REPORT ON THE AGENCY HONOR AWARDS PROGRAM

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP84-00780R002100180020-0
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 56
• Document Creation Date: December 14, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 8, 2002
• Sequence Number: 20
• Publication Date: June 3, 1967
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Release 2003/0SI GR 1'84-00780R002100180020-0
MEMORANDUM FOR: Executive Director-Comptroller
SUBJECT : Report on the Agency Honor Awards Program
1. Submitted. herewith is the Inspector General's report. on the
Agency Honor Awards Program which is administered by the Honor and
Merit Awards Board and the Office of Personnel. Also attached, for
your signature, are memoranda to the Deputy Director for Support and
the Director of Personnel requesting responses to recommendations
in the report which are addressed to them. Copies of the report have
been distributed to the Deputy Director for Support and to. the Chairman
of the Honor and Merit Awards Board. Since we believe this report-will
be of interest to the other directorates and independent offices, dis-
tribution has been made accordingly.
2. As a result of the survey, we have concluded that the honor
awards program is well balanced and ably administered by persons
dedicated to the effort of honoring Agency personnel for meritorious
performance and service. However, we found that honors were unevenly
distributed by type of award and among components, and action'has
been recommended which we believe will correct this situation.
3. We believe that knowledge of formal honors awarded should be
more widespread in the Agency and that emblems could. be worn by many
recipients of awards after they retire. Recommendations have been. made
for action in these two areas of increasing recognition of the fact
that the Agency honors meritorious performance. With regard to the
public service awards program, we believe that its merits shoulcT be
re-examined in another few years to determine whether it is fulfilling
the functions for which it was created.
4. Three programs to recognize wage employees with small cash
awards for outstanding performance have proved salutary. Additional
programs of this sort might improve morale and performance in other
parts of the Agency where there are few spurs to initiative.
25X1
Distribution:
1 - Each Survey Report
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-00780
SECRET
GROUP I
Excluded from automatic
downgrading and
I2l s 1 t' -
 .i d 6
Approved For Release 2003/04/?t6-MP84-00780R002100180020-0
INSPECTOR GENERAL SURVEY
of the
AGENCY HONOR AWARDS PROGRAM
May 1967
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-00780R002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/9k5'4T 1 P84-00780R002100180020-0
Page
Summary and Conclusions
i
I
II
Problem and Scope
Authority
Ii.
III
History
6
A.
Introduction
7
B.
Honor Awards. 1951-1966
7
C.
Public Service Awards
11
D.
Individual Programs
14
IV
Awards: Number and Distribution
15
A.
Incidence Compared with other U.S. Agencies
and Departments
15
B.
Type and Level of Awards
18
C.
Valor Awards
19
D.
Awards by Component
21
E.
Retirement, Resignation or Death
24
V
Administering the Program
26
A.
Introduction
26
B.
Honor and Merit Awards Board
27
C.
Security
34+
D.
Office of Personnel
36
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-00780R002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04129
lA.F3.pP84-00780R002100180020-0
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
1. The Agency's formal honor awards program, for valor, merit, and
service, covers the major areas in which special recognition of person-
nel appears to be desirable. There are also three individual programs
of small cash awards which recognize outstanding performance by wage
employees whose jobs are routine and afford no opportunity for change or
advancement. There are other places in the Agency where similar programs
might also be used to improve morale and performance. recommendation
No. J The total program is well articulated with clear demarcation
among the several types of awards including suggestion and invention
awards also authorized I which are not covered in this
study. The Honor and Merit Awards Board and the Office of Personnel
have administered the awards program ably and with sincere regard for
the purposes it serves,
2. Some concern has been expressed that the rate of 0.5 awards per 100
employees is too low, especially in view of the some six-fold higher
average rate (2.9 to 3.4 per 100 employees CY 1962-196+) of other federal
agencies with similar honors programs. The lower rate may result to some
extent from the smaller number of Agency retirees. Some agencies custom-
arily bestow awards at this time. While the number of Agency performance
awards might increase with the retirement rate, the two service retire-
ment awards added to the program in the June 1966 revision may be found
to be adequate and more appropriate in many cases. Since the lower
Agency rate represents higher standards it should not be considered a
problem. There is merit in maintaining a high prestige level for formal
awards.
3, If the program is underused, three weaknesses exist which might,
if corrected, change the situation, Criteria for the Certificate of
Merit are too general; guidelines for determining who might be nominated
for it are not adequate and are probably differently interpreted. LRecom-
mendation No. Secondly, there is no systematic method for'evaluating
individual performance over a period of time to bring to attention per-
sonnel who may deserve recognition. Lastly, it appears that all officials
down the chain of command do not equally understand the program of awards
or their own responsibility for nominating personnel under their juris-
diction for appropriate recognition. recommendation No. -37
4. Almost as many Intelligence Medals of Merit have been given as
Certificates of Distinction; and the lesser of the two certificates, the
Certificate of Merit, has been given less often than either of the two
higher merit awards. While the smaller number of Certificates of Merit
may result from the inadequate criteria noted above, high standards may
again partially explain the situation. Some relation between the level
of awards and the number bestowed might be considered normal, but no
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-00780R002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/28 eetRDP84-00780R002100180020-0
ratio should be attempted. There are numerous ways outside of a formal
honors program to reward and recognize personnel,. such as commendations,
quality step increases, and assignments to higher positions. To reserve
honorary recognition to highly significant contributions, or truly excep-
tional performance, would seem to be a legitimate policy decision.
5. The option of granting emoluments with the two certificates was
removed in the 1966 revision of the regulation. Money had been given
with these awards at a decreasing rate during the past few years. The
decision increases the importance of the honor awards as such. and prop-
erly assigns monetary rewards to the incentive program of suggestion
and invention awards.
6. The Clandestine Services has received some 40 percent of the
awards made since the beginning of the program in 1954. Some have felt
that this is an undue share. The number of awards is not limited. The
Honor and Merit Awards Board acts only upon recommendations made to it
and the Board's record of objectivity is unimpeachable. Whether more
personnel in the Clandestine Services perform functions which afford an
opportunity to make outstanding contributions to Agency missions is a
moot question. If the percentage of the total awards received by other
components should be larger, their officers carry the responsibility for
making appropriate nominations.
7. Two exceptional service awards were added. to the program in
the June 1966 revision to cover an area similar but not exactly compa-
rable to the military Purple Heart. Service under hazardous situations
could not be recognized previously, except, for example, through unusual
use of merit awards. This problem has now been eliminated; merit awards
relate only to meritorious performance -- an exceptional service award
may be granted in addition if appropriate; and valor awards relate only
to heroism or outstanding performance under hazardous conditions. The
total number of awards made annually for the last five years has been
in the 70's; but an additional 50-some awards were made in FY 1966 to
personnel who had served in the crisis areas of Vietnam and the Dominican
Republic. Some awards were postponed until FY 1967 when the more appro-
priate service award would be ready for use.
