PORTION OF VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF 20 JUNE 1967 CIA RETIREMENT BOARD MEETING DISCUSSION OF THE CASE OF(CLASSIFIED)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050002-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 19
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 28, 2005
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: May 8, 2001
• Content Type: MIN

Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050002-7
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050002-7
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050002-7
MR. ECHOLS: I'd like now to take up the cases of 25X1
-- and perhaps this is going to be a of 25X1
easier task than I thought it mig t be originally.
25X1 If we could look first at the case ofl I we find that her
marriage was reported way back in 1957-1958 -- her Fitness Reports stressed
this fact and that she had family ties and responsibilities. (Reading) "Her
husband, a U.S. citizen, is a prominent local businessman. It is not felt that
Subject would accept an assignment in another area, includin Headquarters, un-
der the circumstances. As long as her husband remains in Subject will
probably continue in her present capacity, but should he plan a return to the
U.S., it is probable that Subject will resign."
Now, the question here is should we have put this individual in the Retire-
ment System? Does she qualify? And I think the question of should we have
permitted her to retire is irrelevant -- it's secondary to the first issue:
Should she have been permitted to join the System?
This raises, in part, a corollary question as to whether we should look
behind people's certifications in their Form 3101's as to their matrimonial
situation, their family situation, to perhaps challenge the validity of their
certification. Which. carries us next to the even more critical point, which
is: What does our Form 3101 in fact mean? And I think this is germane to each
of these cases.
If we look at our Form 3101, Service Agreement, it says this:
"The Director of Central Intelligence has determined
that in order to qualify for designation as a participant
in the CIA Retirement and Disability System, an employee
must have signed a written obligation to serve anywhere
and at any time according to the needs of the Agency in
addition to meeting other specified criteria.
I hereby declare my intent to comply with this re-
quirement as a condition to my being considered for
designation as a participant in the CIA Retirement and
Disability System.
In making this declaration, it is understood that
the Agency will consider my particular capabilities,
interests, and personal circumstances."
MR. ECHOLS: Now certainly "personal circumstances" embraces marriage,
.embraces children. The question is, if a person is married - a person is
S E C R E T
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050002-7
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050002-7
immobile, does this in any way invalidate a Form 3101, or does it meet the require-
ments of our Regulation and the legislative history. We have had meetings on this
Form 3101, this certification, and I have brought with me the transcript of our dis-
cussions -- which were not very clear and very explicit. I might point out, however,
that we decided very early in the game that we would rely upon the previous Career
Staff agreements in our initial review of people for eligibility -- in our initial
review of people for eligibility. And this Career Staff agreement said this:
"I am aware of the many restrictions necessarily
placed upon me by virtue of the security requirements
inherent in my employment by the Central Intelligence
Agency. And I am also aware as a member of the Career
Staff, it would be my obligation to serve anywhere, at
any time, and for any kind of duty as determined by the
Agency, and I have been assured that in order to carry
out this policy, full consideration will be given to
my particular capabilities, interests, and personal
circumstances."
So we find a similar, if not practically identical in thought, statement in both
cases that we will, in calling upon people to serve, take into consideration their
personal circumstances.
Now, in going back to this Career Staff agreement we find in the record that
the CIA Career Council --which was the primary body of this organization which
developed this Career Staff concept -- at a meeting held on 7 October 1954, at-
tended by Harrison Reynolds Chairman, Matt Baird, Richard Helms, Lyman B.
Kir~ick, L. K. White, and 25X1
-- (reading) "The Chairman then brought to the attention of the 25X1
the urgent problem of correcting the misunderstanding of persons, particularly 25X1
married women, who felt they could not, in good faith, apply for membership in
the Career Staff. The members expressed agreement that such personal circum-
stances as marriage should not, per se, bar any person from membership provided
there was intent to make a career with CIA. It was agreed that an Agency notice
would be prepared, on a priority basis, to clarify this issue. Mr. Kirkpatrick
also stated he would discuss this matter in his talk at the Agency Orientation
Course on the following day."
So at least in terms of the Career Staff document there was a topside Agency
policy formulated that immobility by reason of marriage would not be a bar to the
signing of a pledge of obligation to serve --
Excuse me, but did that go into immobility?
MR. WARNER: I don't think it said that.
MR. ECHOLS: I'm referring to the immobility inherent in marriage.
It said marriage.
Well, not necessarily --
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050002-7
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050002-7
S E C R E T
MR. ECHOLS: (Reading) "The members expressed agreement that such
personal circumstances as marriage should not, per se, bar any person from
membership provided there was intent to make a career with CIA."
MR. WARNER: I didn't hear any words like "immobility" --
MR. ECHOLS: Now, in discussing our new Form 3101, which was prepared
to meet the requirements of the Regulation which required people to commit them-
selves in writing, there are two factors that come into the picture. One, we
did agree in the initial go-around to accept the previous Career Staff pledges,
commitments. In so accepting them I presume we accepted the policy that under-
lay such a document. Therefore we have automatically, perhaps incorrectly,
accepted marriage as not barring eligibility to participate in this Retirement
System. We also decided, in discussing our new agreement, to simplify it, to
remove many of the words here, but there was no discussion that I can find in
the records on the specific subject of barring married people or causing us to
look into the facts and circumstances of marriage as possibly negating the
signature on the new agreement. I would hold, therefore, that unless we change
the rules existing at the present time, the fact that a married woman, with some
small children, perhaps, and who otherwise is eligible, signs one of our agree-
ments, we have no reason to go behind this document and examine the fact of her
marriage and her true willingness at the drop of a hat to rotate all around the
world at the wish of the Agency. I presume in a severe crisis of some kind the
Agency might call upon some such women to serve in a TDY capacity, or help out,
or in a very critical situation they might actually ask them to leave their hus-
bands -- but normal, due regard for personal circumstances would not necessitate
this. So, full career mobility for advancement and development and rotation I
don't think is currently an inherent requirement of our 3101.
