posed for those who would qualify for early retire-
ment under the requested legislation. The concepts
outlined to Congressional committees in August 1962
included the following:
... factors directly related to the nature
and conditions of service in the intelli-
gence field and factors affecting the abil-
ity and desire of individuals to remain in
such work on a long-term basis make it in-
feasible to provide full-term employment.
for all careerists.
- 85 -
Approved For Release 2000/06A10RATRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0i1k)cMX-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
The nature of the work involved
in the Agency's operations requires
people who have a high degree of
vigor, vitality, endurance, resil-
ience and adaptability. Such traits
are required to cope with the stresses
and strains occasioned by uneven and
uncertain hours and days of work, duty
in unhealthful locations with less
than adequate medical facilities, or
arduous, and not infrequently, hazard-
ous assignments.
There are other factors pertaining
to the individuals themselves which,
over the years, limit their ability
and desire to continue in overseas
service. First, there is "motiva-
tional exhaustion." This term is
used to describe a gradual lessen-
ing in enthusiasm of an officer as a
result of impingements on his person-
al and family life ... . Further,
... employees serving abroad are sub-
ject to even greater restrictions
The dynamic nature of intelligence
activities produces sudden and some-
times radical shifts in the types of
personnel required. Completion of a
mission of a temporary nature or a
shift in emphasis or direction of
operations may result in an overabun-
dance of officers who are skilled in
a relatively narrow field. Their
primary qualifications thus become
obsolete or unneeded and they become
"occupationally surplus."103/
D. The Pay Reform Act
Although passage of the desired legislation
was two years off, the concepts expressed above in
- 86 -
Approved For Release 2000/06gM%tRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0E?ecibRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
support of early retirement legislation were of
.broad significance in terms of defining Agency re-
tirement policy. On the one hand, there was pres-
sure to solve current problems immediately. On
the other hand, there were strong indications that
some amelioration of continuing problems was in the
offing. It seemed axiomatic that if individuals
were offered incentives to retire early they would
do so. As a result, early retirements could be
expected to reduce the pressure resulting from
ceiling congestion, at least to some degree.
The predictability of the impact of early re-
tirement legislation had to be influenced somewhat
by the first of a series of legislative pay increases
which was launched by the Salary Reform Act of 2962.104/
This Act provided for a pay increase for Federal em-
ployees in October 1962, and again in January 1964.
Apart from the morale value associated with the sharp
increase in pay levels of civilian employees, one
noticeably significant reaction was that employees
nearing retirement resorted to their sharp pencils
and recomputed prospective annuities based on the
- 87 -
Approved For Release 2000/06M6RtIRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0MCMAIRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
"high-five" the increased salary rates would pro-
duce. Many employees detected that a sharply in-
creased annuity would be realized from longer Gov-
ernment service and decided that any delay in re-
tirement would work in their favor. There is no
way to measure the impact of this pay increase in
terms of the Agency's effort to enforce its retire-
ment policy. It is obvious, of course, that with
the passage of time and as the potential annuities
of many employees were increasing, the number of
requests for extensions based on need (compassion)
would decrease. It seems reasonable to assume that
the immediate impact of the pay legislation of 1962
led to increased resistance to retirement on the
part of many eligibles. The long-range impact, of
f course, was that retirements could be expected to
accelerate at some date in the future as the com-
bination of higher salaries and years of service
worked to enhance annuities.
* The average high-five-year salary on which the
retiree's annuity is based.
- 88 -
Approved For Release 2000/0EgMaArRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06*PWATRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
E. A Reassessment of Existing Practices
In the meantime, of course, such potential
benefits meant little to those employees who were
nearing retirement eligibility. The pressure on
them to retire continued without abatement. The
situation for these people was summarized in Jan-
uary 1963, as the result of a request from the
Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, Major Gen-
eral Marshall S Carter. In a handwritten note to
the DDS he said:
Please tell me more of the philos-
ophy of retention - financial hardship
seems obvious for all but the idle rich -
how about best interests?105/
In response, the Director of Personnel outlined on
11 February 1963 the practices and policies then in
effect, which have already been discussed at length
and closed with the following:
Since the current policy was
adopted, we have established a
preretirement counseling program
which alerts individuals five years
prior to their eligibility for re-
tirement and offers them assistance
in planning for it. Also, we have
been careful in appointing new em-
ployee S to ensure that they will
have 30 years of service credit by
the time they reach age 60. These
steps, and improvements in our man-
power planning should make exceptions
decreasingly necessary in future years.106/
- 89 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/RkRIHDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/066c:reaRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
In a perhaps more direct response to General Carter's
query, Colonel White added his views two days later:
It came as no surprise to us that
many employees felt that we had changed
the ground rules on them without suffi-
cient prior notice, and there was, of
course, some justification in their po-
sition. It is true that we have pres-
sured employees to retire when eligible
and in many of these cases they would
not have otherwise done so until they
reached mandatory retirement age. At
the same time, we have tried to nego-
tiate a mutually acceptable date with
the individual employee when retire-
ment as soon as eligible would work a
hardship on him and when his services
could continue to be used to good ad-
vantage. While we have had some rath-
er difficult cases, we have been able
to work out most of them and have not
yet resorted to involuntary separation
to force retirement when eligible with
full annuity.107/
The report of the Executive Secretary of the
Agency Retirement Board for calendar year 1963* re-
lated that during 1963 it became noticeable that
many individuals reaching eligibility for retirement
"had made sufficient plans so that they were ready
to retire during 1963."108/ He thought that the
25X1A
III* who retired at the end of 1962.
25X1A
- 90 -
Approved For Release 2000/06W6RffDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/064c:PCWRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
letter to employees five years in advance of their
retirement eligibility was being well-received.
There were 71 extensions during the year. Eighteen
of these were granted by the board, the remainder
by the various deputy directors. A program utiliz-
ing the services of the Assessment and Evaluation
Staff of the Office of Medical Services was insti-
tuted. Also, as part of a program to assist indi-
viduals in preparing themselves for post-retirement
activities,
... procedures have been established
so that individuals who are eligible
for retirement in the next one to five
years are reminded periodically of the
up-coming date so that no one is caught
by surprise. Also, those persons who
neglect to contact the Executive Secre-
tary for counseling are reminded of the
service available to them.109/
F. Ceiling Control and Retirement
In the years prior to 1964, there had been
indications that management had a tendency to view
the Agency's retirement policy as a means of aiding
various components in accommodating to reductions
in ceiling and enforcing strength controls. This
view was reinforced on 27 July 1964 when the Exec-
utive Director-Comptroller, Mr. Lyman B. Kirkpatrick,
- 91 -
Approved For Release 2000/0WRUpprRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0iThCR4fik-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Jr., issued an Action Memorandum entitled "Reduction
in On-duty Strength Levels." In this memorandum he
said that
The Director's decision to adjust
position authorizations for FY 1965
and FY 1966 compels us to initiate
certain constructive efforts designed
to meet our end-year target strength
levels. Immediate attention must be
given by each Deputy Director to those
avenues which provide an acceleration
in the separation of personnel who are
unnecessary to his needs ... .110/
The four possibilities suggested as being fruitful
avenues leading to personnel reductions included:
the reduction of active-duty military personnel
assigned to the Agency; the limiting of extensions
to retirement eligibles; the identification and
elimination of individuals whose performance was
substandard; and the identification and reassign-
ment of those individuals possessing skills which
were surplus to the needs of the Service to which
they were assigned. Of particular interest was the
forceful language used in relation to retirement.
established
the policy that employees are expected
to retire when they have achieved cer-
tain specified combinations of age and
length of service. In the past we have
been very lenient in granting waivers
- 92 -
25X1A
Approved For Release 2000/06M6ANIRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/4PC4RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
of this policy. We must now take a
more objective and organization-
oriented viewpoint on this matter.
In the future, exceptions should be
granted only when an employee's
skills are truly irreplaceable from
within the Agency or when a real fi-
nancial hardship would result which
would materially affect the employee's
ability to maintain the necessities
of life. Failure to exercise mature
judgment in planning for retirement
and the assumption of unnecessary
obligations by individuals approach-
ing retirement age will not be con-
sidered adequate reasons for retain-
ing an employee beyond his normal
retirement date. Accordingly, you
should review all current exceptions
to the retirement policy and provide
to me by 1 November 1964 specific
recommendations either rescinding or
revalidating each case by name in
accordance with a strict interpreta-
tion of the above criteria.111/
The strong language of this statement was re-
ceived with some consternation and led to the re-
examination of extensions previously granted. How-
ever, before any extensions were canceled and before
this apparent restatement of policy was implemented,
Colonel White advised the Director of Personnel of
the following:
On 23 September 1964 I discussed
with Mr. Kirkpatrick the apparent con-
flicts and misunderstandings which
[Action Memorandum No. A-410 and in-
terpretations of it] have caused and
- 93 -
Approved For Release 2000/06?11GRytRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06*PVATRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
suggested that he might like to
clarify his intent insofar as it
affected Agency retirement policy.
r. Kir atrick assured me that
he did not intend to change Agency
policy as outlined in
any way. He merely wished to reg-
ister his philosophy that our policy
should not be implemented with ri-
gidity and that we should be rea-
sonably lenient with people who
would find themselves in dire fi-
nancial circumstances if they were
forced to retire at age 60 or 62.
kp
I believe his philosophy is en-
tirely consistent with the manner
in which our retirement program
has operated to date and the Direc-
tor of Personnel and members of the
CIA Retirement Board should under-
stand that there has been no change
in Agency policy.112/
Apparently Colonel
e
IC
25X1A
memorandum quieted any
fears that the Agency's retirement policy had been
changed. There is no evidence that there were any
residual effects of Mr. Kirkpa 'ck's more forceful
approach to retirement policy.