8. At the time the program was designed, security considerations
limited the recognition that ordinarily accompanies formal honors given
to employees. Only the senior officials of the Agency are notified of
the ceremony to bestow the award, to which the awardee may invite, when
appropriate, family members and a small number of colleagues. Since
many security problems. have been overcome, it is. now possible to consider
giving recipients of awards wider recognition, and at the same time to
inform the community more widely about the fact that significant con-
tributions have been made and recognized. fecommendation No. J Pro-
posals for wearable emblems, such as lapel pins or ribbons, were also
discarded in the early 1950's for failure to agree on the question of
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-0078OR002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/ eRLA-PnP
ET 84-00780R002100180020-0
security. It now appears possible that this proposal can be favorably
reconsidered. LRecommendation No. J
9. Invitations to nominate Agency personnel for private and quasi-
governmental award programs were rejected until mid-1957 when principles
governing the selection of personnel were adopted to avoid security
problems. Since 1960 when the program became really active, as a result
of efforts by the Office of Personnel which administers it, 28 nominations
have been submitted for eight programs and 14 Agency employees have
received awards. While the program of public service awards has been
considerably more effective during the past three years more support
might be forthcoming if some Agency-wide committee such as the Honor
and Merit Awards Board were called upon for assistance. fecommcndation
No. 77 In view of the restrictions placed upon nominations, the program
should be re-examined in another few years to determine whether, in fact,
it is serving the purposes for which it was started, namely, to contribute
to Agency morale and to improve the Agency's public image.
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-00780R002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/lp I t84-0078OR002100180020-0
Page
31
33
33
34
36
38
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-0078OR002100180020-0
SECRET
 25X1 Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-0078OR002100180020-0
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-0078OR002100180020-0
 Approved For Release 2003194(29 c1 RDP84-0078OR002100180020-0
'N k-
1. Problem: Equity, effectiveness and efficiency in the adminis-
tration of the Agency's formal awards program.
2. Scope: This study is concerned with the scope of the Agency's
awards program I Irevised in June 1966) and with its adminis-
tration, except for "Suggestions and Inventions Awards" Iwhich
is sufficiently different to require separate treatment. wiII cover
Agency merit and valor, and service awards, and the external program
called Public Service Awards to which the Agency subscribes.
3. Morale and performance, the ultimate functions of a recognition
system*, are most reliably measured by attitude and cause-effect studies.
These entail time-consuming research techniques which are beyond the
limits of this study; therefore, effectiveness as used in this study
pertains almost entirely to the manner in which the organization and
procedures established for the program actually operate. The data consist
largely of a summary of the development of the program; statistics on
the types and distribution of awards, and the procedures used to select
nominees, make recommendations, and bestow awards on Agency personnel.
11. Longevity awards, as provided in FY 20-37.c recognize length
of service, an inflexible variable. They will not be treated in depth
in this study since they involve no problems of initiation or coordina-
tion. The a priori assumption that some form of formal recognition for
service per se heightens employee identification with the Agency is based
on reasonable logic. Any profitable inquiry as to whether longevity
awards achieve their purpose would require the extensive techniques
referred to above as beyond the limits of this study.
II
25X1
25X1
four special programs exist in the Age ncy: two cover particular
groups the third is a monetary
award for a contribution to the publication S udies in Intelligence;
and the last is an award for safe driving conferred by the Office of
Logistics. These will be touched upon only briefly in this study.
6. Exceptional Service Awards were authorized I las
revised in June 1966. Final procedures for administering ese awards
*This does not mean that the intent to confer honor per se upon
members who have distinguished themselves in the service of the Agency
is not bona fide, or that it cannot be considered an end in itself. It
is only to say that recognition systems are functional in the life of
an organization or society.
25X1
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-0078OR002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/2 efff 84-00780R002100180020-0
are now being completed, but none had been conferred at the time of this
study. Therefore comment upon this program will be limited.
7. Studies of social phenomena are influenced by the inevitable
biases or preconceptions of those who make them. These should be set
forth as clearly as possible so that any conclusions might be subject
to measurement by others. A few which might enter into this study are
set forth below.
8. Other available means of giving recognition to employees for
their performance in the Agency bear upon the extent of the need for
formal awards programs. For example, recognition is an integral part
of the Agency's normal practice in administering grade-step pay increases,
Quality Step Increases and. promotions, in writing fitness reports, and
in determining assignments (especially to leadership positions). It is
normally extended by (or at least available to) responsible officers at
all levels in personally acknowledging dedicated or fine service, as well
as in writing commendations. There is also what might be called a quasi-
formal program of recognition in selecting personnel for special training,
such as the Agency's Mid-Career Course, and in nominating candidates for
external study such as provided by the Brookings Federal Executive
Fellowship (six.months), the National Institute of Public Affairs'
Career Education Awards (one year), and the Defense Intelligence School
(14+ weeks), in addition to the war colleges. These normal Agency prac-
tices provide numerous instruments for bringing special recognition to
employees throughout the organization, and many of these forms of recog-
nition are greatly esteemed and confer considerable honor.
9. Formal honors programs should be guided by certain principles.
They should, for example, be limited to performance which is exceptional
or distinguished; be clearly defined if opportunity to achieve them is
restricted to- certain situations (e.g., "high position" or "heroic
action"); or, if they are not so delimited, be applied evenly through-
out the organization.
10. The first principle is explicit in the definitions of Agency
awards, i..e., "distinctly exceptional," "outstanding," "especially
meritorious," "conspicuously above normal duties." In practice, there-
fore,.the number of awards should be limited if they are to maintain
their prestige, especially in view of the availability of other forms
of recognition in the Agency.
11. The second principle bears upon general employee morale. If
special.honors are severely limited, for example, to acts of heroism,
there is no reflection on the majority who have no or only unusual
opportunity to qualify for such an award. But if the award, for example,
is for generally meritorious service, employees may measure themselves
or their immediate colleagues against those in other sections of the
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-00780R002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/ftef[R84-0078OR002100180020-0
organization who have been selected for recognition. Should these
awards be unevenly distributed, the question of equitability and
morale problems stemming therefrom could develop. Our organization
may be particularly vulnerable to a seeming problem of uneven-'dis-
tribution: one component addresses itself to clandestine operations,
one to scientific frontiers, and another to sometimes dramatic
communications work -- all of which are relatively easy to perceive
and to measure. Other components, as well as elements within the
above mentioned, are perhaps more absorbed in administrative,,support,
or analytical work in which meritorious service is not as easily
perceived or documented. Questions about lower awards in the system
and problems in their administration should be anticipated.
12. Hypothetically the number of awards would be expected to vary
directly with the level of the award: a smaller number of the highest
and a larger number of the lowest, since, inter alia, the number of
high officials is small in relation to the total population which pre-
sumably might aspire to some recognition. It has been suggested in
previous studies that the Agency program is underused. While this
observation may be correct, the execution of an awards program in
general is determined by the philosophy of honor awards -- and phi-
losophies may conflict. The bias in this study (if such it is) is
toward an eclectic use of honor awards and, as necessary, the creation
of other means to recognize, say, superior performance which still
remains within the normal duties expected for the position held.
