THE 165TH MEETING OF THE CIA RETIREMENT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-03092A000900120002-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 14
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 5, 2005
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: May 8, 2001
• Content Type: MIN

nrnnr-9r
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000900120002-4
I
. . . The 165th meeting of the CIA RETIREMENT
Board convened at 2:00 p. m. on Thursday, 24 September 1971, with the
following present:
Mr. Harry B. Fisher, Chairman
MR. FISHER: Is L__~n bad shape because of this change
in Thursday? I mean, is this the wrong Thursday for him?
He didn't indicate anything to me.
MR. FISHER: Well, aren't we on the other Thursday, now?
Maybe we'll be able to shift back again.
Our first item on the Agenda is the review of those employees who
have completed more than 15 years of Agency service and meet the criteria
for designation as participants. We have about seven there. I'm sure you
have all had a char ce to review them. I'd like a motion.
Recommend approval.
. . . Motion was then seconded and passed . . .
MR. FISHER: And then we have a group of 31 employees who
have now completed more than five years of Agency service and meet the
criteria for designation as participants and I would like a vote on those.
be 60 in April 1977. He'll never have a 15th anniversary review,/based on
his current tour -- he'll have 57 months. I called TSD and they're not
sure whether he'll be extended to get that other three months or not.
I'd like to point out on number 30 -- he'll
ANA
MR. FISHER: He's in
SEGRFT
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000900120002-4`""
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000900120002-4
..M a
I just want the Board to be aware.
I think what he is really saying is that here is
a man who will never reach the 15th year anniversary and never be put out.
Should I perform a special review on this guy?
MR. FISHER: What basis would we have for putting him out?
I don't know.
How long is this tour going ?
Until August of 1972, ~ ten months
and 33 days M approximately. I talked to TSD personnel.
age - - most likely not.
Here is a man who would be mandatorily retired.
He would have time for another tour, but at his r
MR. FISHER: It isn't that I have all that much trouble wi th it.
For him to retire he will not have the five years and, yet, it won't even be a factor.
I'm just sort of taken with this predicament.
I can set him up for a special review - say
in ten years.
Get the 60 months out of the way.
He would need to stay until 9 November 1972.
Extend him before he gets back here.
MR. FISHER: Are you going to call
(Speaking to 25X1
nodded, yes.) It's said -- well, suppose I don't
extend, what will happen? I'm afraid the answer will be then he'll retire
without it. I don't have a very good argument for why he should be extended.
There might be something else for qualifying service.
This lack of time is because he didn't come
onboard here until he was 46, 45 years old.
MR. FISHER: Something is wrong here.
If he doesn't have the qualifying service he can't
2
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000900120002-4
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000900120002-4
v4ullL. I
25X1
25X1
Vft that's vesting time, if you don't have your time in you gout and if you
vested a right you can retire at age 60 without 60 months.
That's why the 15-year review. We say, since
Something is wrong. The System didn't contemplate
MR. FISHER: Again, we don't have too many -- obviously he
was 46 years old when he started with us, but there are others. When he
hits his ten-year point in another two years, he's still alright.
His 15th anniversary date would be January,
1978, which is nine months after his 60th birthday.
is published.
MR. FISHER:
he needs is three years.
to ten years.
Maybe in these cases there ought to be a ten-year
There will be as soon as the new regulation
Yes, but he'd make it on a ten-year review. All
Move his review for staying in the System back
All he..needs is 36 months and he'll have the time.
MR. FISHER: We need some sort of modification here to take
0CG
care of this. We'll be in touch with ( M) to take a look at this. It seems
like a loophole that we hadn't considered. In the meantime, it might ease
everything if he does extend. Extending him until November may be a
problem. Do we have his bio here?
No bio in there.
MR. FISHER: We'll take a look at this later. Will you give
me a call on how you make out on this ?~1O
Now, we have a recommendation for involuntary retirement of
Agency, and 93 months of qualifying service. That's certainly okay to me.
45 years old, 25 years of Federal service, 22 with the
3
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000900120002-4
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000900120002-4
Recommend approval.
On what basis?
MR. FISHER: This is a voluntary, involuntary under the
CIA System.
He's volunteered to be involuntary.
MR. FISHER: I understand that it is, and yet we have to play
25X1
the game. There is no other way.
I.have four volunteers:
25X1
25X1
25X1
for 1 October;
31 December;
. . . This motion was then seconded and passed .
MR. FISHER: The first other case is a request for extension
25 October; and
for 30 October. They are all fully qualified.
MR. FISHER: These are all fully, straight volunteers.