G. Conclusions
In a broad sense,
Kirkpat
k s
action
memorandum, and the reaction to it, served to close
a chapter on the early phases of the development of
- 94 -
Approved For Release 2000/06MGRIMRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/061eVATRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
the Agency's retirement policy. It was evident
that the Agency's statements of policy had with-
stood the challenges of employees, in that none
had carried the contest to the courts but had, in-
stead, retired. At the same time, efforts of offi-
cials at various levels of management to either
toughen or weaken the approach were restrained so
that policy within directorates was fairly consist-
ent, although some variations were observable when
the practices of one directorate were compared with
those of another. The time seemed to be at hand
when employees and supervisors alike might be ex-
pected to understand the Agency's policy and plan
accordingly.
- 95 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/9tcyA.fDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0E?g4.gATRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
IX. A New Law and New Policy
A. Introduction
The long-awaited early retirement legislation
was passed by Congress and signed into law by Pres-
ident Lyndon Johnson on 14 October 1964. The Pres-
ident objected to a provision of the law which re-
quired that the Armed Services Committees approve
any rules and regulations prescribed by the DCI in
establishing and maintaining the new retirement
system. Although the President considered this an
unconstitutional invasion of Executive prerogative,
he reasoned that by treating the role desired by
Congress as consultative he could sign the Bill and
did so saying, "This legislation is fundamentally
meritorious. "113/
On 20 October 1964 the Agency announced the
signing of the Bill in an Employee Bulletin which
was distributed to all employees. While most
Agency employees were aware that the Agency had
been pressing for such legislation, it is doubtful
that many were aware that the legislation would be
- 96 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/0jEnkagIDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/4/WWRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
25X1A
as restrictive as it emerged in terms of eligibility
for participation. It would seem useful, therefore,
to quote this Employee Bulletin in its entirety:
- 97 -
Approved For Release 2000/060cRtkiRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0WW-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
25X1A
? B. The New System at Work
The regulation prescribing the 25X1A
rules and policies governing the administration of
the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Dis-
ability System (hereafter referred to as CIARDS or
the System) was published on 27 April 1965. On
30 July 1965 an Employee Bulletin describing CIARDS
was distributed to all employees at Headquarters.
The Bulletin said, in part, that:
25X1A
- 98 -
Approved For Release 2000/06,6Vc}cheriRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
25X1A
Approved For Release 2000/06/01 : CIA-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/01 : CIA-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0e5WVIWRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
It was pointed out that
went further 25X1A
than Public Law 88-643 in defining "qualifying serv-
ice." Most duty performed overseas was to be con-
sidered "qualifying service," as would certain
"domestic service" performed in the United States
under conditions similar to those of service over-
seas. 118/
The implementation of the CIA Retire-
ment Act is being carried out under the
supervision of a CIA Retirement Board
comprised of senior Agency officials
nominated by the Deputy Directors and
appointed by the Director to assist and
advise the Director of Personnel in the
administration of the CIA Retirement and
Disability System. A CIA Retirement
Staff has been established in the Office
of Personnel to provide staff and secre-
tariat support in the administration of
the CIA Retirement System ... .119/
The board had already met several times when
the foregoing was published. At the first meeting,
held on 11 August 1965, the Director of Personnel,
'Emmett D. Echols, was asked to provide clarifi-
cation regarding the kinds of questions he might
refer to the board. His response indicated that in
addition to requirements set forth in there 25X1A
would be a need for the development of policies re-
garding the inclusion of certain categories of
- 100 -
Approved For Release 2000/06McRWIRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0W:ItiZRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
personnel under the system; refinement of the cri-
teria covering "qualifying service"; and advice to
the DCI on discretionary aspects of the statute.
Finally, I look to the Board to assist
in achieving more familiarity and under-
standing of the CIA Retirement and Dis-
ability System among employees and super-
visors of the Agency. Your counsel and
participation in their efforts may, and
hopefully shall, take several forms ... .120/
The board got down to work promptly and, by
21 April 1965, agreed to a procedure whereby the
Director of Personnel asked the various Career Service
Heads to take action on the identification of certain
of their employees for nomination as participants
in CIARDS. The Career Service Heads were asked to
review lists of their careerists who would reach
age 50 during 1965 and who had 20 years or more of
Federal service and 10 years or more of Agency serv-
ice. The years of Agency service overseas were also
shown in a listing provided the Career Service Heads.
Individuals who did not meet established criteria
for participation in CIARDS were to be so identified
and would, in turn, be notified of their nonselection.
Employees appearing to qualify for selection would
be considered for designation as participants by the
board. 121/
- 101 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/gtc-ca,fDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0g-PWRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
25X1A
With the dispatch of this memorandum, CIARDS
was clearly on the way to implementation.
of the board's work during its early years
that as one problem was solved others would
Many
difficult questions arose, and as time
A review
indicates
emerge.
passed
a number of precedents emerged from the many cases
the board reviewed. A few of these have been se-
lected as illustrative of the problems encountered.
"Career" means the predominant and
long-range orientation of an employee's
Agency service, past and present.*
(March 1965)
Until definite guidelines have been
established as to the kinds of service
in the United States which will con-
stitute qualifying service, the Board
will consider only those cases based
on qualifying service in assignments
overseas. However, the Board will con-
sider any exceptional or urgent case
involving qualifying service in the
United States. (1 April 1965)
The Chairman next presented to the
Board the case of Mr. R. E. J. who was
being nominated for participation in
* This quotation and the selections which follow
have been extracted from the policy handbook main-
tained by , Executive Secre-
tary of the CIA Retirement Board, from the fall of
1966 to date (1971).
- 102 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/9AcRh-FDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0aFW-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
the System with concurrent mandatory
retirement based partially on domestic
qualifying service. Mr. J., who is 62
years of age, was previously nominated
in September 1965 and action was deferred
pending receipt of additional informa-
tion regarding the domestic qualifying
service. The Office of Security then
requested return of the nomination for
further consideration and review by
the Career Service. The Board recom-
mended that the nomination of Mr. J. be
rejected on the grounds that at the
time of his original nomination his
Career Service stated that they would
not request an extension beyond manda-
tory retirement and by not forcing a
decision at that time he was allowed
to benefit from two additional years
of employment thereby waiving his right
of appeal in this matter.
The Chairman next presented the case
of Mr. N. S. B. who was requesting that
he be designated a participant in the
CIA Retirement System. Mr. B. was ap-
proved for participation in the system
in May 1965 and was offered the 15-year
election. At that time Mr. B. chose to
remain in the Civil Service System in
order to remain employed until he was
62 years of age; however, with the change
in the Agency retirement policy he was
informed that he would be expected to
retire at age 60. In view of this change
in policy he requested that he now be
allowed to participate in the CIA System.
The Board was unanimous in agreeing that
Mr. B. should not be penalized by a
change in policy and should be desig-
nated as a participant in the System.
The Chairman informed the Board that
Col. White and/or in consultation with
the Director sees no reason to handle
- 103 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/gtcgasIFDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0616WRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
25X1A
extensions under the Civil Service System
any differently than extensions under the
Agency Retirement System. He stated that
the revised Regulation will provide that
the Director will act on extensions with
the advice and guidance of the Retirement
Board for both retirement systems. (March
1966)
... any Agency employee who meets the
qualifications for designation as a par-
ticipant in [CIARDS] ... may be so des-
ignated without regard to the fact that
he may be currently eligible for retire-
ment under the Civil Service System.
(1 April 1965)
The Board unanimously recommended ap-
proval of its first request for voluntary
retirement under the System as submitted
by , GS-15, Office
of Communications. (6 May 1965)
Although the CIA Retirement Board had been
operative for more than three months, it was not
formally established until 24 June 1965. A notice
published on that date contained the following
statement:
25X1A
- 104 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/9tc9MRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
25X1A
Approved For Release 2000/0lRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
As already mentioned, both Boards were provided
secretariat services by the Office of Personnel.
in addition to his duties
as Chief of the newly established Retirement Branch
of the Office of Personnel, continued as Executive
Secretary of the Agency Retirement Board.123/ Mr.
was appointed Chief, CIA Retire-
ment Staff, with collateral duties as Executive
Secretary of the CIA Retirement Board.
C. The End of the Agency Retirement Board
The question of the continuation of the Agency
Retirement Board was raised by its Chairman, Mr.
Lawrence R Houston, in January 1966, when he pro-
posed that his board be merged with the CIA Retire-
ment Board.124/ He referred to the annual report
of the board which showed that activity of the board
was decreasing year by year.125/ It was not mentioned
in the report, but it is clearly deducible from that
report and earlier ones that after six years the
Agency's retirement policies were in full force and
effect except for a small number of exceptions.
Since the board met to consider only 15 cases during
- 105 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/nOT4'IRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0641C:1=IRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
1965,126/ its workload could be considered minimal.