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-0078OR002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/21 54-0078OR002100180020-0
II. AUTHORITY
1. Public Law 83-763. The Incentive Awards Act of 1954 established
one authority for all U.S. Government award programs. U.S. departments
and agencies are encouraged to develop a wide range of programs to recog-
nize the contributions of their employees and for other purposes described
in "Government Employees' Incentive Awards" Title III as follows:
"cash awards to, and . . . honorary recognition of,
civilian officers and employees of the Government who
by their suggestions,. inventions, superior accomplish-
ments, or other personal. efforts contribute to the
efficiency, economy, or other improvement of Government
operations, or who perform special acts or services in
the public interest in connection with or related to
their official employments." LSec.304.(a )j7 "Excep-
tionally meritorious special acts or services" sec.
304.(b are also to be recognized.
2. The Civil Service Commission has the responsibility and author-
ity to establish regulations for delpartmental.or agency awards programs.
The Commission has defined incentive award to mean either a cash award,
an honorary award, or both, and i4entifies three types of awards in the
Federal Personnel Manual, as follows:
Cash Awards: "A Monetary Award." A scale is provided for
tangible benefits, and guidance is given for handling intangible
benefits.
Non-cash Awards: "A contribution which does not meet the stand-
ard for a cash award may be recognized by a letter of appreciation,
a certificate or other appropriate means."
Honorary Awards: ". . . An award granted in recognition of an
employee contribution. . . in recognition of continued distin-
guished service, a singular achievement or an act of personal
heroism. It may be granted independently of or as a supplement
to a cash award. It is not intended however to serve as a
substitute for a deserved monetary award."
- 4 _
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-0078OR002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/2% X84-00780R002100180020-0
25X1
4. Authority for all Agency awards programs resides in the DCI,
and he retains the. power of accepting, rejecting or changing recommenda-
tions made to him by the Honor and Merit Awards Board (HMAB) for Agency
merit awards. In practice the DCI nominates personnel-for Presidential
awards and for certain Public Service awards (e.g., the Rockefeller) but
exercises approving authority over nominations for other Public Service
awards made to him by the Deputy Directors and Heads of Independent
Offices through. the Director of Personnel. The Executive Director-
Comptroller may exercise this approving authority for him. Responsibility
for administering service awards (longevity,. retirement), is largely a
matter of routine processing by the Office of Personnel in accordance
with policy established through. the HMAB, but the Board retains a direct
interest. The Director of Personnel, who chairs the HMAB, has been
independently charged by the DCI with particular responsibility for
protecting Agency interests. in the bestowing of honors. This. same
concern resulted. in assigning a security adviser to the Board. He is
appointed by the Director of Security.
5. Programs which are not Agency-wide may be developed, but "no
formal recognition program may be established by an Agency co onent
without the approval of the Director of Personnel." Four 25X1
such. programs entailing modest expenditures now exist.
6. Acceptance of foreign awards, decorations and gifts
is discouraged and largely forbidden. Procedures are established for
handling and reporting (mandatory by Act of Congress) such presentations
where they cannot be avoided.
*These are separate from the Agency Suggestion and Invention
(incentive) Awards program.
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-00780R002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/fte.JfMP84-00780R002100180020-0
III. HISTORY
A. Introduction
1. When the "Honor Awards" regulation was published in 25X1
1955, the Agency was only some eight years o The work which shaped
the program was done b T the Working Group on Honor Awards chaired by
Its final report was submitted-to the CIA
Career Service Board on 9 January 1953. While there was precedent in
the formal recognition systems of older government agencies,, this
Agency's experience had been largely in incentive programs. In view
of this situation, the original program for recognizing meritorious
performance was remarkably sound. Awards for valor and merit were
distinguished from each other, and these honor awards in turn were
separated from emolument awards which
incentive to efficiency 25X1
This clarity was achieve despite the fact that the enabling Public
Law bore the title "Incentive Awards" and tended to mix honor awards
with money payment for achievements leading to economies and improve-
ments.
2. Two characteristics mark the development of the awards system
over the next twelve years. First, the program. expanded: two honor
awards were added. to meet a demand. for a more graduated merit scale;
and new types of awards were created as new situations arose which
seemed to require some form of recognition, namely for service per se --
i.e., longevity (which had been recognized as a potential category in
1953) and later retirement, and then for hazardous service in which
substantial numbers of employees later became involved, e.g., in the
Congo, Dominican Republic and Vietnam. Second, the clear distinctions
made in the original program were lost in this accretion process: all
three elements (valor, merit and money) were combined in one or more
awards for some eight years.
3. As experience and different types of awards accumulated, the
philosophy of honor awards was debated and a more.articulatedsystem
evolved. The 1966, revision returns to several clearly separated cate-
gories of awards for performance, service and contributions to effi-
ciency. Valor and meritorious performance are again. distinguished
from each other, and both are recognized by honor awards; service is
also recognized by honor awards., but these are distinguished from the
preceding group (i.e., performance) by, in addition to their innate
*Honor awards were given in 195+; the regulation was published
on 13 April 1955.
-6-
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-00780R002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/2gtft 84-00780R002100180020-0
character, more or less automatic extension to all employees in specified
groups, e.g., longevity-retirement on one hand, and service under hazard-
ous conditions on the other; and the provision for Agency participation
in Public Service Awards is retained. And last, emoluments are defined
as incentive awards for suggestions, inventions and. similar improvements
and separated from meritorious performance.
B. Honor Awards: 1951-1966.*
1. On 211 July 1951, approximately four years after CIA emerged
from its predecessor organizations, the first regulation for an awards
program was published as Honor awards were authorized, but the
title reflects its predom nan character as an "Incentive Awards Program"
which is further borne out by the name of the body which administered
it under the chairmanship of the Assistant Director for Personnel, namely
"Efficiency Awards Committee." Its major concern was to make cash awards 25X1
for suggestions leading to savings and improvements.
2. When the first revision of this program was published a
on 21 April 1953, the Administrative Expense Act (Public Law 600,
Congress) and the Classification Act of 19+9 were cited as its authority
and honor awards were modified to be simply "commendation" awards to
supplement emoluments or where money could not be granted. Two months
previously in 1953, uthorized an Honor Awards Board under the
jurisdiction of the Career Service Board; advisory functions and admin-
istrative responsibilities were assigned to Personnel. At the same time,
20 February.1953, the intent to recognize service after ten years was
published in "Longevity Awards"(revised in November 1958 in
3. The first exclusively "Honor Awards" Regulation lof 25X1
13 April 1955 (under authority of Public Law. 83-763) distinguished
between valor and merit with two medals in each category. These four
medals have been retained through all. the changes in the system with
only minor adjustments in definition to adapt a valor award to the
realities of Agency missions. The 1966 revision makes the difference
between the two types of awards explicitly by listing them, for the
first time, under their respective titles, as follows:
(1) Valor Awards
(a) Distinguished Intelligence Cross (DIC)
(b) Intelligence Star (IS)
(2) Merit Awards
(a) Distinguished Intelligence Medal (DIM)
(b) Intelligence Medal of Merit (IMM)
4. During the first two calendar years in which the program
actually operated (195+ and 1955) only eight awards were made, of which
*For Presidential Awards received by Agency personnel see Appendices
page 48.