Any discussion desired on this point? John?
MR. WARNER: I think,there is another view on this, Emmett. I think
we do have to recall the situation that existed at that time, when becoming a
member of the Career Staff meant just that, that you became a member of the
Career Staff -- it didn't mean anything else. But in terms of our Retirement
Act and the words we used about obligation to serve and willingness to serve,
I think one could take a different view, that certainly from our presentation
our Committees were not put on notice of our view that a woman married to an
American businessman in a foreign country could be in effect an exception to
the concept of mobility.
MR, ECHOLS: No, they were not. But she still, nonetheless, is re-
quired to serve the requisite period of qualifying duty, of course --
MR. WARNER: Yes. That is another point
I think maybe we muddy it by dragging this marriage busi-
ness into it. I'm certainly willing to look at any case on its merits. Let's
say this girl lived in and she was single, and she just said, "I like
it in and I'll e ::g a to stay on with the Agency as long as I can work
i She's not married. I don't think that you would want to accept her
as truly signing this thing with a fair intent to make it stick.
S E C R E T
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050002-7
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050002-7
S E C R E T
MR. ECHOLS: I would quite agree with you -- she is almost in the nature
ofdporary employee. She is saying: As long as you have a job for me here in
I will stay with the Agency.
25X1
MR. SEELY: The qualifying statement in her agreement wouldn't apply --
The Agency doesn't say that personal preference will be taken into consideration.
MR. MILLER: Excuse me, I'll have to leave now, but I can come back in
about 20 minutes, if you need any action today by me.
MR. ECHOLS: I wish you would come back, Gerry. I would like to ask
you one question before you go. As our meeting broke up last time I think you
were about to make a motion -- in fact, I think you made a motion with respect
to Have you changed your mind in any way?
think that all three of these should be designated. On the other hand, I also
feel that the whole question of career status should be examined by the Director
of Personnel, and perhaps there should be different categories of career status,
so that you can just call it "Category A" and "Category B", and people could
move from one to the other, one being what we call mobile and the other what we
call immobile, but without defining it just in those terms.
No, I haven't. I agree with your approach there, and I do
withdrew from the meeting
at this point, but returned to the meeting later . . . .
MR. ECHOLS: If I could speak on Gerry's last point, when we did discuss
this new agreement the record shows that Jim Critchfield was very vehement and
ardent on the idea of tightening up, if you will, the meaning of Career Staff and
the obligation. He wanted a reaffirmation of intent, not with regard to those
who had already demonstrated it but with regard to future cases. Now, we have not
gotten into this as yet. He indicated at some future date he thought we should take
a real hard look at the Form 3101 and its meaning and significance, and perhaps
make some revisions which would clearly show those who are fully involved and those
who are not. We have not yet taken this up. And I might just say that the cases
we are concerned with here today are all old-timers who either were or perhaps
might have been considered in the initial go-around -- so we are strictly dealing
with that class of person at this time, and not the thing that Gerry just sug-
gested and that Critchfield advocated many months ago.
If we can get back to the case of I, she did serve her entire
career, and we were happy to have her -- I think she served some 18 years, or
something like that -- and we put her in the System, she applied for retirement,
and we retired her. Is there any reason why anyone would like to challenge our
judgment on this case?
MR. WARNER: I would. I think if we had known the facts as we know them
now, we shouldn't have put her in the System. But on the other hand, having retired
her, I would say that is water over the dam,
- 4 -
S E C R E T
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050002-7
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050002-7
-- ?~- ~? ~,~at.i. .DuL 1 aon't think that can
be a precedent for the next case.
She was a civil servant worki
i
ng
n her home town -- she
worked there from her Junior College days, and never left -- and I have a feeling
that she wouldn't have left. That's why, as I said, it sounds to me like even
before she was married she had no intention of working anyplace butF____1 So
it doesn't seam to . mo
--
'
I don
t see what we can do about the
this point.
MR. ECHOLS: No, but they wish our opinions on these cases
establish some
id
li
in ord
er to
gu
e
nes and perhaps some precedent for other cases
make some changes in the System.
-- and
perhaps
ri ht to ~~" ? ""`? ? lilt mere tact we waived the
g go back, on the first go-around, to receive or to insist upon getting
25X1Form 3101, I don't think meant we would accept cases that we might have known
about that were completely immobile and didn't meet the six requirements for des-
ignation as a partici
t i
pan
n the System. I think if we had known about this
ase we
i
h
m
g
t have at that point said, "Let's check this one out."
MR. ECHOLS: Are we not saying the Career Service should have been more
discerning with regard --
think this is one that got by us, that'svall,Lii uld