In January 1966, DDS, Mr. Rober L. ar man, de-
clined to concur in
OUS
me
s recommendation, as
did the Executive Director-Comptroller, Colonel
awrence
laite on the grounds that
The CIA Retirement Board still faces a
heavy workload over the next several months
in screening new participants. They are
also deeply involved in working out the
policies and standards that govern the ad-
ministration of the CIA system. For these
reasons we would strongly prefer not to
have them take on just yet the additional
functions of Mr Houston's Board 127/
Benne an agreed to review the matter at the end
of the year and did so, advising
30 December that
Colon
el White on
Although the CIA Retirement Board still
is involved in developing policies and
standards concerning the administration of
the CIA System, the Director of Personnel
advises that the Board should be able to
handle easily the relatively small number
of extension cases currently being sub-
mitted to the Agency Retirement Board.
For this reason, we are now prepared to
recommend the consolidation of these two
retirement boards ... .128/
The board ceased functioning as a separate entity
immediately.
The significance of the dissolution of the
Agency Retirement Board is difficult to assess.
- 106 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/WME/DP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06WitraRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
The workload statistics indicated a declining need
for the board, but these statistics were undoubtedly
greatly influenced by the passage of the so-called
"Daniels Bill." This Bill provided that annuities
of employees who retired on or before 30 November
1965 would be increased by 6.1 percent effective
1 December 1965. Earlier legislation provided that
an additional 2 percent would be paid to those en-
titled to the 6.1 percent increase for a total in-
crease of 8.1 percent.129/ As a result of this huge
increase, retirements for 1965 were nearly double
those of the previous year. In other words, many
requests for extensions were forestalled or obviated
as a result of the increased annuity benefit which
many employees chose to accept by retiring.*
D. Qualifying Service
It was apparent from the earliest discussions
of "early retirement" legislation that the most
* Some significance must also be attributed to the
fact that the Agency Retirement Board, which was
concerned with employees covered by the Civil Serv-
ice Retirement System, represented about 75 percent _
of the Agency population. In effect, the board re-
presenting the smaller group was absorbing the board
representing the larger.
- 107 -
Approved For Release 2000/06AbRAIRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0e*PCV:RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
controversial aspect of the development of an Agency
policy on the subject was "qualifying service." Few,
if any, differences arose regarding the total years
of Federal and Agency service which should be re-
quired, but opinions as to the types of service
which were thought necessary to qualify for partici-
pation in the system varied widely. As previously
25X1A stated, went further than the Public Law
(88-643) in defining "qualifying service" and was
thought to provide:
... sufficient criteria for judging in
most instances the qualifications of an
individual for entrance into, remaining
in, and being retired from the CIA system..
However, both the act and the regulation
permit, and indeed require, considerable
interpretation in their application to a
limited number of employees whose duties
do not, for one reason or another, fit
neatly into the easily identified types
of "qualifying service."130/
It was recognized that most, but possibly not all,
duty performed overseas would be considered "qualify-
ing service." On the other hand, service in the
United States, which is performed under conditions
similar to those of service overseas, may be con-
sidered "qualifying service"; however:
- 108 -
Approved For Release 2000/06IrcRIMRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/DCR2XRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Precise criteria cannot be established
for determining the conditions of domestic
service which would place such service in
a qualifying category. These standards
will evolve in a case-by-case review of
those few individuals nominated for par-
ticipation on the strength of domestic
service believed by their Career Services
to be "qualifying."131/
These principles, which were stated at the outset,
remained unchallenged until October 1966. The chal-
lenge was originated by in his
role as Vice Chairman of the Clandestine Service
Career Service Board. He proposed that consideration
be given to allowing members of the Clandestine
Service Career Service (CSCS) to be included in the
system under a liberalized approach to "qualifying
service" and that members of the CSCS be selected
for participation in the system based on a decision
made by the Director upon recommendation of the CSCS
Board. He said that:
In effect, we are suggesting that in
certain cases the Director should take
a broader view of what constitutes
qualifying service and that the [Re-
tirement] Board and other individuals
in the Agency not be brought into this
decision-making process. It is believed
that the regulations, the statute, and
the explanations furnished to our con-
gressional committees afford a sound
basis for a broader interpretation of
qualifying service than has been ap-
plied in fact up to date.132/
- 109 -
Approved For Release 2000/06?)kRI1RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
25X1A
Approved For Release 2000/06.61ARDP90-00708R000200140001-2
25X1A
Rather surprisingly, this proposal had the concur-
rence of the Director of Personnel. The Acting DDP,
also concurred and added
his comments in support of a liberalized approach to
determining what service should be considered as
qualifying for some employees, saying that
... requirements in CIA for the particular
skills and capabilities of these individu-
als have ceased to exist; the validity of
their coverture is no longer supportable;
they are medically qualified but are no
longer willing to undertake and/or able
to fulfill CS assignments which usually
demand dynamic response or encompass
stringent living conditions or require
continually long hours of concentrated
duty, or all of these.133/
Unfortunately, many employees fitting this descrip-
tion were expected to fall short of meeting the re-
quirement for five years of qualifying service. Yet,
many of them were ready and willing to retire if they
could be brought under the System. Such retirements
would, it was thought, serve the needs of the Agency
"without seriously affecting the functioning of the
System as such."134/ supported
other points made by eluded with
the following:
- 110 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/9EcRIMRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
25X1A
Approved For Release 2000/06-*PYFATRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
It is recommended that the Director,
acting on the case-by-case proposals of
the Deputy Director for Plans ..., des-
ignate Agency employees as participants
in the CIA Retirement and Disability
System and simultaneously approve their
retirements at dates determined to be in
the best interests of the Agency.135/
The Executive Director-Comptroller, Colonel
Lawrence K. White, responded to this proposal on
15 November 1966 by forwarding the following memo-
randum:
I have discussed your proposal ...
with the Director. As a general prac-
tice the Director prefers to process
retirement cases under the CIA Retire-
ment and Disability System through the
Retirement Board which was appointed to
advise the Director of Personnel and the
Director with regard to these matters.
He recognizes, however, that there may
be cases which, in the opinion of the
Director of Personnel or a Deputy Di-
rector, should be submitted for his
decision without prior consideration
by the Retirement Board.
The Director will consider such cases
on an individual case basis in accordance
with the following procedure: When a
Deputy Director or the Director of Per-
sonnel feels that a case should be proc-
essed outside the Retirement Board, the
Director of Personnel will forward to
the Director a memorandum setting forth
a full justification for using the ex-
ceptional procedure. In all cases it
will bear the concurrence or comment of
the appropriate Deputy Director and will
be routed through the General Counsel,
Approved For Release 2000/06/%1cqW1VDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/4c:rtWRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
to whom the Director will look for advice
regarding the legality of the proposal
as well as assurance that it is consis-
tent with the intent of Congress as sup-
ported by the legislative history of the
System. 136/
It must be supposed that the proposal advanced
by the DDP, which would have removed the Retirement
Board from the chain of review on certain cases, was
based on the unexpressed thought that the Agency's
Retirement Law was conceived principally to meet the
needs of the Clandestine Service. Once the provisions
of the law were in full force and effect, the system
appeared to be operating on a very broad base with-
out, seemingly, any special consideration being given
to the component where the most obvious and pressing
needs were thought to have existed originally, and
which appeared to be unrelieved. This is not to
suggest that there were not strong arguments support-
ing centrally located seats for policy determinations
such as the Retirement Board. It is suggested, in-
stead, that the rather direct attack on the proce-
dures under the system as they related to the Retire-
ment Board indicated concern that members of the
Clandestine Service felt that they were getting less
then their share of the Agency's quota and were
- 112 -
Approved For Release 2000/06 dykIRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06*PdATRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
disenchanted with the strict application of the
criteria being applied to "qualifying service."
E. Conclusions
Any discussion of the operation of CIARDS
must of necessity be limited in a history related
to overall Agency retirement policy. It is clear
that much remains to be written on the subject.
It has probably been recognized already that this
subject would be rewarding as a separate area of
study.
- 113 -
Approved For Release 2000/06TAoRlhRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06WIWRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
X. Another Law -- And More Problems
A. The Fringe Benefits Act
The Federal Salary and Fringe Benefits Act of
1966 was responsible for setting off a new go-round
of agonizing over Agency retirement policy. The
Act provided that an individual under the Civil
Service Retirement System could retire on his own
option on full annuity at age 55 with 30 or more
years of service.* It will be recalled that pre-
viously the retirement statute permitted optional
retirement at age 55, but in such a case the annuity
was reduced by one percent for each year under age
60. Another change involved optional retirement at
age 60 with 20 years of service. Prior to this
change, an employee who had less than 30 years of
* This provision of the law led to a degree of con-
sternation in some quarters of the Government as well
as in the Agency. The Civil Service Commission had
endorsed this liberalization of retirement benefits
with the expectation that the law would authorize
agencies to force retirements at age 55 if performance
or other management considerations so warranted. The
absence of this provision resulted in a new expense
to the retirement system without a resulting manage-
ment tool.