-7-
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-0078OR002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/2gp, h F84-00780R002100180020-0
six were for merit. Since the IMM had not been. recommended to the Honor
Awards Board as often as had been expected, a third merit award in the
form of the Certificate of Merit (CM) was added. The definition of this
award, "for sustained superior performance of duty or a. significant
single act of merit," included an option to accompany the certificate
with an emolument of $100. Public Law 83-763 places a heavy accent on
."deserved monetary awards," but not all Board members were convinced. of
the desirability of attaching emoluments to honor awards.
5. 1956 Change< published 23 July 1956, which includes
the new CM, the new title Honor and Suggestion Awards" reflects the
common enabling authority for the awards programs. Separate bodies
continue to administer the two programs (honor and incentive). The
chairmanship of the Suggestion Awards Committee is shifted from Personnel
.to the Management Staff, and the voting chairmanship of the Honor Awards
Board is turned over to the Director of Personnel, who had been acting
as adviser to the then responsible Career Service Board.
6. The number of awards made in Calendar Year 1956 increased to
30, but the increase did not come in the new certificate. Only two CM's
were given while 16 IMM's were bestowed and the DIM reached an all-time
high of eight. In the valor field, four Intelligence Stars were. awarded,
but no DIC. Approximately the same situation pertained in Calendar Year
1957 when only six of the total of 29 awards were Certificates and.17
were IMM's. No valor award was made. In CY 1958 the total number of
awards dropped by 50% to 14: six CM's, seven IMM's and one DIM -- again
no valor award.
7. 1959 Change. In viewing the situation the Board concluded that
a more graduated scale of merit awards was needed. The Certificate. of
Merit with Distinction (CMw/D) was inserted above the CM to fill what
was apparently too large a gap in the scale between the IMM and the CM.
Concern at the limited use of valor awards further led to the decision
(approved in 1958) to provide for valor in the definition of this new
award, as follows: "superior performance under unusual conditions,
including acceptance of hazardous situations." The CMw/D also. carried
an optional emolument of $200 to $5,000. Thus the trend away from
mutually exclusive categories became complete when the CMw/D was first
awarded in CY 1959. It contained all three elements -- valor, merit,
and money.
8. 1959-19.62 Change. There was a substantial increase in the
number of awards made in all categories in CY 1959. A total of 64
awards was distributed as follows: the CM and CMw/D were each..awarded
to 20.employees; the IMM to 17; and the DIM to four; three Stars were
awarded for valor, but again no DIC. The total number of awards dropped
to 46 in both CY 1960 and 1961 but in 1962 reached what became almost a
plateau with 76.
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-0078OR002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/2eEj&784-00780R002100180020-0
9. Individual changes made in the program and its administration
were publicized in the revisions of 1961 and 1962. For example: the
addition of the sixth award; the expansion of the now Honor and Merit
Awards Board to include representation from the newly created DD/S&T
and from the DCI's office; the appointment of the Director of Personnel
as the permanent voting chairman of the Suggestion Awards Committee,
reflecting the phasing out of the Management Staff in May 1961; and the
description of Agency practices with regard to Public Service Awards
for the first time (I I f the 15 March 1962 revision).
10. 1964-1966: Comprehensive Revision. The first major overhaul
of the program of honor awards was made in ublished 21 June
1966 after two years of intensive consideration an e ate by the Board.
The official record for this period documents the meticulous concern with
which the Board addressed the task of establishing a comprehensive
recognition system in accord with U.S. traditions and the unique needs
of this Agency. The practical problems the Board had faced for several
years in attempting to make appropriate awards had exposed certain over-
laps and gaps in the system. For example, the CMw/D, designated as a
merit award but providing for the element of valor, was not always a
satisfactory solution when the Intelligence Star was not appropriate.
In a study made by the Office of Personnel of awards made from 1954
through 196+ it was stated that the fact that performance had been under
hazardous conditions was a significant factor in making not only CMw/D
awards but also CM and IMM awards.
(1) The Exceptional Service Emblem in the event of death or
injury . . . "in the performance of hazardous duties or
as a result of actions by forces or persons hostile or
unfriendly to the United States."
(2) A certificate of Exceptional Service " . . . for effective
performance of duty while serving under conditions of
hazard or extreme hardship."
25X1
25X1
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-0078OR002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/ eftff 84-00780R002100180020-0
While these two awards are not alternatives for valor awards (i.e.,
heroism or outstanding acts of achievement under hazardous conditions)
they provide a means of recognition which was previously possible only
by extending the use of the merit awards. Consequent to establishing
the service awards, the element of valor was withdrawn in the revised
definition of the CMw/D in the 1966 regulation.
12. Over the years some Board members have expressed concern that
the highest of the two valor awards, the Distinguished Intelligence
Cross, has never been awarded despite the fact that Agency employees
had been in military crises as serious as any they might presumably
face. Failure to award the DIC, it was felt, had meant in practice
.that the Agency had compressed all recognition of valor per se into
one medal, the Intelligence Star, and. thus had not distinguished between
acts of valor. Some have argued that the standards set for the DIC
should be lowered.or that it should be abolished. Others have argued
that another valor award with less stringent requirements should be
created, either retaining the DIC or eliminating it. Nonetheless, the
view has prevailed that the two medals are sufficient to cover all
cases where valor awards are appropriate: the DIC as the Agency's
supreme recognition for heroism; and the Intelligence Star, which was
liberalized in the 1966 definition by replacing the term "heroism"
with "acts of courage performed with distinction under hazardous con-
ditions . . . (or at) grave personal risk." Cases in which merit is
predominant but valor is also present can be handled, it is believed,
by bestowing a merit award and an exceptional service award.
13. Board practice also showed a distinct trend away from attach-
ing money to honor awards. In the first three years after the CMw/D was
created, money was given with every award (a total of 38). In the next
three calendar years, 1962-1964, the proportion of CMw/D's to which money
was attached decreased, respectively, as follows: 70%, 47% and 11%.
Money was given with every CM awarded during the first six years (80)
but decreased to 75% of the awards in each of the succeeding three
calendar years 1962-1964. By FY 1966 emoluments had become the
exception. For the Certificate of Merit only four out of the 29.
awarded carried money grants. In the case of the Certificate of Merit
with Distinction, only five out of the 48 had emoluments attached.