Recommend approval.
of retirement under Civil Service by He would like
a one-year extension from October 1971 to October of 1972. This is the second
request on his part. He was previously extended from October 1970 to
October 1971. And I think Clandestine Service has wisely voted against this
one. I think we'd be very reluctant to go back with another "unable to replace"
after two years of knowing this.
operational justification for extending the last time, so it was on compassionate
grounds, only, the last time.
The last one says (CIA) (CIS) said there was no
It is in that paragraph three of Bob Wattles' letter of 20 October 1970.
MR. FISHER: In other words, the first time they went the com-
passionate route completely, and now they have dropped the compassionate
and are going on operational need. It's a question of how far we go in our
letter to the Director indicating this. But it would seem to me that since the
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000900120002-4
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000900120002-4
DDP has voted against it, since they have had well over two years to plan
on his replacement -- I see no point in hitting the fact that last year they
said they didn't need him on operational grounds. The Board recommends
disapproval. I think that's the motion you made, Charles.
Yes.
Second.
. . . This motion was then passed . . .
MR. FISHER: Let me leave the tough one here for last. Go
on to five and clean them up.
Skip three and four?
Second. I noted he will hit mandatory retirement
in January anyway - two months after.
. . . This motion was then passed . . .
MR. FISHER: Again, let me skip number four a minute.
Now, we have a request for extension of retirement under the CIA
Retirement System by
GS-9 in DD P. did 25X1
you have anything in particular to say on this one? I felt that for a five
5
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000900120002-4
 (17nRPT
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000900120002-4
Within the Fiscal Year.
MR. FISHER: She'll be out by 30 June 1972 anyway. Apparently,
it's quite legitimate that she's been -- her granddaughters lived with her and
she's been supporting them and had a very difficult time financially and is just
coming out of the woods. Five months sounded reasonable to me.
. . . This motion was then passed . . .
MR. FISHER: We then have a request for extension of retirement
date under the CIA. System from 9 July 1972 until 31 December 1972 by
GS-14 in DDP. I think first of all the argument of lump
I
sum annual leave becomes a little rediculous when you start pushing for it
in July. If we did this there would just be no end and they could start in
January now and say that he would like to go to the end of the year. We can't
m4JA
start a pattern of extending people for lump sum annual leave.
Is there an administrative or legal nature
to postpone the payment of lump sum annual leave to a subsequent year?
Approved.
Second.
Yes.
Could he have this done?
MR. FISHER: No, not indefinitely. and I discussed this wit25X1
Les Bush, not in an effort to extend people, but rather to deny them on the basis
we can do this administratively. You don't have to hang on for a couple of more
months. Les said we could do this through the end of October. He can defer
administratively for November and December so that you get your check after the
first of the year. You would never get it, really, if you retired in December.
You would never get it in December. Most people don't seem to understand that
two weeks after you leave you get your previous two weeks pay and then two
weeks after that you get your lump sum. But Les did indicate October 31, but
beyond that he can't.
Gif
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000900120002-4
 lerriD[T
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000900120002-4
IRS could get very much upset. You could lose -- in application you could
defer this and defer that, but you are wilfully trying to avoid a payment that
should be made in a calendar year.
MR. FISHER: You're falsifying this thing.
Beyond that you are really playing -- and
amend his 1971 return. If he gets a low income in 1972 he can amend his
income return on 1971 and lower his tax bracket.
MR. FISHER: It's a good point that so many people
think of it the other way. It seems to be more the approach -- if you have
a good year in the stock market then you can do some income averaging.
But the same thing is true if you have a very low one.
If he gets a low tax the following year he can
Can you delay payment of the 1971 tax or do you
have to go ahead and pay the 1971 tax?
subsequently lower you can, through a very complicated formula - it's
Schedule G, I think - take into account your tax return for the previous four years
which will result, if the figures are good enough, if the drop in your income is
enough, in a lower tax bite for this year than you otherwise would have had.
For four years.
MR. FISHER: You don't have to go back and file an amendment.
The formula, itself, leads you to a lower tax payment because of that. An
automatic credit for the high years, in other words. A lot of it is done for you,
really.
If, in a subsequent year, your income is
because you have three high years and one low year.
Four years takes a lot of advantage out of it
But you might have two successive low years.
If you continue having no income you can do it
for several years.
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000900120002-4
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000900120002-4
e?, 1, _ .
MR. FISHER: It's another great advantage of the fact that
your first year and a half or so you don't get your annuity because -- well,
anyway, to answer your question, 0- no, not from July.
Would it be feasible for the Agency to adopt
by regulation a practice whereby to pay --
MR. FISHER: Les Bush has gone into this in some depth with
IRS and it's negative.
n CIA
I remember the office of CG has spoken
of this. It would be an improper practice.