- 114 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/%1E:atIpP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/0641C.16VAT-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
service was not eligible for an immediate annuity
until he reached age 62. Since the retirement pol-
icy then in effect in the Agency "expected" that an
employee would retire as soon after reaching age 60
as he became eligible for an immediate annuity, the
new law with its broader options introduced a con-
flict which required attention. The immediate con-
cern, of course, was that portion of the new law
which, if strictly applied under Agency policy,
would have compelled some employees to retire at
age 55. A secondary concern related to those who
would be required to retire at age 60 if they had
at least 20 years of service. From the outset,
there appears to have been considerable opinion
which favored applying the new provisions to em-
ployees thus becoming eligible on the basis of the
oft-repeated argument that such a policy would aid
in relieving congestion within the Agency and con-
tribute to opening up headroom, thereby allowing
for the advancement of its younger employees.137/
The Director of Personnel,
Em
ett D. Echols
chose this occasion to review current Agency policy
and the impact of recent legislation, including the
- 115 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/%1BSWEIpP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06AYarFRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
CIA Retirement Act and Fringe Benefits Act, on this
policy:
Applied literally, the language of
our present policy would "expect" and
in effect require retirement of an em-
ployee under the Civil Service Retire-
ment System at age 55 with 30 years of
service. By contrast, our own CIA Re-
tirement System, which was obtained to
permit "early" retirement for employees
who have served under certain special
circumstances, provides a mandatory re-
tirement age of 60 for those employees
in grade GS-17 or below and of 65 for
those in grade GS-18 and above. It
would seem incongruous to require an
employee who does not qualify for our
special "early" retirement system to
retire at a lower age, i.e., 55, than
specified for employees who are covered
by our "early" retirement system. On
this basis alone, it would seem inap-
propriate to apply the new "55-30" rule
to employees under the Civil Service
Retirement System without an equiva-
lent application under the CIA Retire-
ment System.
... it would appear that there has been
a clear statement of Congressional pol-
icy in opposition to mandatory-involun-
tary retirement at age 55 -- even with
full earned annuity.
In the final analysis the feasibility
of requiring employees to retire at age
55 must be evaluated in terms of the ef-
fect upon employee morale, attrition and
recruitment. Although socioeconomic
trends are running toward earlier retire-
ment and larger annuities, I know of no
government agency which has set so low a
retirement age except when justified by
- 116 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/VE.MERDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/064P6VATRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
special demands of the work and then
only with compensatory inducements in
the form of enhanced retirement bene-
fits. One is led to the conclusion
that such a policy would be an unac-
ceptable condition of employment to
both present and prospective employees.138/
;chols also raised the question as to whether
individuals in grade GS-18 and above should be
allowed to continue to treat age 65 as their manda-
tory retirement age. Once again, his approach was
that there appeared to be no reason for distin-
guishing between the two retirement systems insofar
as establishing different retirement ages was con-
cerned. In consonance with these views, he recom-
mended to the Director that
... the Agency's current policy for
employees under the Civil Service
Retirement System be modified to
"expect" employees to retire at age
60 with 20 or more years of service
or at age 62 with five but less than
20 years of service;
... implementation of the revised
Civil Service Retirement policy be
phased gradually over the next two
years with liberal exceptions to
give full consideration to its im-
pact on individuals with less than
30 years service who might have rea-
sonably expected to continue in em-
ployment until age 62; [and]
- 117 -
Approved For Release 2000/064eRtfDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06WRIgWRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
... participants in the CIA Retirement
System be subject to "mandatory" retire-
ment at age 60 regardless of grade level,
but that implementation of this policy be
phased over a two-year period with liber-
al exceptions; ... .139/
The Director approved these recommendations on
23 February 1967. As a result, the two Agency retire-
ment systems had been brought closer to each other in-
sofar as mandatory retirement ages were concerned. In
recommending approval of proposed revisions of Regula-
25X1A tions Mr Echols advised the DDS, Mr.
Robert
L.
Banner
an
that the proposed revisions
... reflect the Director's request, in-
formally reported to us through the Ex-
ecutive Director-Comptroller and your
office, that all extensions based on
"need-for-services" be submitted for
his approval .140/
Revisions of Regulations
covering 25X1A
t these changes were issued on 29 May 1967.141/
B. Another Look at the Policy
Less than three months later, two rather re-
markable documents appeared. The first, dated 1
August 1967, was written by Mr. Emmett D. Echols,
Director of Personnel, addressed to the DCI through
the DDS. Referring to the changes in policy de-
scribed above, he said:
- 118 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/fteRAftDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/0,PCiJfT5JbP90-00708R000200140001-2
Since the announcement of this
slight modification of Agency policy,
there has been a noticeable and sig-
nificant ground swell of expressed
resentment and hostility to the Agen-
cy's policy on retirement age. I
have received letters from employees
stating they do not intend to retire
when expected to. I have two letters
which challenge the legality and pro-
priety of Agency policy. One of the
individuals appears to have done a
great deal of research on the subject,
probably with legal assistance. In
summation, these letters and other in-
quiries received by me ask the speci-
fic question: "Is Agency policy mere-
ly an expression of Agency preference
with the employee having the option
to comply or not or will the Director
enforce the policy by use of his stat-
utory authority to separate an employ--
ee in the best interests of the United
States?"142/
He went on to say that in the absence of any clear
statement that such authority would be used if
necessary, most employees had assumed that the
Director's authority would be invoked in the event
of a refusal to retire. He, too, as Director of
Personnel, had made this assumption, but
... I do not, however, know this to be
the case, and confronted with the direct
question I conferred with the Office of
the General Counsel. In response I have
been advised that the General Counsel has
stated that he would recommend most
strongly to the Director that he never
enforce the retirement policy by use of
- 119 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/0NaAthDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/0446iikraw90-00708R000200140001-2
his authority to summarily terminate
employment in the best interests of
the Government.
In view of the seriousness and im-
minence of the challenge to Agency
policy and the practical need to know
whether policy compliance is optional
or mandatory, I discussed the matter
with the Retirement Board. In our
discussion I was shocked to learn
that the members of the Board, almost
unanimously, believed that the CIA
retirement age policy for employees
covered by the Civil Service Retire-
ment System is wrong. Many members
believe it is not necessary, desir-
able or in the best interests of the
Agency. Many members appear to be-
lieve that it is an unfair' and im-
proper impingement upon the employ-
ment rights of individuals. Others
believe the policy will prove to be
tenable only if some form of compen-
satory benefits is awarded the em-
ployee who conforms.143/
He urged that the DCI consider this problem and
make known his wishes regarding studies which the
Director of Personnel should undertake on the subject.
It seems rather startling that this paper, and
the thoughts contained therein, should have been sur-
faced at such a late date. The paper, itself, seems
to have had no impact. No response or reference to
the document has been located.
The second document of this type was written
25X1A by , a representative of the DDI
- 120 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/011&WilDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/0g6lagbP90-00708R000200140001-2
25X1A
on the CIA Retirement Board. In this paper, dated
14 August 1967,
the result of some thoughts resulting from the meet-
ing alluded to by Mr Echols. He repeated several
stated that his paper was
of the points made by Mr. Echols and suggested that:
While the record shows that the
early retirement of our employees has
been effected without resort to Sec-
tion 102(c) we should neither take
pride in the manner in which this
has been accomplished nor ignore
the adverse consequences to the A-
gency of continuing this policy.144/
As an attachment to his memorandum, sub- 25X1A
mitted a rather lengthy paper entitled "Background
to Problems of Administering CIA Retirement Policy
Under Civil Service." This paper summarized the
major developments on retirement policy within the
Agency and concluded with this searching question:
"Why is there now such strong indications [sic] of
resistance to the newly announced policy?" His an- ,
swers to his own question follow:
A realization that the long range
family plans made on the basis of ear-
lier policy would be seriously affected
by an acceleration of the date of re-
tirement.
A realization that an Agency policy
statement which uses words like "option",
- 121 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/0b&MtIDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/0ViWkEIRTDP90-00708R000200140001-2
"eligible", and "expect" does not
carry the conviction of mandatory
enforcement.
A realization that, compassion
apart, uniform enforcement of pol-
icy makes little sense when some
categories of employees are in short
supply and other categories may at-
tain or maintain their highest per-
formance in the twilight of their
careers.
A realization that the Agency has
been granted legislation to deal with
its special problems. Hence, why
should Agency employees under Civil
Service not enjoy all options enjoyed
by other Government Civil Service em-
ployees?
A realization that an Agency position,
almost any position, apart from income,
provides the individual with certain sta-
tus. There is an indefinable reluctance
to abandon this unless a substitute sta-
tus is provided.
A realization that pay raises, in the
immediate past or prospective, will ap-
preciably improve retirement income only
if the employee works long enough to have
them fully reflected in his "high five"
earnings average 145/
The foregoing paper has been quoted at length
for the obvious reason that it is one of the few
documents known which objected to the Agency's pol-
icy in a meaningful manner.
- 122 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/0tatftpP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/0g6Mi6P90-00708R000200140001-2
C. The Counseling Staff
The year 1967 saw another major event in the
retirement area. This was the establishment of the
Retirement Counseling and Placement Staff in the
Office of the Director of Personnel under the lead-
25X1A ership of The history of
that staff is discussed in a paper written by 25X1A
25X1A 146/ and therefore need not be dwelt on
here except to emphasize that this staff was organi-
zed to meet a clear need and give improved support
to retiring personnel. Some of the functions cov-
ered by the new staff had been in operation for a
long period of time, but the new strength given
this organization -- designed solely to deal with
retirement matters -- was of major significance in
the development of the Agency's retirement program.
The establishment of the Retirement Counseling
and Placement Staff was of significance to prospec-
tive retirees, as well as a logical move from the
management viewpoint. The possibility that employee
unrest might be reduced by reason of the increased
and improved services was probably a major consider-
ation. The degree of benefit, however, probably
- 123 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/01sMt-ETF'90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/0ggAiRbP90-00708R000200140001-2
defies measurement, but there are at least strong
visceral feelings, shared by many, that the program
has been of great value. Likewise no measurements
are available as to the effect of the Agency's re-
tirement policy on employee morale. Organization-
sponsored attitude surveys are properly regarded
as risky because the mere fact that a survey is
undertaken implies a commitment to effect a change.