14. Even with the substantial decrease in the practice of awarding
money with the two merit certificates, the final decision to eliminate
emoluments from the honor awards program did not come easily. A variety
of formulas was proposed, the practices of other organizations were
observed, and the relationship between honorary and monetary recognition
was debated. No one principle serves to determine whether an honorary
award carries any less prestige because an emolument is involved. This
is a value judgment or a philosophical problem. In this instance, several
factors led to the decision to withdraw emoluments from honor awards, for
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-00780R002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/ft ft R84-00780R002100180020-0
example, the availability of other means of granting monetary rewards
(e.g., promotions, Quality Step Increases, suggestion and invention
awards); and concern that competition for "bonuses" would develop and,
inter alia, reflect adversely upon those making the decisions as to
who should be given awards. But the driving force behind the decision
appears in large part to have been the firm conviction that the prestige
of meritorious service was best expressed by conferring honor alone.
15. The other addition (as opposed to change) made to the awards
system by the Board in the revised regulation was in the field of
service awards. Two retirement awards were created: a bronze emblem
to represent 15 years of service, and a silver emblem to represent 25
or more years (or service since the Agency was founded until such time
as the Agency is 25 years old). These service awards also fill what
could have been considered a gap In the program, namely, recognition
for those for whom no performance award had been appropriate throughout
their careers, but for whom some tangible expression of appreciation is
desired.
C. Public Service Awards
1. In the first half of the 1950's some members of the Career
Council who were responsible for the Agency's internal award program
believed that it might be feasible and desirable to nominate employees
for certain private and quasi-governmental public awards. At that time
the Agency took the position that security considerations, inter alia,
precluded participation in any public recognition program.
2. In June 1956 General Cabell, then DDCI, wrote to the Chairman
of the Career Council as follows:
"In view of our objective to attract and retain the
best qualified personnel available for work with the
Agency . . . the policy stated above should be re-examined
. there may be deserving Agency employees (particularly
in the DD/I and the DDS components) who, within the appro-
priate standards of security, could and should be nominated
. In addition to the positive morale benefits that may
be realized . . . there is also a certain prestige that
the Agency would derive from awards to our personnel."
He concluded by asking the Council to consider the problem, seek the
advice of the Office of Security, and make recommendations to him.
3. The Director of Personnel, Gordon Stewart, forwarded the
Council's recommendations, with the concurrence of the Deputy Directors
and the Office of Security, to General Cabell in 1957. The lapse of one
year between the D/DCI's request and the Council's response is a measure
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-00780R002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/2 j - P84-00780R002100180020-0
of the conflicting judgments which had existed from the beginning over
the advisability of Agency participation in public recognition programs.
Some felt then and continue to believe that the restrictions dictated by
security could cause internal problems, e.g., of employee morale among
those who were necessarily excluded from consideration. Further, some
believed that the Agency's own awards system was ..'equate for morale
purposes.
4. The .DDCI concurred in the Council's proposals for partici-
pating in four programs and establishing general principles related to
security, protecting the future careers of employees, and excluding
certain categories of employees. Under these proposals the Career
Council, with the Director of Personnel as Chairman, assumed respon-
sibility for screening nominations. There was little activity during
the first years until the program was stimulated by the first success-
ful nomination: Lyman Kirkpatrick received one of the ten Career
Service Awards given by the National Civil Service League in 1960.
5. Responsibility for the program shifted from the Career Council
to the Personnel Advisory Board, and the Office of Personnel directed
its attention to the problem of stimulating interest among the several
components. But the program limped along for the next few years; personal
appeals were made to Deputy Directors and heads of independent offices
for nominations; attempts were made by the members of the Office of
Personnel to suggest candidates (e.g., from among recipients of Agency
awards); and last-minute efforts were required to prepare appropriate
recommendations for nominations to the sponsoring organization.
6. Public Service Awards appeared in the regulations for the first
time in the March 1962 revision of described the 25X1
practices of the Agency and listed the five programs in which it partici-
pated, as follows:
National Civil Service League Career Service Awards:
(Minimum of ten years of Federal service, including military).
Arthus S. Flemming Awards
(under 40 years of age; administrative, scientific and
technical fields).
William A. Jump Memorial Awards
(under 37 years of age with considerable service in public
administration).
Rockefeller Award
(between 45 and 60 years of age with a minimum of 15 years
of Federal government employment in administration, foreign
affairs or international operations, and science, technology
or engineer as three out of the five categories pertaining
to Agency functions).
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-0078OR002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/ EIk- 9P84-00780R002100180020-0
Federal Woman's Award
(GS-9 or above; contribution to Federal career service,
to publicize the wide variety of careers for women in
Government).
7. A more formally organized program began to take shape in 1962
when the DDS and the Director of Personnel pinpointed several weaknesses
in the program which appeared to be susceptible to administrative correc-
tion. Experience during the previous two years had shown that notices
requesting nominations failed to filter down below heads of Career Services,
that knowledge of the program was not widespread, and that consideration
of candidates for more than one award was not adequately coordinated.
8. More effective procedures for obtaining and processing nomina-
tions were instituted in 1963. While the response from components was
still weak in 1964 and 1965, the hit-or-miss basis of nominating employees
which has obtained previously was diminished. I I"Public Service 25X1
Awards," published 3 August 1965, drew together information about the
award program which had been presented in less official documents in
previous years and described nine private and quasi-governmental awards
for which the Agency accepted invitations. In June 1966 the Office of
Personnel published a supplement to itsi also entitled "Public 25X1
Service Awards," which outlined the nature and requirements for eight
awards,* listed Agency employees who had been nominated since 1960, and
identified the 1966 winn of the awards by position and parent organ-
ization. Revised of June 1966 deleted the listing of specific
awards within the u c 3ervice Awards program.
9. Since 1960 when the program really became active, CIA has made
28 nominations, and of these 14 Agency employees have received awards.
In FY 1967 the program began to operate successfully for the first time.
By August 1966 the Office of Personnel had received nominations from
components for five of the eight awards for which invitations are custom-
arily received between October and spring. The business of making
selections, drafting citations and coordinating with the Office of
Security, and other thus proceeded in orderly fashion and without prob-
lems.
*The Rockefeller award, which has never been won by an Agency
employee, was not listed, but the Agency still accepts the invitation
to nominate. The other four, in addition to those listed on above are:
Federal Government Accountants Awards; National Capital Award (by young
professionals and architecture, engineering, and applied sciences);
Horace Hart Award (public service in Printing and Publishing); Paperwork
Management Award (effective management of paperwork in the Federal
Government).
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-00780R002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/ft6I - P84-00780R002100180020-0
D. Individual Programs
1. Public Law 83-763 urges the heads of departments and agencies
to develop programs which will contribute to the efficiency of Government
operations. Consequently, permits the creation of recog- 25X1
nition programs within any component upon the approval of the Director of
Personnel. The Studies in Intelligence Award of $400 given annually for
the most significant contribution to the literature of intelligence sub-
mitted for publication in the Studies is one of four such special programs.*
2. Two incentive programs are concerned with the morale of employees
who are in isolated areas, engaged in more or less routine, manual work
limited in salary potential, and who are in situations which do not lend
themselves to participation in the suggestion awards program, or any other
recognition program. These programs provide small bonuses to recognize
superior performance.