MR. FISHER: I won't give this as gospel, but and I were 25X1
just talking about this -- back in 1969, I guess, the pay raise came in July
and people retired in June. And the question was raised at what rate do
they get their lump sum annual leave which is paid in July. And the CG
interpretation was you can give it at the higher rate because in a sense you
are continuing on duty in a leave status and that's what this lump sum annual
leave contemplates, really, and it sort of gave you a new look at the thing.
So, in a sense it's a continuation of your employment and should follow
successively the weeks in which you leave. That's what you're really getting
so you would have no basis for jumping from July and having a blank period and then
pick up. If you had a pay raise in January you would be paying that at the
higher rate. It gets a little hairy. If we extend somebody from October to
January, do we pay them?
You have the six percent - right.
MR. FISHER: Other than that I guess we have become a little
hardened to the son who has to go to college. There go all of us. I just
don't feel that that's terribly unusual.
It would be after his retirement in any case.
MR. FISHER: He's reaching a bit when he says "give me more
time to determine where I'll retire. " He has 18 months anyway in terms of an
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000900120002-4
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000900120002-4
-. r om- ^
extension when he can travel and ship his household effects. So Is I don't
see that that particularly is a valid argument. I'm ready for a motion.
was
. . . This motion NII- then passed . . .
Mid. FISHER: And then we get to a request for extension of
retirement date under the Civil Service System from July 1972 to July 1973.
This is a Wage Board packer - actually Forman-Packer - as you have all
read, the Director of Logistics makes a strong plea on an operational basis
citing the fact that he has six vacancies now, and I must admit as a sidelight, it's $
hard for me to reconcile this with all the unemployment in the area. I don't
understand that we should have so much trouble when there are people who are
ready to work.
MR. FISHER: ...... which is packing and crating to Government
specifications, and finding just that sort of thing is, I don't think, that easy.
Recommend disapproval.
The office would have difficulty replacing him.
MR. FISHER: This is Civil Service and here is a Wage Board
type and a strong operational need. I certainly endorse and I know Bob
Wattles says okay. But this should be the last one. I think we should use that
language -- no further request for extension. I think it's always he lpful
to the man getting it to take him off the kick that, "I'll wait a little while and
request another extension. " I don't know -- how do you all feel about it?
MR. FISHER:
One question, Harry, I don't know whether ? we'll
Go for a year with no further extensions.
We have a motion.
be faced with a cut by that time -- I just wonder if you said in it, in concrete
terms, end of July.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000900120002-4
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000900120002-4
That's probably not a bad point.
These people count just like anybody else.
That's a good point. Make it 30 June 1973.
O'll amend my motion.
I wonder about restricting ourselves.
MR. FISHER: We have been careful. Well, of course, his
Directorate is saying this, too. Again, I'm not satisfied that we can't
find packers and craters and promote somebody up along the line. We're
not saying as Wattles says, "No further request should be submitted nor
will one be approved. " I don't think anybody can say that but the Director.
I don't think we can speak for him. But we certainly can indicate that
we expect no further requests and we have done that on a large number of cases.
Yes, I realize that we have and I realize
the pertinence of it in the case of Intelligence Officers under the Retirement
System. But for this type of person it seems like we are just hurting ourselves
in that we shouldn't really do it. We should leave the door open -- that if we
want to do it for the interests of the Agency next year, why, we should so leave
the door open.
MR. FISHER: Well, I certainly appreciate your argument.
Again, I'm saying the Directorate, itself, has said this and I still think
Wage Board packer or crater or not, there is soundness to the philosophy
that people leave at 60 and leave room for young people to come along. Believe
me, we have had cases worded this way where the fellow came in, nevertheless,
and was approved. But I think it's good psychologically for the man to begin
planning -- that this is the end of the line. If they really want it, they will
request it for him. The next request shouldn't be the man's - it should be
the office's if they want it. I think that's the distinction. Do we have a second ON
then ?
. . . The above motion was then passed . . .
MR. FISHER: (Referring to the above motion.) Let's reword
that to the end of the Fiscal Year - 30 June 1973.
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000900120002-4
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000900120002-4
WF,It- ? 1- y
be requested or approved by the Director. " I think - "not be approved or
requested by me. "
MR. FISHER: We can't put that in there because that would apply --
I suppose we could change the wording. We normally put that right one
what the Director will say and then he signs, subject to the understanding there
will be no further request. And I wouldn't want tout him in a position to
say a year ahead of time, "I won't approve it. "
I don't think Wattles was saying, "will not
. . . End of discussion on above motinn . . .
25X1
25X1
MR. FISHER: Well, the only reason) (bothers me is
that I wish he could have fudged more on the dates. Our qualification coding
is way out.
