DEVELOPMENT COMPLEMENT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-07181R000200030029-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 29, 2000
• Sequence Number: 29
• Content Type: REQ

Approved For Release 2001/08/07 : CIA-RDP78-07181 R000200030029-3
Approved For Release 2001/08/07 : CIA-RDP78-07181 R000200030029-3
 SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/08/07 : CIA-RDP78-07181 R000200030029-3
DEVELOPMENT COMPLEMENT
STATINTL
STATINTL
STATINTL
QUESTIONS
Should the Manpower Control System establish controls on the duration of
assignment to the Development Complement by providing for expiration dates on
the Request for Personnel Action? How should the Development Complement be
reported on the PCR and strength tabulations?
BACKGROUND
1. Management of Personnel Ceilings and Positions, 3 June 1968,
states: "The reasons for and duration of the assignment (to the Development
Com lement should be stated under the 'Remarks' section of the form (1152)."
Personnel Actions, 7 September 1960, requests the "reason the
employee is being placed in a Development Complement" be entered on the Request
for Personnel Action but makes no reference to duration.
2. further requires the Head of each Career Service review
periodically his "use of the Development Complement and the reasons for and
duration of" such assignments. The Director of Personnel is charged with a
quarterly review as to "appropriateness of its use, time limitations on
assignments, and the status of 'hold' and other problem cases."
DISCUSSION
1. The current system records the date first into the Development Comple-
ment, the current reason in,.and the office assigning the individual. These
are reported on the PCR.
2. Chief of Position Control Section, states that he
cannot reca ever getting a request for assignment to the Development Comple-
ment with a duration specified except in cases of leave without pay.
4. There were no individuals officially in "casual status." A spot check
of previous months revealed none in this category. A sampling of offices
produced several reasons for this:
a) The individual returning overseas had to be left assigned overseas"
"to preserve certain entitlements" at his last post
the record was wrong anyway. (This requirement was bent" for 10~ccases..))
Approved For Release 2001/C~l~] ,DP78-071818000200030029-3
 SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/08/07 : CIA-RDP78-07181 R000200030029-3
b) If he were to be returned to Washington on paper and then
assigned out again, two personnel actions and two Security Office
approvals are required; excessive workload at a time when so much other
paper has to be processed.
c) He has to be carried on the old post FAN number who pays for
home leave or travel. If he has another career service designation, he
must be picked up by his home office (who prepares the request for action)
and charged to its CSGA, which in some cases caused a loss of headroom.
d) Processing overseas "rarely takes more than thirty days", at
least you don't think it will when you start!
5. We could find no one who assigns an individual to the Development
Complement for training under two months; their reasoning-by the time the
action was processed and they received their PCR, he was generally back on the
job and it was another month before he was correctly shown.
6. Of all the reasons, official or otherwise, that an individual could
be assigned to the Development Complement, only three appear to warrant special
control: returnees from overseas, on-the-job training and slotting problems.
Expiration dates and control on leave and details (reimbursable as well as
nonreimbursable) are provided for elsewhere. A reassignment action must be
cut before an individual can depart for overseas. Appointees remaining in
TAS after eligible for assignment have never been, and probably never will be,
a problem. "Hold" cases and pending retirement or separation should be on the
active dockets of SAS or Retirement Division which follow the cases. Theoret-
ically, extended formal training should be no problem since training requests
specify the duration and if away from headquarters are supported by travel
orders and extensions of same, if required. On-the-job training, however, may
need monitoring (one person has been in this category since April 1965.)
7. Assigning personnel to the Development Complement for extended periods
of time when actually in a productive work status creates almost as much havoc
to the individual's official employment history (which will be computer
generated) as misassigning him on the Staffing Complement.
8. Offices that leave candidates for the Development Complement on their
Staffing Cbmpiements do so primarily because the individuals are returning to
the positions. Division chiefs tend to lose track of their personnel, partic-
ularly new EOD's in training and extended leave, when they are shown at the
end of an office on the PCR, a portion that is not available to them. The
positions appear to be vacant when in fact they are committed.
9. Since 1961, the official strength reports (printed formats) have been
broken down by Staffing and Development - a relatively meaningless basis as there
was no uniformity in the use of the latter.. (There has been an increase in the
use of Development Complement, however, during the last two years
accounted for 95% of the total).
Approved For Release 2001/08/07.5 G -RQpi78-07181 R000200030029-3
U'Lifi1L.1
 Approved For Release 2001/08/07 : CIA-RDP78-07181 R000200030029-3
RECOMMENDATION
1. Review the categories established for the Development Complement.
When an "other" category is 50 percent of the total, it is highly suspect.
Probably a further breakdown is warranted, i.e. leave, pending retirement/
separation, no appropriate slot, military furlough (discussed in another
paper), etc. Consideration should be given to distinguishing formal training
versus on-the-job training (a frequent cover-up for slotting problems). The
practicality of cutting an action for one or two months training should be
reviewed, since the training part of the man record will reflect this status.
2. If, in fact, personnel returning from overseas must remain assigned
at their overseas posts and charged to those FAN numbers, let the computer
system automatically show them as "departed" on the PCR (from the overseas
departure date) and report individuals. who are not assigned elsewhere after
a normal time (2 months? 3 months?) Don't require extra personnel actions if
they must necessarily show incorrect assignments.
3. Provide for reporting personnel in a development status at the end
of the division to which they will be returning and at the end of the office
when not returning to that division. If desired, there could be a complete
listing also at the end of an office. Show totals of both Staffing and
Development at the end of each office.
4. Standardize the use of the Development Complement and charge the OP
approving officer with the responsibility for monitoring the validity of the
category selected as reason for the assignment.
5. Instead of designing the new Form 1152 with a "box" for expiration
dates for such assignments (experience shows you don't get them under "Remarks")
consider the alternative of determining which categories need control,
establishing "normal" or "acceptable" duration for each category and letting
the system produce periodic lists for review when the respective times have
elapsed (based upon the original assignment dates).
6. Since use of the Development Complement is basically a management
tool for Heads of Career Services, a determination should be made as to the
usefulness of the current reporting format for the DCI, OPPB, etc.
Approved For Release 2001/08/0-CIJDf78-07181 R000200030029-3