3. Sometime in 1960 the Director of Personnel (Gordon Stewart)
suggested that some kind of recognition program should be created at
here employees come under the Wage Board. The
I ea was rev vec In a e 1963 and a program was approved by the DCI.
Superior Performance awards consist of one
quarter y award an two annual awards of $100 to an employee and
his supervisor. The awards and the recognition extended in ceremonies
at the warehouse apparently are effective in establishing an esprit de
corps among these employees and an identification with the Agency.
4. In 1966 the head of A-uencv activitipc
25X1
ouper-Lor e w r s were given in March l9bb, eac
for $150. While the number is not limited in the authorization, it is
expected that some four to six will be given annually in the range of
$100 to $300. Funds for these special awards are budgeted, as are all
expenses for the Agency's awards programs, by the Office of Personnel.
As was the case this recognition seems to have been
effective in he ng ese employees (largely coming under the Wage
Board) to identify with the Agency with a consequent rise in morale.
5. The Office of Logistics makes awards for safe-driving records
(10 and 15 years) to Agency chauffeurs. Again, this tangible symbol
and the prestige conferred for superior performance is a matter of
satisfaction for these employees.
*See Appendix, Page i-7 for definition as printed in the publication.
- 14 -
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-0078OR002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/WKt 1 84-00780R002100180020-0
Late in. the course of this study the Recorder,
compiled a list of all recipients of awards from September 1947
through September 1966 by name, date, type of award, and awardee's
component. These data can be broken down in a machine run by type of
award or component, or by one within the other.* An earlier report by
the Office of Personnel covers the period CY 1954 through CY 1964 but
differs from the current listing which covers all awards given by the
Agency or received by Agency-connected personnel, i.e., including
military awards to personnel detailed to the Agency and non-Agency
government awards received by Agency personnel--which the earlier report
does not. However, the original report analyzes other factors, such as
year and retirement. Neither study contains data on the type of job
held by the awardee, GS grade, or whether the award was for performance
in the field or headquarters (or both). While these data are not
essential, they might bear upon certain questions about the distribution
of awards among components and types of awards. Some consideration
might be given to recording such additional factors in the future.
25X1
Even though certain adjustments can be made, such as updating the
original study with the two subsequent annual reports on awards, the
totals of the two compilations cannot be made comparable. The original
report, plus the two subsequent annual reports by fiscal year cause
figures for the second. half of 1964 to be entered twice in finished data.
Further, the current listing includes awards for the first quarter of
FY 1968. The higher figure for the original supplemented study--i.e.,
approximately 677 against some 651 (excluding non-Agency recipients and
awards) in the current compilation--seems to be accounted for largely
in double counting of awards in the two certificates. Nonetheless, data
from the original report provide interesting information, and, with
proper qualification, have been drawn upon to a substantial degree in
this study.
A. Incidence Compared with Other U.S. Agencies and Departments
1. Comparatively few awards were made during the first five years
after the Agency's formal honors program was established, namely:
starting with the first year of operation in Cy 1954 and running through
Cy 1958 the total figures were 5, 3, 30, 29 and 14, respectively. In CY
1959, after both certificate awards had been added to the four medals,
the number more than doubled that of any previous year to 64, but decreased
to 46 in CY 1960 and 1961. For the next four years (Cl 1962 through
*See Table 1 in Appendices, page 41
- 15 -
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-00780R002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/ ,.e1itl, fIP84-0078OR002100180020-0
1964 and FY 1965) the number of awards made yearly stabilized in the
70's (i.e., 76, 73) 77 and 78, respectively). By eliminating from
consideration those awards given in FY 1966 in conjunction with the
Dominican Republic and Vietnam crises, which skewed the total for the
year to 122 awards, the remaining 72 awards continued this pattern.*
(See Table 2 in the Appendices.)
2. The Office of Personnel compared the number of awards per
100 employees made by CIA for FY 1962 through 1964 with data compiled
by the Civil Service Commission for Federal agencies with similar
programs. (See Table below.) The average number of awards per 100
employees for the latter agencies was 3.3, 3.5 and 2.9 for the respec-
tive years; the comparable figures for CIA were 0.4, 0.5 and 0.4, or
roughly one to six or seven for the average of the Federal agencies.
Since CIA has given relatively the same total number of awards for the
past five years, it might reasonably be assumed the same relation to
other organizational award programs persists.
SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE AWARDS PER 100 EMPLOYEES**
FOR TEN U.S. AGENCIES FOR FYs 1962,
1963, and 1964
Agency
FY 1962
FY 1963 FY 1964
Government-wide (all agencies) 3.3
305 209
Highest Agency (over 2,000 emp.) 8.6(Sel.S.)***
10.4(Sel.S.)*** 8.9(Sel.S.)* *
Lowest Agency
(over 2,000 emp.)
0.1(ICC)
Oo0(ICC)
0.0(ICC)
State
0.9
1.3
1..0
Defense
4.5
409
3.5
AEC
2.5
1.6
1.4
AID
106
1.2
2-7
CIA
C.4
0- 5
0.4
3. One factor affecting the incidence of awards is retirement.
The report on other government programs does not indicate what proportion
of awards was made in conjunction with retirement. But, given the
American tradition of making awards to retirees on the one hand, and the
age of the Agency on the other, part of the difference in the number of
*The 'Y 5 total was not substantially effected by awards connected
with these crises.
**The study embraced all six of the Agency's honor and merit awards
and their counterparts in the other agencies.
***Selective Service System.
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-0078OR002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/2?R l f 84-00780R002100180020-0
awards per 100 employees might be attributed to this factor. The Agency
was not in a position to consider service retirement awards until recently.
4. While a comparison of the number of Agency honor awards with those
of other U.S. agencies is of interest, no single principle can be applied
to determine the most desirable ratio. Nor is there any valid reason why
CIA's practice should necessarily conform to that of any other government
organization. Missions, types of work, and general climate, all factors
which bear upon formal recognition systems, vary from agency to agency.
Further, philosophies about formal honor programs vary. These range
from a belief in high, not to say exceptional, standards to maintain
prestige in the awards, to a preference for less stringent requirements
so that awards can be extended to a greater number of persons as testi-
mony to loyalty and commendatory performance.
5. The Planning Staff of the Office of Personnel concluded its
analysis of awards made under the program through CY 1964 with the
following statement:
"Notwithstanding a liberal, well conceived, and broadly
based Honor and Merit Awards program, CIA appears to dis-
pense its formal emblems of recognition with an exceedingly
sparing hand."