MR. FISHER: I'm sorry,
case number four. Now, when
you look at his qualifications here - your biographic profile - the dates are
and, of course, you have May. On the previous one he left in June and you
have he left in July. I wonder if there is a prayer of our ever getting current
on these things so that they are accurate.
so very different. He came back to Headquarters in November from
MR. FISHER: I know. Can't we, in the new system, get
to the actual dates?
This comes from the folder, Harry.
leave he can still be riding that field slot.
When a guy comes back and goes on home
These come from the machines, of coin se,
being processed.
MR. FISHER: It seems to have no relation. There's been
a lot of talk but I guess we'll never get that until we get the arrival notices
and departure notices.
You could do it from then, forward, but
going back is a problem.
11 P V r. -r
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000900120002-4
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000900120002-4
Uilit I
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
MR. FISHER: I am thinking of those who stand -- well, you're
quite sure to the best of your ability you've gotten the right dates?
MR. FISHER: I don't know if you will react to this this way
but I find months - -
Yes.
I think on this it's talking about assignment whereas
you are talking about service overseas.
MR. FISHER: You mean on the profile? Oh, I realize that.
I'm only saying isn't there some way that the System can print out this infor-
mation so that we don't have to research everyf ne. And I guess we'll never
get it until we get to the arrival notices and departure notices.
(Quiet discussion between) and Mr. Fisher discussing
the arrival and departure notices of employees concerning discrepancies in dates. )
MR. FISHER: To the best of your -- you don't feel there is any
possible leeway in this? No additional time?
Not enough to make 60 months.
MR. FISHER: You have pretty good documentation on this case?
MR. FISHER: So that leaves him, unfortunately, needing
almost four months.
Yes.
MR. FISHER: No, he's only had 56 months and five days.
What I say -- if there is a month's swing here, someway -- well, let's
be looking -- sometimes I think you have cases where you're not all that
precise on it, but here you feel you have it all.
Ten weeks, isn't it?
Maybe we should recheck this.
He departed
1.3 October - home leave.
MR. FISHER: Well, now, departed) I13 October 1953.
Well, you have 1 October.
SECRFr
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000900120002-4
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000900120002-4
%SL_0a..k.9
of weeks right there. You are trying to reduce the number of months he
needs for qualifying service - domestic qualifying service.
MR. FISHER: We can find it here -- he's (closest). That's
firm. So now we are up to 18 days here.
And you have 1 October. That's a couple
We had that 13 May.1959.
also
He's l had no TDY's whatsoever.
This one is talking about a retirement next June.
No hurry on this one.
MR. FISHER: 13 July 1956 is right?
Yes.
25X1
25X1
MR. FISHER: Well, we are down to three months and 1Z days.
I don't know. This case strikes me as a fellow who had a fairly routine career
here at Headquarters with a couple of isolated incidents which add up to a
month each. And I imagine he's pushing a little bit on that. But I find
it so hard to give him credit for the handling of correspondence on very sensitive
When did he depart?
13 May.
Two weeks.
cases. Would you like to take it back and do some more work on it,
we are talking about.
MR. FISHER: What do you think constitutes qualifying service?
We give him a full month, which includes planning before and after.
clandestine circumstances in the Washington area.
MR. FISHER: And he says, using his own words, that's another
month. Again, if he had said seven weeks --
First, he talks about operational meetings under
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000900120002-4
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000900120002-4
that time. I thought for the little time involved his operational activity more
than justified the times he's asking.
MR. FISHER: I sense that same sort of thing, but we can't.
Ultimately here, we have got to show the time. I don't know how we do it
with the facts as he has presented them.
You said there was no TDY anywhere.
I think this maybe worth a little more research on
I agree.
I thought it was thin, but I felt it was in here
somewhere if presented right.
If we can find something else to add to it and make
it a little stronger than this, this would help.
MR. FISHER: Well, I'm very mindful of the
for example. It's not the same. Now, = obviously it's not. But during
this 12, 14 years he had a couple of instances where he went out to do some
recruiting.
talking about four and a half months and it co mes out three months and I am
not sure about the amount of time we are talking about.
MR. FISHER: There is no rush on here. Maybe we can be
a little more precise on the amount of time that i~ he spent on these things
and probably he did some TDY. If he's got his passports, tell him to check
his arrival and departure times. We are certainly ready to reach! Pass-
ports weren't sometimes quite the same as the information we had. Maybe we
can table this one then until the next meeting.
Your're saying four months and I thought we were
MR. FISHER: Well, that's a pretty fast one for us. Any other
items that anyone would like to bring up? Okay.
All right.
The meeting adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
. . .
Sr
RET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000900120002-4