Logic also compels the avoidance of a study when
the results can be predicted. It is thought that
a generally negative reaction on the part of most
employees could have been predicted if they had
been queried on their views of the Agency's retire-
ment policy in early 1960. What seems much less
predictable is that the policy should still be
I causing strongly negative reactions some seven or
eight years later.
- 124 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/04E@ItepP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/0FURIP90-00708R000200140001-2
-.? 2 5X 1 A
XI. Conclusions
It is apparent from the questions raised by
Messrs Echols and that there were still many
live issues remaining in the retirement policy area.
at the end of 1967. Recognition of this fact appar-
ently led Mr. Robert
L.
Bannerman, DDS, to re-
quest that the other deputy directors make available
to the Director of Personnel their study papers and
findings on Agency retirement policy.147/ The papers
from the Support Directorate included a rather
thorough study of the attitude held by office heads
within the Support Services. This survey had been
conducted by Mr. George E. Meloon, Director of Lo-
gistics, at the request of Mr. Bannerman; and it was
most comprehensive in the sense that each office
head, or his deputy, was asked to give his views on
existing Agency retirement policy. One might ques-
tion the validity of the study in relation to the
subject of morale since only senior officials were
interviewed; but
Meloon observed:
- 125 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/0tEgfigpP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/044aAbP90-00708R000200140001-2
While resentment of employees to the
Agency's retirement policy is prevalent
in the study, it is believed that the
major cause of this resentment will be
removed in 3 to 5 years ... .
The resentment indicated above is
primarily based on the policy that "ex-
pects" retirement at 60 years of age.
Although there are minor differences
noted by the Office Directors in respect
to retirement at 60 or 62 years of age,
there is agreement that, at either age,
the Agency is acting on very questionable
legal authority .
There is a serious potential problem
that may arise if the early retirement
options are used primarily to encourage
weak employees to retire early. Although
there is no indication that such is the
case at present, any association of
early retirement with a weeding-out proc-
ess will lower the prestige of the program
and have a detrimental effect on the long-
range objectives of the overall Agency
retirement program. A program tainted
with the brush of a "701 program" will
find few takers in the Agency. The suc-
cess of the present policy requires a
strong personnel relations job that will
build and maintain the prestige of the
Agency Retirement System.148/
On 17 January 1968,
Mr. RJ Si
h, DDI, for-
warded his background papers and gave his views on
the Agency's retirement policy:
We conclude that the current 60/20
and 62/5 Agency policy applied to em-
ployees under the Civil Service Retire-
ment System is not in the best interest
of ?our Directorate.
- 126 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/08E6MAIDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/OUR/W90-00708R000200140001-2
DDI people, with very few exceptions,
do not serve in overseas posts, nor do
they conduct operational activities in
remote areas. While many engage in highly
classified work, the skills used are not
unique to intelligence.
We are, however, less concerned with
the shorter term consideration, now pretty
well behind us, than with the adverse ef-
fect of the policy in the longer run.
Employee morale has unquestionably suf-
fered, and we are in a less favorable com-
petitive position in attracting people we
want because we offer the prospective
employee fewer choices affecting his job
tenure. For many professionals we offer
what appears to be an arbitrarily short-
ened career.
I therefore urge a policy which provides
for normal retirement at age 62 with 20
or more years of service. Under this
policy, we would use other managerial de-
vices for terminating the employ of em-
ployees who cease to be productive at
60 or earlier. We would offer selected
outstanding employees an opportunity to
extend beyond 62 up to age 65. This policy
we feel would best serve our interests.149/
The Clandestine Service had yet another view.
An ".up or out" policy was suggested together with
a proposed revision of the method to be used in
computing an employee's annuity.
Previous DDP communications have sug-
gested that retirement be fixed at age
60 with annuity accretions of 60% of
high five, plus or minus (30 years of
service more or less). In that context,
we referred to it as approximate maximum.
- 127 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/0tEMPIPP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/0g6AJ1P90-00708R000200140001-2
As a minimum, however, a retirement in-
come figure of 50% of high five has been
suggested without any particular defini-
tion of criteria.
The following criteria, which are, of
course, tentative, are calculated to pro-
duce 50% of high five for CSR members and
53.75% of high five for member b of CIAR
(before deduction for Survivor's Annuity):
After age 50, 26 years,
10 1/2 months of government
service, any individual in the
grade of GS-13 and above who has
continued for a term of 8 years
in the same grade shall be invol-
untarily retired 1 year thereafter,
unless designated prior to his
eighth anniversary in that grade
for continuation in service. The
designation for continuation in
service shall be based on the
need for the individual's service
in the national interest as de-
termined by the Director of Cen-
tral Intelligence. Continuation
in service shall be for a period
of one year unless further re-
newed for the additional term or
terms of one year.150/
On 8 February 1968, Colonel L
K.
White, the
ExeCutive Director-Comptroller, conducted a meeting
with the Deputy Directors for Support, Science and
Technology, Plans, and Intelligence, the General
Counsel, the Executive Assistant to the DCI, the
Special Assistant to the DDS, and the Director of
- 128 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/01sECd*W90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/0g611A6P90-00708R000200140001-2
Personnel* to discuss the widely differing views
held by the senior officials of the Agency regarding
retirement policy.151/ Extensive discussion of re-
tirement policy, however, apparently failed to pro-
duce any change in the views of the participants.
As far as is known, this was the first occasion on
which
Mr
Carl E
Ducke
, DD/S&T, expressed his
views on the subject of retirement.
Mr. Duckett said that the Science
and Technology Directorate would have
minimal problems over the next few
years although there are some for whom
early retirement is desirable and nec-
essary. He would urge reconsideration
of the standards by which people are
now put in the Agency System -- it be-
ing his belief that this provided the
proper!finstrument for handling those
cases. He made the argument
that we appeared in our efforts to get
the CIA two
to have established the
need for o and to argue more for a
single policy -- which in a sense seemed
to be arguing for a single system --
would seem to deny our earlier position.
(Colonel White observed that we had
tried to get a single system but that
Congress had denied it).152/
* Respectively, Messrs. R.
Duckett, T I Karamessines
R Houston Jack Barman Emme
Robert S. Wattles.
L. Bannerman, Carl E.
R. J. Smith, Lawrence
D Echols and
- 129 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/08R@KERpP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/0a61A-RWP90-00708R000200140001-2
Colonel White summarized the results of the
meeting to the effect that it was
... the sense of the group ... that
there ought to be one age at which most
employees should leave, but that the
different components having different
problems and different reasons for mak-
ing exceptions should be provided within
a fixed policy the opportunity to adapt
to their respective conditions. Further,
the statement of rationale should be
redrafted to reflect the sense of the
day's discussion and should be in such
form that the General Counsel could use
it in court or before our committees
and also could be provided to all Agency
employees to explain the Agency command
position.153/
The need for a "statement of rationale" led to
a great deal of agonizing in the attempt to produce
a clarification of Agency retirement policy. Those
senior officials who did not attempt to write versions
of their own were unimpressed by the versions written
by others. Apparently the various versions were
either too long or too general or even too specific.
Emmett D. Echols* was responsible for the pre-
paration of the rationale and, in the several weeks
following the meeting mentioned above, wrote
* At this time, January 1968, Mr. Echols was Special
Assistant to the DDS for Special Studies.
- 130 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/0UefipP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/0g&AggP90-00708R000200140001-2
several drafts. As might be expected, objections
to certain of the drafts were based, in part, on
previously expressed opposition to a single policy
which would be applicable to all components of the
Agency. In this connection ith, DDI,
evidenced his disapproval of one draft of the
rationale by asserting that
Mr. RJS
A sound and convincing rationale for
a general Agency early retirement policy
can be produced only if it is squarely
responsive to four questions:
In 1964, CIA obtained from
Congress a special early retire-
ment system for a selective por-
tion of its employees. What has
since changed that now makes
necessary the imposition of iden-
tical retirement limits on those
not in that system? Put another
way, if it is necessary to re-
tire more people earlier than
had originally been projected,
why should this not be done
through the existing system?
Is our need for an early
retirement system any greater
than the need in other Govern-
ment components responsible
for national security (e.g.,
State, Defense)?
Do the reasons given in sup-
port of early retirement apply
with equal force to enough peo-
ple that it is more reasonable
- 131 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/01sR!MW90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/0P90-00708R000200140001-2
to have one age limit for all
rather than different limits
for different groups?
What reason is given for
curbing the employee's oppor-
tunity to work beyond 60 with-
out providing offsetting com-
pensation? Or if compensation
is contemplated, what is it?
I believe it should be possible to in-
corporate into another draft direct re-
sponses to the above questions. If such
a draft can be produced, then I will
undertake to comment at greater length
on specifics.154/
Mr. Smith appears to have been unaware of the
extensive research which had taken place at this
time and in preceding years on the subject of addi-
tional benefits for retirees. 155/ In spite of the
strongly felt need and the careful research on the
practicality and legality of various proposals pro-
viding for extra compensation for early retirees, no
plan for them had ever been put into effect.* The
fact that there are no such benefits appears to add
* Various proposals were made over the years, some
of them dating from the earliest days of the Agency.
It is beyond the scope of this history to review
these proposals, but it is worth noting that with
each review of retirement policy, renewed efforts
have been made to identify an appropriate method of
compensating in some way those employees forced to
retire earlier than they had planned.
- 132 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/0tEe*flpP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/01,iP90-00708R000200140001-2
to the irritation felt by personnel in the Agency
who continue to oppose a dual system of retirement
compensation which is administered under a single
policy.