HMAB minutes show that while the original program of four medals was
intended to be selective, the second merit medal (the 1141) in particular
was not given as frequently as had been expected. Further, there were
fewer occasions to make valor awards (the highest one, the Distinguished
Intelligence Cross, has never been given) than was assumed when these
awards were established. The two merit certificates were ;itroduced
with the explicit intent of extending honorary recognitior:'.n the Agency.
The Certificate of Merit was particularly designed for personnel in
lower grades whose functions do not lend themselves to outstandingly
significant contributions.
6. In its study of the Office of Personnel in 1964, the Inspector
General suggested that the Honor and Merit Awards program might be under-
used as a recognition and incentive tool. The Director of Personnel
agreed that "this program could be used more than it has in the past."
He further indicated that procedures were being instituted to educate
senior and middle managers to appreciate the scope of the program in
an effort to have it used more fully.
7. Board members are inclined to agree that the program could be
used more extensively; but this does not seem to be synonymous with
any desire on their part to increase the number of merit awards appre-
ciably. The Board has tended to expand the system in the service
categories, and precedent has placed a high value on performance awards.
If this is the philosophy governing the Agency's award system, and it is
adhered to, then the only relevant question would relate to equity in
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-0078OR002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/2ftetiff 84-0078OR002100180020-0
dispensing awards. That is, is every employee who might be qualified
for an award given equal consideration? The answer to this question
rests in comparing the degree and nature of attention given by different
components to recommending employees for awards.* To increase the
number of awards for the sake of increase would be a barren exercise
and one possibly counterproductive to the functions of an award system.
The Board has partially taken care of what may have been considered
underuse of awards by introducing service awards.
B. Type and Level of Awards
1. The second major observation made by the Planning Staff of the
Office of Personnel as a result of its study of the distribution of
awards (CY 195+ - 196+) was:
"The important gradations that ought to differentiate
the successive levels of recognition in any awards program
have not always been evident in the administration of CIA's
Honor and Merit Awards program."
Such a conclusion assumes that the number of awards should vary inversely
with their level. It also assumes that opportunities for meritorious
performance exist in the same roughly comparable ratio throughout the
larger population of employees as they do, for example, among those in
higher grades or in selected positions. These assumptions beg the
question of the underlying philosophy which may determine the shape of
a recognition system.
2. In expanding upon its observations the Staff said:
". . Logically, one would expect a chart of such awards
to follow a pyramidal shape, with a very small number of
DIM's at the pinnacle, more IMM's at the next level down,
still more CMw/D's below, and a far larger number of CM's
at the base. But this is not our record. During each of
the last 3 years [962-196.7 for example, our lowest service
award -- the Certificate of Merit -- was awarded less
frequently than the prestigious Intelligence Medal of
Merit! As a matter of fact, in the 10 years since it
was established, the CM has been awarded a total of 128
times against 143 ZS_i iMM's during the same period."
*See "Nominating Procedures" pa{des 32-33.
The table shows 14-6.
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-0078OR002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/22EI8il 84-00780R002100180020-0
However, when the base year used is CY 1959 (when both CM's and CMw/D's
were being awarded) there were more CM's (114) than IMM's (103) awarded
through CY 1964.
3. In each of the last four years (1963-1966) more CMw/D's than
IMM's have been awarded. However, if those awarded in conjunction with
the crisis areas for FY 1966 are excluded, an equal number (27) of each
award was given in this year. In the same period, fewer CM's were
awarded than either CMw/D's or IMM's. Excluding awards for performance
in the Dominican Republic and Vietnam, CM's accounted for only 10.2% and
14% of all awards in FY 1965 and FY 1966 respectively; at the same time
CMw/D's accounted for 1+2.2% and 38% respectively. The total number of
the three lower merit awards given during the past four years was as
follows:
Number of CM's, CMw/D's and IMM's Given for
Calendar Years 1.963 and 1964 and Fiscal Years
Year
cY 1963
cY 1964
FY 1965
FY 1966
1965 and 1966
CM
CMw/D
IMM
12
30
13
19
27
24
8
33
26
29
48
33
70
138
96
4. The CM was created in 1956 to recognize employees in lower
grades (GS-9 and below according to the Recorder) for sustained superior
performance. When it was not used to the extent anticipated, the CMw/D
was inserted in the program in 1959 above the CM. Since that time the
CMw/D has increased its spread over the IMM and even more significantly
over the CM. LSee Table 3 in the Appendices for the number of awards
and their respective percentage of the totals for CY 1959-1964, FY 1965
and FY 1966 (with and without Dominican Republic and Vietnam awards.
1. The same report made by the Planning Staff of the Office of
Personnel in 1965, makes the following observation:
"Eleven years ago CIA authorized two awards for valor --
the Distinguished Intelligence Cross for voluntary acts
of heroism involving conspicuous fortitude, and the
Intelligence Star for acts of heroism performed with praise-
worthy fortitude. Since that time hundreds of our people
Total
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-0078OR002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/2?pft 84-00780R002100180020-0
have exposed themselved to hardship and danger in line of
duty -- in Laos, Viet Nam, Cuba, the Congo, and elsewhere.
Some have died. But not one has received a DIC because,
so far, we have made its standards unattainable. We have
-- unnecessarily -- compressed our recognition for heroism
into the single mold provided by the Intelligence Star."
2. In the eleven-year period covered by the report the 34
Intelligence Stars awarded comprised a little over seven per cent of
all honors awarded. Nine more Stars were awarded in the next two years,
or 4.5% of the total for that period. The only relevant question, how-
ever, is not the proportion of valor awards made in the total, since
opportunities for such performance are in many ways sporadic as well
as rare, but whether the honors program provides adequate awards to
honor those who have displayed valor.
3. Even at the time the Staff made its observation the CMw/D
(created in 1958) also recognized valor in this, otherwise, merit award.
The CMw/D definition included the clause
II
. . . for superior performance or service under unusual
conditions, including acceptance of hazardous situations. . ."
In an effort to determine the single factor which predominated in the
decision to make an award, the Personnel Staff studied a sample of 248
out of the total of some 463 awards made through CY 1964. In the sample
of 91 CMw/D's (80% of the total 115) awarded, the Staff ascribed the
award to valor (three for heroism and 17 for hazard) in 20 cases.
Further, seven IMM's and ten CM's, out of smaller samples, were ascribed
to valor.
4. Two developments culminating in 1966 have changed the situation
for valor awards. While the Board has retained the Distinguished.
Intelligence Cross as originally created, it ias redefined the Intelligence
Star to remove the restricting term heroism and extend its scope to cover
valorous conduct as follows:
". . acts of courage. . .under hazardous conditions, or
for outstanding achievements or services rendered with
distinction under conditions of grave personal risk."
The same June 1966 revision lincludes two new awards for 25X1
those serving "under conditions of hazard or extreme hardship." In
practice the Board can bestow a service award to recognize hazardous
duties together with a merit award for exceptional performance. If
these service awards had been available earlier, some of the confusion
and delay which attended consideration of recommendations for personnel
who served in the Dominican Republic and Vietnam would have been avoided..
