POSSIBLE CONFLICTS BETWEEN CIA CAREER SERVICE PLAN AND STATUTORY RIGHTS OF VETERANS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP59-00882R000300010008-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 9, 2000
• Sequence Number: 8
• Publication Date: September 6, 1955
• Content Type: MFR

O,AppKgvp F 1~ejrttage, 8/08/24: CIA-RDP59-00882R000300010008-7,
(Gll-- I"IAA CtVV WWttUU
6 September 1955
SUBJECT: Possible Conflicts Between CIA Career Service Plan and
Statutory Rights of Veterans
25X1A9a 1. As a result of a telephone conversation between
of Personnel and Mr. Irons of the Civil Service Commission, a meeting
25X1A9a was held in the office of John W. Steele, Room 171B, Civil Service
25X1A9a Commission Building, attended by of Personnel and
, of the Office of the General Counsel, from
1130 to ]230 hours, 2 September 1955 (Mr. Steele may be reached on
Code 171, Extension 5291).
2. The issue for discussion was as follows:
25X1A
Under policy to be embodied in a revision of i CIA
would not credit military service toward the three year eligibility
period for the Career Staff except in those cases where the service
was undertaken at the request of CIA or in the performance of CIA
functions; would this violate any statutory rights of veterans?
3. At the outset, we indicated to Mr. Steele that, although we
could find nothing in the applicable legislation or CSC Regulations
directly in point, since the issue of possible conflict had been raised
internal7.y, we wished to secure his advice as the Veterans' Preference
expert of the Civil Service Commission. We explained to him generally
the concept of the CIA Career Service and told him that the general
philosophy behind such a program had been informally approved in earlier
discussions with the Commission.
4. Mr. Steele agreed that there was nothing in the statutes or
regulations directly bearing on the case. However, he felt that this
was because of the necessary broadness of statutory language and because
in devising regulations, the Commission had not considered this type of
situation. He pointed out that should a case arise under our Career
Service program and be brought to the Commission for determination of
the applicability of Veterans' Preference legislation, the Commission
would have to look to the intent of the statute, which he felt sure
was to prevent the veteran from losing any rights, to which he would
otherwise have become entitled, as a result of his military service.
5. Mr. Steele pointed out that it was most unlikely that a case
arising within CIA would get to the Commission for determination.
Approved For Release 2001/08/24: CIA-RDP59-00882R000300010008-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/24: CIA-RDP59-00882R000300010008-7
However, we emphasized that we wished to accord with the law and
the proprieties, whether or not the degree of our conformance was
ever open to question.
6. Some discussion ensued on the nature of the benefits that
would attach to membership in the Career Service. Mr. Steele
specifically asked if preference would be given to Career Employees
in any reduction in force. We replied that, although no overall
RIF plan had as yet been developed for the Agency, it was likely
that retention preference would be granted to members of the Career
Staff. We emphasized the obligation undertaken by those who applied
for an accepted membership in the Career Staff--the obligation of
unlimited mobility. We stressed the greater value, considering the
functions of this Agency, of a mobile employee, other things being
equal.
7. We then raised the key point that concerned us, that is, the
extreme case of an individual who, after a few days of civilian
service with CIA, might enter the military and, upon restoration
to CIA civilian employment, would become immediately eligible for
consideration for the Career Staff. We pointed out that the various
criteria for membership were such that it would be almost impossible
to determine their applicability in such a case, since no one within
CIA would have had a fair opportunity to appraise the individual.
8. Mr.Steele's conclusion was that although we must count
all military service for eligibility, since eligibility is based
solely upon length of service, and this is the very interest of the
veteran most specifically protected, there could be no objection to
our determining in individual cases that an eligible individual did
not yet meet the requirements of the selection criteria.
9. The overall conclusion of the conference was that the most
satisfactory phrasing for CIA Regulation would be one counting all
military service in determining eligibility so as to avoid a possible
conflict. It was also agreed that it would be violatory of the
spirit of the law, if not of its letter, to blanket out by adminis-
trative action all those who offered military service as part of
their three year eligibility period, although it is recognized that
there may be a higher percentage of rejects in this group simply
because of the difficulty of determining their suitability under
established criteria.
10. The point was made to We Steele that CIA was not sure
whether or not it was subject to Veterans' Preference legislation,
Approved For Release 2001/08/24: CIA-RDP59-00882R000300010008-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/24: CIA-RDP59-00882R000300010008-7
and Mr. Steele conditioned his conclusions upon the assumption
that we were, or that (as we had stated) we wished to comply with
the policy of the legislation whether subject to it or not.
Approved For Release 2001/08/24: CIA-RDP59-00882R000300010008-7