In spite of the continued misgivings held by
many senior officials regarding the age 60 retirement
policy, a "rationale" was finally developed,* con-
curred in by all the deputy directors, and forwarded
to the Director on 30 April 1968.156/ At the same
time, general agreement was reached on the following:
There is a small group (12) of Agency
employees who will not have 12 years of
creditable service by their scheduled
retirement date. We feel that these em-
ployees, as a group, should be permitted
to remain on duty until they accumulate
12 years of service when they earn the
right to continue important statutory
hospitalization and life insurance cover-
age.
As originally conceived in 1959, our
early retirement policy expected employees
to retire at age 60 with 30 years of serv-
ice or at age 62 with at least 5 years of
service. When the Civil Service Retirement
Act was amended in 1966 to include a pro-
vision for optional retirement at age 60
with 20 years of service, Agency policy
was in turn revised. There were some
employees who prior to the revision of
* For the text of the rationale, see Appendix B.
- 133 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/01tatflpP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/0$0AFRBP90-00708R000200140001-2
Agency policy had been informed that their
scheduled retirement would be at age 62
and presumably planned accordingly. With
the change, their scheduled retirement age
was lowered to 60. We feel that these
employees should be permitted to remain
on duty until age 62 if they so request.
This does not include those employees
who at age 60 have at least 30 years of
service since this was a requirement under
the earlier Agency policy.*
An overall exception should be made
for the group of printers (57) who were
induced to transfer from the Government
Printing Office to the Agency with the
assurance that they would not lose any
benefits.**157/
In addition to urging approval of the foregoing
exception, the transmittal memorandum contained two
major recommendations on policy which read as follows:
* The change in policy to require retirement at age
60 with 20 years of service resulted in the issuance
of letters to many employees who were told that they
should retire at age 60 instead of age 62. This led
to considerable unhappiness among the recipients who
among other things claimed that they were not being ,
given the customary 5 years' notice. Letters of re-
traotion were written as a result of the decision to
moderate the impact of the age 60 rule as it affected
individuals who had not yet reached age 62.
** One other group which had been identified pre-
viously as requiring special consideration consisted
of the members of the Board of National Estimates.
Questions relating to the retirement of the members
of that Board were to be resolved by the Director.
- 134 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/4RakRpP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/0 . gal)P90-00708R000200140001-2
Agency policy continues to provide that
employees generally will be required to re-
tire at age 60 or as soon thereafter as
they are eligible for optional retirement
under the law regardless of whether they
are covered by the Civil Service or the ?
CIA Retirement system.
Exceptions to the general policy will
be considered by the Director on an indi-
vidual case basis when requested by the
head of a Career Service or a Deputy Di-
rector.158/
This paper, signed by the Director on 3 May 1968,
is regarded as the final word on Agency retirement
policy but careful analysis of the paper raises some
interesting questions. One such question involves
the use of Section 102(c) of the National Security
Act of 1947 as a tool to enforce Agency retirement
policy. This important provision of the law is re-
ferred to in the memorandum but there was no specific
recommendation to the Director that it be used in
retirement cases.* Another interesting point is
that the rationale, while attached to the memorandum,
was also not mentioned in the recommendations pre-
sented to the Director. The inference is clear,
* It is widely believed that this paper authorized
the use of 102(c) in retirement cases.
- 135 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/0t,M*BipP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/0g0ABP90-00708R000200140001-2
however, that the rationale met with the Director's
approval.
It will be recalled that one consideration
applying to the drafting of the rationale was re-
lated to its potential value as a publication for
distribution to all employees as an explanation of
Agency policy in answer to possible Congressional
inquiries. As far as is known the rationale was
never distributed on an all-employee basis. Appar-
ently its principal use was in the preparation of
a revision of Agency which was
published on 31 October 1968.159/ The policy state-
ment set forth in that regulation read as follows:
25X1A
- 136 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/0AE@ftRpP90-00708R000200140001-2
25X1A
Approved For Release 2000/06/04 .?fiARIP90-00708R000200140001-2
This has been assumed to be the last word on
Agency retirement policy.* In the minds of many
observers, the Agency had at last reached the point
where it had a simple, straightforward expression
of policy which could be administered with minimum
difficulty. It assumed that adequate forewarning
would be given to employees and that arrival of the
expected retirement date would occur without evidence
of trauma.
In the course of the development of the retire-
ment policy rationale, several references were made
to the possible damaging effect of the various pro-
posals on employee morale. This was not a new thought.
When the retirement policy was being developed in
late 1959, there was some concern as to what might
happen to the Agency's image and the possible im-
pact on Agency personnel recruitment goals. Prob-
the impact of this particular policy on re-
cruitment is beyond measurement in light of the
* This history has not touched upon the applicability
of Agency retirement policy to contract personnel,
but it is generally understood that the wording of
the regulation is so broad that it covers Contract
employees and Career Agents. However, as of May
1971 the policy had not been applied in any case
affecting personnel in this category.
- 137 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/0beiffilDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/0gE90-00708R000200140001-2
kinds of publicity given the Agency in recent years,
as well as the problems associated with the war in
Vietnam. It is suggested, however, that the impact
of some clearly measurable data may be in danger of
being overlooked. Reference is made to the rapidly
increasing number of retirements in recent years.161/
Th '::plications of this sharp increase are, in the
views of some observers', very disturbing. Questions
such as these arise:
- Are we not headed toward another "hump"
a few years hence?
- Are the youngsters who are advancing
so rapidly no going to be content when
there cease to be as many vacancies as
there have been of late?
- Can we stand the talent drain on a
continuing and accelerated basis?
- Has the momentum toward retirement
gotten out of control?
There are undoubtedly other such questions. It may
soon be time to assure ourselves that we have the
right answers. One answer sugges?s that it may
be possible that the Agency's retirement policy has
been too successful.. The benefits which have accrued
to Federal employees in recent years have caused
annuities to skyrocket thereby adding another
- 138 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/01sMitEl/P90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/0'gar690-00708R00020014p001-2
inducement to retirement. If other answers to these
questions are in the affirmative, there may be sig-
nificant problems in the offing.
Regardless of how one views the Agency's re-
tirement policy -- whether as violation of a compact,
or as a ruthless weeding-out process -- it cannot
be denied that the policy has yielded results.
- 139 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/01sMtE9P90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/0g&Il1ibP90-00708R000200140001-2
Appendix A
CHRONOLOGY, 1947-68
DATE EVENT
14 March 1947
The first step is taken in the
process of establishing a retire-
ment policy for the Agency, al-
though the initial concern is
related to the question of which
employees are eligible to parti-
cipate in the Civil Service Re-
tirement System.
2
December 1953
A Regulation is issued containing
the first statement of Agency pol-
icy on retirement (in essence,
this was a restatement of the ap-
plicable provisions of the Civil
Service Retirement Law).
3
August 1954
The Agency announces its intention
to obtain early retirement legis-
lation.
21
March 1957
A bill is introduced in Congress
providing for early retirement
and other benefits for Agency
Personnel.
30
April 1959
The Retirement Board concept is
introduced to the CIA Career
Council.
17
September 1959
The Director of Personnel recom-
mends that the DCI approve the
establishment of a Retirement
Board.
- 140 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/0kelekRpP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/0g6arkbP90-00708R000200140001-2
16
October 1959
The DDP notifies his senior offi-
cers of the procedures to be fol-
lowed concerning the retirement
of eligible personnel.
6
November 1959
The "Hump Study" is forwarded to
the DDCI together with procedures
for the separation of surplus
personnel.
5
January 1960
The Agency Retirement Board is
established, following the ap-
proval of the DCI.
20
January 1960
The first meeting of the Agency
Retirement Board is held.
26
February 1960
The DDS outlines a retirement
policy for components of the
Support Services.
28
August 1960
The DDI outlines his retirement
policy.
23
April 1961
The Agency retirement policy is
discussed in an article in the
Washington Star.
25
May 1961
The DDI states his views on re-
tirement policy at Career Council
meeting.
3
November 1961
The Agency retirement policy is
restated in
15
December 1961
The DDP requests special treatment
for selected CS Careerists under
CIARDS.
19
January 1962
The DDCI directs the CIA Career
Council to take immediate action
on the subject of obtaining early
retirement legislation.
- 141 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/01vaAERIDP90-00708R000200140001-2
25X1A
Approved For Release 2000/06/0?WRIP90-00708R000200140001-2
24 January 1962
The second annual report of the
Retirement Board is submitted to
the Career Council.
20 October 1962 Pay Reform Act of 1962 is enacted.
4 February 1963 The Executive Secretary of the
Retirement Board presents his
annual report.
11 February 1963 The DDCI requests a summary of
existing retirement philosophy.
27 July 1964
The Executive Director-Comptroller
announces that stricter applica-
tion of retirement policy shall
be adopted as a measure designed
to aid in meeting ceiling reductions
24 September 1964 The DDS advises the Director of
Personnel that the pronouncement
of 27 July was not intended as a
change of retirement policy.
14 October 1964 President Johnson signs into law
the early retirement bill for CIA.
21 April 1965 The identification of employees
for nomination as participants
in the CIARDS is begun.
25X1A 24 June 1965 establishes two Retire-
ment Boards: one for employees
under the Civil Service retirement
regulations and one for employees
under the CIARDS.
5 January 1966 The Annual Report of the Agency Re-
tirement Board is issued.
15 November 1966 Procedures and responsibilities
concerning the processing of cases
involving eligibility for partici-
pants in CIARDS are clarified by
the Executive Director-Comptroller.
- 142 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/0AEettERRP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/0'P1&rEP90-00708R000200140001-2
30 December 1966
23 February 1967
29 May 1967
19 June 1967
3 May 1968
31 October 1968
The two retirement boards are
consolidated into one.
The DCI approves the revision of
retirement policy which calls for
the retirement of employees when
they reach age 60 with 20 years
of service.
Regulations are
amended so as to require that ex-
tensions based.on the "need-for-
service" be approved by the DCI.
The Retirement Counseling and
Placement Staff is activated.
The DCI approves recommendations
on revision of Agency retirement
policy.
Regulation is issued,
which delineates the sense of
the retirement rationale.
- 143 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/0AE6MADP90-00708R000200140001-2
25X1A
25X1A
Approved For Release 2000/06/01V6SP90-00708R000200140001-2
Appendix B
RETIREMENT RATIONALE
(Tab A: Memo, Executive Director-Comptroller
to DCI, 30 April 1968)
1. The production of intelligence bearing on
the national security for use at the highest levels
of policy determination of the United States Govern-
ment is a responsibility of the gravest note. The
organization bearing this responsibility should be
staffed with persons of the highest available intel-
lect, integrity, professionalism, dedication, per-
spicacity, and dynamism. The Central Intelligence
Agency's retirement policy is an essential element
of its program for ensuring that its staff possesses
these attributes to the highest degree feasible.
2. The personnel staffing program of the Agency
is based on the concept of selective recruitment for
career employment and managed career development. Se-
lection standards are designed to accept only persons
with the highest qualifications and potential for de-
velopment. The Agency's development program provides
a career-long blend of formal training and managed
progression through appropriate assignments of increas-
ing breadth and responsibility.
3. The goal of the Agency's development program
is to place the best available employee in every posi-
tion. Promotion policy reinforces career development
by advancing those who excel and have the capacity for
further growth. The Agency's rigorous system for eval-
uating the performance of its employees is designed to
assure high levels of effectiveness. Those who are un-
satisfactory are separated; those who are marginal or
unlikely to find full career satisfaction are counseled
to resign.
- 144 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/0tE0AfpP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/0?4&AFRI)P90-00708R000200140001-2
4. Intelligence activities are characterized
by continuous changes -- in requirements, methods,
techniques, processes, and emphases. As these
changes occur, the Agency reassigns its career staff
employees and provides supplementary training as re-
quired. To the extent that these measures do not
meet the needs, requisite skills, experience, and
special abilities are acquired by'the employment
of new personnel.
5. Because there are practical limits to the
size of the Agency, the requirement for new employ-
ees and the operation of the career development pro-
gram cannot be accomplished without attrition. Part
of this attrition is provided by involuntary separa-
tions and resignations through the Agency's system
for evaluating employee performance. Other vacan-
cies are provided by voluntary retirement and resig-
nation and by death and disability. ?But together
these do not create a sufficient number of vacancies.
6. The Agency's retirement policy is an inte-
gral part of its program to maintain the high level
of performance required by its mission and responsi-
bilities. It also provides the additional attrition
necessary for career development and the acquisition
of new employees. This policy, adopted in 1959,
generally limits the career span of its employees
to age 60.
7. Agency employees, with some exceptions,
have all attained their career peaks several years
before reaching age 60. They have had a full CIA
career and have made their maximum individual con-
tribution to their Government. Exceptions specifi-
cally contemplated are individuals who possess rare
scholarship and talents that would be difficult to
replace in the normal course of career development
and whose retirement would not be in the best inter-
ests of the Government. In some cases retirement
at 60 may result in loss of valuable experience and
know-how and only generate a recruitment and train-
ing requirement.
- 145 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/%1vkatFIDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/0g6aAr6P90-00708R000200140001-2
8. It is recognized that enforcement of the
policy to retire employees at age 60 occasionally
subordinates the personal desires of the individual
to the best interests of the Government. This is
usually the case when it is necessary for any rea-
son to separate an employee. The normal voluntary
retirement age for most Federal employees is 65,
and the compulsory age under the Civil Service sys-
tem is 70. Similar retirement ages for CIA would
result in the gradual accumulation of an excessive
number of employees of declining performance, wheth-
er due to declining health, motivation, or drive or
to inability to adapt to change. The effectiveness
with which the Agency fulfills its extraordinary
responsibilities depends entirely upon the highest
possible level of effectiveness in staffing the
Agency. Consequently, extraordinary action toward
attaining and maintaining this goal -- such as ef-
fecting a retirement policy more stringent than
that for the Federal service in general -- is war-
ranted.
9. Retirement at age 60 may appear less ap-
propriate for those Agency employees who are in po-
sitions that are not unique to intelligence activi-
ties. In theory, it might be possible to identify
all such positions and exempt the incumbents thereof
from the retirement policy.
10. There are two reasons for not doing so.
Attempts to formulate criteria of differentiation
would generate new problems of morale and administra-
tion. The creation of exempt categories of employees-
would foster odious comparisons. It would thwart
the implementation of the general retirement policy
indefinitely as groups and individuals pleaded their
individual cases.
11. The more fundamental reason for not exempt-
ing certain categories of Agency employees is that the
work of the Agency must be performed with utmost re-
sponsiveness. This requires a general state of mind
on the part of all employees that timeliness is.criti-
cal, accuracy is imperative, and absorption with the
- 146 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/qEettERpP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/01g6X-W6P90-00708R000200140001-2
task at hand takes priority over personal distrac-
tions. Advancing years inevitably bring about a
lessening of work vigor and enthusiasm. The larger
the proportion of older employees, the greater the
debilitating effects on the tenor of the Agency.
12. In summary, the age 60 retirement policy
is a key element of the Agency's efforts to attain
excellence in its staffing. Without the policy the
entire personnel program of the Agency would be im-
paired. The most vigorous and productive individ-
uals, finding themselves stymied, will leave the
service or will never be persuaded to enter in the
first place. By shortening the career span of all
employees, service in intelligence will continue
to be highly attractive' to outstanding young men
and women. In the end, our national intelligence
objectives will be best served.
- 147 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/4E@WLRpP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/0?4bWkbP90-00708R000200140001-2
25X1A
Appendix C
Source References
Unless otherwise noted, copies of
all source references in this history
are on file in a special collection of
the CIA Historical Staff. The file num-
ber is HS/HC-552.
1. Memo for et al. from 25X1A
14 Mar 47, sub: personnel policy and proce-
dures, OSO. S.
2. Memo for ADSO through OGC from
15 Jul 47, sub: retirement program. S.
3. CIA Reg 30-3, 1 Apr 51(?), "Time, Leave and
Pay, Retirement Deductions." R.
4. Ibid., 6 Jan 52. R.
5.
6. Ibid.
7. Remarks by Mr. Lyman Kirkpatrick at the CIA
.Career Service Conference, 3 Aug 54, HS/HC-131.
S.
8.
9. Remarks by
10. ibid.
11. Ibid.
(7, above).
- 148 -
25X1A
Approved For Release 2000/06/041at9DP90-00708R000200140001-2
25X1A
25X1A
Approved For Release 2000/06/0gRIP90-00708R000200140001-2
12. Ibid.
25X1A
13.
14. Staff Study [by , 21 Aug 53, 25X1A
sub: to provide an accelerated retirement plan
for certain categories of CIA personnel. S.
15. Memo for Chairman, CIA Career Service Board,
9 Oct 53, sub: final report of the legislative
task force. (Tab D) [ER4-6284] S.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. Transcript (partial), 56th Meeting of the CIA
Career Council, 30 Apr 59. S.
19. Ibid.
20. Meeting Notes [of the Director of Personnel]
23 Jul 59, sub: retirement board. C.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid.
23. Memo for DCI from Gordon
sub: retirement board.
24. Ibid.
S.
25X1A
Stowa
17 Sep 59,
25. Memo for the Record by
-15 Dec 59, sub: eligible retirement. C.
26. 25X1A
27. Ibid.
28. Minutes of the First Meeting of the Agency Re-
tirement Board, 20 Jan 60. C.
29. Ibid.
- 149 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/04EnteEFIDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/0gEWR/P90-00708R000200140001-2
30. Ibid.
31. Memo for Chairman, Agency Retirement Board,
from Col. L.K. White, DDS, 26 Feb 60, sub:
proposed retirement policy for DDS components.
S.
32. Description of CIA Retirement Board Operations,
Unsigned, Undated, sub: procedures and prac-
tices for consideration of "compassionate" re-
tirement extensions.
33. Ibid.
25X1A 34.
25X1A
35. Transcript (extract), 9 Sep 55, 12th Meeting
of the CIA Career Council. S.
36. Ibid.
37. Memo for Chairman, CIA Career Service Board
(15, above).
38. A Bill "To Amend the Central Intelligence Agency
Act of 1949, as amended, and for other purposes,"
21 Mar 57. U.
39. Memo for the CIA Career Council through DDS from
28 Oct 57, sub: CIA legislative
proposals. 5.
4G. Memo for the Director of Personnel from Lyman B.
Kirkpatrick, 11 Dec 57, sub: accelerated re -
.tirement. S.
41. Ibid.
42, Ibid.
43. Memo for DDS from Gordon M. Stewart,20 Nov 57,
sub: topics for the Killian Committee. C.
44. Ibid.
- 150 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/0gRetkRpP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/01iJP90-00708R000200140001-2
25X1A
45. /bid.
46' Memo for the DDC' from Gordon M. Stewart
6 Nov 59, sub: manpower control program. S.
47. Ibid.
48. Ibid.
49. Ibid.
50. Ibid.
51, Ibid.
52. Ibid.
53. Ibid.
, 54. Memo [for All Division Chiefs] from the DDP,
16 Oct 59, sub: retirement of eligible person-
nel (Cited in DDP 4-9520). S. [Attached to
source reference No. 58.]
55. Memo for the Retirement Board from Lawrence R.
Nous
S.
56. Ibid.
on 29 Jan 60, sub: retirement programs.
(57. Memo for Secretary, Agency Retirement Board,
from , 8 May 61, sub: procedure
for handling voluntary retirement cases. S.
58. .Memo for DCI from Lawrence R. Houston,20 Sep
60,
sub: status of retirement program established
by Agency Notice 20-615-3. S.
59. Memo for Chief, POD, from EmmettD. Echols,
16 Mar 61, sub: retirement impact upon recruit-
ment ages. I.
60. Newspaper article, The Sunday Star [Washington,
D.C.], Joseph.Young, 23 Apr 61, "CIA Adopts New
Policy of Early Retirement." U.
- 151 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/01RelfepP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/0P4RIP90-00708R000200140001-2
61. Ibid.
62. Ibid.
63. Transcript (partial) 65th Meeting of the CIA
Career Council, 25 May 61. S.
64. Ibid.
65. Ibid.
25X1A 66.
67. Ibid.
25X1A
68. Memo for Chairman, Agency Retirement Board from
Col L.K.White (31, above).
69. Memo for the Retirement Board from Lawrence
Houston (55, above).
70. Memo for DCI from Lyman B. Kirkpatrick, 28 Apr 61,
sub: voluntary retirement at age 62 under Agency
71. Ibid.
25X1A
72. Letter to
R. Houston, 6 Jun 61. U.
from Law
no
73. Memo for Dips from James A. Garrison 24 May 61,
sub: request to delay retirement of certain
Office of Logistics employees. S.
74. Ibid.
75. Ibid.
76. Memo for Chairman, Agency Retirement Board,
15 Mar 61, sub:
ment. IUO.
- retire-
25X1A
77. Memo for DDS through Director of Personnel,
19 Apr 61, sub: request for extension of retire-
ment dates of
25X1A
S.
- 152 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/01sMURP90-00708R000200140001-2
25X1A
Approved For Release 2000/06/0g161Ui6P90-00708R000200140001-2
25X1A'
25X1A
78. /bid. Routing sheet dated 25 Apr 61, attached.
79. Memo for Chairman, Agency Retirement Board from
Col L.K. white (31, above).
80. Transcript (partial), 56th Meeting of CIA Career
Council (18, above).
81' Memo for DCI from Gordon M.
Ste
(23, above).
82. Minutes of the First Meeting of the Agency Re-
tirement Board (28, above).
83. Memo for DCI from Lawrence R ouston (58, above).
84. Ibid.
85. Memo for IAD's from Robert Amory,
sub: DDI retirement policy. S.
, 25 Aug 60,
86. Memo for from Emmett D.
Echols, 6 Oct 60, sub: proposed report to DCI
87. Ibid.
88. Memo (draft) by Emmett D. Echols, 20 Dec 60,
sub: the senior employee problem. U.
89. Ibid.
90. Transcript (partial), 65th Meeting of the CIA
Career Council, 25 May 61. S.
91. Ibid.
25X1A 92.
? 93. Brief for the CIA Career Council, 24 Jan 62,
sub: report of the Agency retirement board. C.
94. Ibid.
153 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/0/RektftpP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06Mcar--DP90-00708R000200140001-2
95.
U.S. Civil Service Commission, ."Your Retirement
System, Questions and Answers Concerning the
Civil Service Retirement Law." U.
96.
Ibid.
25X1A
97.
Memo for DDCI from , 7 Dec 61,
r ? anication of surplus personnel procedures
to retirement eligibles. S.
25X1A
98.
Memo for DCI from Richard N. Bissell
15 Dec 61, sub: increased benefits and improved
management of members of the Clandestine Services.
S.
99.
Memo for General Cabell from White,
. Jan 62. S.
100.
Ibid.
'
101.
Ibid.
102.
Memo for Chairman, CIA Career Council, from Gen.
Cabell, 19 Jan 62, sub: Agency-wide early re-
tirement program. S.
103.
Briefing Notes, sub: explanation and justifica-
tion to accompany "To Amend the Central
25X1A
25X1A ion.
25X1A
Intelligence Agency Act of 1949, as amended, and
for other purposes." [28 Aug 62] U.
105. .Memo for DDCI from Emmett D. Echols, 29 Jan 63,
sub: employees eligible for optional retirement.
S.
106. Memo for DDCI from Emmett D. Echols 11 Feb 63,
sub: Agency retirement policy. S.
107. Ibid.
108. Memo for Chairman, Agency Retirement Board, from
4 Feb 63, sub: Annual Report,
Agency Retirement Board. S.
- 154 -
Approved For Release 2000/0608RV1/41RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06M96kr-VROP90-00708R000200140001-2
109. Ibid.
25X1A 110.
111. Ibid.
112. Memo for Director of Personnel, from Col. L.K.
White, 24 Sep 64, sub: retirement policy. C.
113. Press Release, 14 Oct 64, "Statement by the
President." U.
25X1A 114.
25X1A
115.
116. Employee Bulletin (114, above).
117. Employee Bulletin (115, above).
118. Ibid.
119. Ibid.
120. Memo for Members of the CIA Retirement Board
from Emmett D. Echols, 25 Mar 65, sub: role of
the CIA Retirement Board. S.
121'. Memo for [Heads of Career Services] from Emmett
D. Echols, 21 Apr 65, sub: identification of
.employees for nomination as participants in the
CIA Retirement and Disability System. S.
122.
123. Memo for Executive Director-Comptroller from
Lawrence R. Houston, 11 Jan 66, sub: Agency
Retirement Board - Civil Service Retirement. U.
124. Ibid.
- 155 -
Approved For Release 2000/06MGRWIRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06MY61DP90-00708R000200140001-2
125. Memo for Chairman, Agency Retirement Board, from
5 Jan 66, sub: Annual Report,
Agency Retirement Board. U.
126. Ibid.
127. Memo for Executive Director-Comptroller from
R.L. Bannerman, 26 Jan 66, sub: consolidation
of Agency retirement boards. U.
128. Ibid., 30 Dec 66. S.
129.
130. Employee Bulletin (115, above).
131. Ibid.
132. Memo for the Record by 14 Oct 66, 25X1A
sub: CIA retirement by executive action of the
Director for a limited number of CSCS careerists.
S.
133. Memo for DCI from Desmond
134. Ibid.
135. Ibid.
itzGcH
aid, 14 Oct 66.
136. Memo for DDP from L.K.White, 15 Nov 66, sub:
processing of cases under the CIA Retirement and
Disability System. S.
137. [Draft] Memo for DDS from
31 Oct 66, sub: broadening of retirement policy.
S.
138. Memo for DCI from Emmett D. Echols 27 Jan 67,
sub: policy regarding retirement of employees
under Civil Service Retirement System. IUO.
139. Ibid.
- 156 -
25X1A
Approved For Release 2000/06/gtORMFDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06c&WROP90-00708R000200140001-2
140. Memo for DDS from Emmet D Echols, 21 Mar 67,
2 5X 1 A 141.
sub; revision of retirement regulations. S.
142. Memo for DCI from Emmett D. Echols, 1 Aug 67,
sub: Agency retirement policy. S ( EYES ONLY).
143. Ibid.
144. Memo for Chairman, CIA Retirement Board, from
14 Aug 67, sub: CIA retirement
policy under Civil Service. S (EYES ONLY).
145. Ibid.
146. DDS Historical Series, OP-1, The ITetiremcnt ?
Counseling- and Placement Staff,? 19 June 1967 -
14 March 1969. S.
147. Memo for Executive Director-Comptroller from
R.L. Bannerman, 12 Jan 68, sub: staff papers
Ear Agency retirement policy discussions. C.
148. Memo for DDS from George E. Moloon, 5 Jan 68,
sub: review of the Agency retirement policy.
S.
149. Memo for Executive Director-Comptroller from
R J Smith,17 Jan 68, sub: retirement policy.
S.
150. Memo for Executive Director-Comptroller from
30 Jan 68, sub: suggestions
regarding retirement policy. S.
151. Memo for the Record by Robert 57 Wattles
15 Feb 68, sub: retirement policy. S.
152. Ibid.
153. Ibid.
- 157 -
Approved For Release 2000/06sVeRkiRDP90-00708R000200140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/06/W&IDP90-00708R000200140001-2
25X1A
154. Memo for DDS from R.J. Smith, 7Mar 68, sub:
rationale of CIA retirement policy. C.
155. Memo for General Counsel from Emmett
25 Mar 68, sub: incentives/compensatory
pensation for early retirement. U.
156. Memo for DCI from Col. L Wh
sub: retirement policy. S.
157. Ibid.
158. Ibid.
159.
160. Ibid.
Is
COM-
30 Apr 68,
161. DDS Historical Series, OP-1 (146, above).
- 158 -
Approved For Release 2000/06/MaVTDP90-00708R000200140001-2
SecreApw-oved For Release 2000/06/01 : CIA-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2
CIA Internizt Use Only
Access Controlled by DDS
Secrepproved For Release 2000/06/01 : CIA-RDP90-00708R000200140001-2