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-0078OR002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/22EOi 1 84-0078OR002100180020-0
In summary then, the Star did not in 1964 and does not now necessarily
'fcompress our recognition for heroism into (a) single mold. ."
5. If the highest valor award is intended to be comparable to its
counterparts in military agencies.- which i.t.is in definition,, there
would seem to be no reason. to remove it from our. system simply because
it has not yet been bestowed. Senior officers have. recommended the DIC
several times but the.Star..has been awarded as a more appropriate form
of recognition for the occasion. The view has been maintained that the
Cross should be retained in order that unique acts of heroism may be
properly recognized if and when they should occur.
6. The only question, then, would seem to be whether a third valor
award for performance should be created. The judgment of Board members
throughout the years has vacillated to the extent noted above, that is
by inserting an element of valor in a number of merit awards.* But
the balance has swung, probably weighted by the availability of service
awards for hazardous service, in favor of maintaining the Star as the
major award to recognize valor and against creating fine shadings in
this field. There seems to be no valid reason at this time for not
resting with the possible combination of the Exceptional Service awards
and a merit award for other cases.
D. Awards by Component
1. The Planning Staff study made the following statement on the
distribution of awards (CY 1954 through 1964) among major components:
"in terms of Career Service affiliation, DD/P
members have reaped the lion's share of
Intelligence Stars (71 per cent) and DIM's
(62 per cent)."
This skew appears again in FY 1966 awards** when four of the eight DIM's
were awarded. in Clandestine Services and the four Intelligence Stars
went to the same Component. However, the skew for FY 1966 is largely
in connection with awards for performance in the two crisis areas (see
Table 4 in the Appendices).
2. To place figures for the first 11 years (1954-1964)in perspective
it. should be noted that the two highest awards accounted for only 16%
of the. total of 463 awards: 34 IS's (7.3%) and 41 DIM's (8.7%). Since
the Clandestine Services commands the major action element of the Agency,
*See page 10 under History.
**Comparable figures were not broken out for FY 1965.
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-0078OR002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/2, Ee-1jkff84-0078OR002100180020-0
it is logical that his personnel, who are probably more frequently in
hazardous situations, will receive most of the Intelligence Stars.
Also, 18 out of the total of 40 DIM's were awarded at the time of the
retirement (or resignation or death) of the recipient. While retirement
figures were not broken down by Directorate, this factor could account
in part for the skewed distribution. It is perhaps even more important
to note, with regard to all awards, that the Board does not initiate
recommendations to the DCI: it only acts upon recommendations made to
it by employees throughout the Agency, and these come largely from
senior officers.
3. While the Clandestine Services also accounts for more IMM's than
any other, the difference is not as great, namely: 36% of the IMM's
during the first 11 years went to the Clandestine Services and 44% during
FY 1966 (excluding the crisis connected awards). At the same time,
Support personnel received 29% of all IMM's for the 11-year period and
30% of the comparable FY 1966 awards*
4. The position of the Clandestine Services shifts to second place
in the distribution of CMw/D's. In the first 11-year period, the
Intelligence Directorate took.40% of the CMw/D awards, Clandestine
Services followed with 31% and Support next with 26%. In FY 1966
(discounting the crisis connected awards), the Support Services took
37% of the CMw/D awards, and the Intelligence Directorate and Clandestine
Services each took 22%.
5. Distribution of the CM awards for the first 11 years shows the
Intelligence Directorate in the dominant position (41%), followed by
Support (31%), with. Clandestine Services in third position (25%). When
the crisis-related awards are discounted in FY 1966 (their presence in
every instance skews the pattern to place Clandestine Services awardees
at the head of the list), Intelligence personnel received 60% and the
balance went to those in Clandestine Services.
6. The original study covering the first 11 years of the program
shows that Clandestine Services personnel received 8% more merit and
honor awards than the next highest, the Intelligence Directorate (37%
and 29%,respectively, with the Support Services receiving 25%). The
material compiled for the current machine run (see Table 1), which
covers the entire period of the awards program, shows (excluding non-
Agency awards) that the gap widened: of the total of some 651 merit
and honor awards, Clandestine Services personnel received approximately
*See Table 5. for percentage distribution of the three merit awards
among components, 1954-1964 and FY 1966 with and without Dominican
Republic and Vietnam awards. Also Table 1 for gross figures on all
awards by component.
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-0078OR002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/1E j ! 84-00780R002100180020-0
43%, Intelligence 26%, and Support 22%. The Science and Technology
Directorate, a more recent entry, claimed some 5%, and DCI personnel,
relatively few in number,. took some 3%.*
7. Two inflexible variables which have not been taken into
account in comparing the distribution of awards among directorates
are: the number of personnel in each, which would give a base for
comparison, all other things being equal; and the nature of functions
in the various directorates. It is understandable that personnel in
the Clandestine Services, Support, and perhaps the Science and Technology
Directorates, are more often than. Intelligence Directorate personnel in
overseas situations where the "opportunity" for valor is present. Opera-
tional activities of these three components also may lend themselves
more often to performance of a distinctive nature -- at least to a more
observable, definable, and perhaps more dramatic form of activity.
The nature of work in the Intelligence Directorate lends itself to
certain other opportunities for distinctive work which can be measured
(e.g., successful projections from analysis, discovery of significant
situations). It is not only possible but probable that the work of
many offices, even within the Clandestine Services (for example admin-
istration, support, reports), is so routine as to make distinctive
performance less possible.
8. A third variable is flexible, namely, the procedure for
spotting meritorious service and recommending personnel to the HMAB
for honors recognition. If there is a weakness in the total system --
given a philosophy of honoring only exceptionally meritorious -- per-
formance it is here and not in the construction of the awards program
as it stands in the 1966 revision. Because there has been some feeling
that the Clandestine Services is reaping the "lion's share" of awards,
it has been suggested that officers in this component exercise caution
in recommending their personnel. But., there is no limit to the number
of awards which can be made, and awards result from recommendations
made largely from within each component. There is nothing in the record
to suggest that the Board's actions are biased in any way. Every case
of acceptance, rejection (exceedingly rare), or determination to increase
or decrease the level of the award has been based on the merits of the
case itself.
*Some awardees have been assigned to the Clandestine Services in
error. Records sometimes showed the area in which the person had served
rather than his career service (i.e., in FE rather than specifying
Support or Clandestine Services), The percentage assigned to the
Clandestine Services is thus overweighted.
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-00780R002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/2 ft ff 84-00780R002100180020-0
E. Retirement, Resignation or Death
1. The study made by the Planning Staff of the Office of Personnel
makes the following summary statement with regard to the number of awards
made at the time of separation from the Agency for the nine-year period
CY 1956 through 19640
"A very significant proportion of all CIA awards (45 per
cent of DIM's and 34 per cent of IMM's, for example). have
gone to employees at the time of -- or in connection with
-- their resignation, retirement or death."
The number of all awards made in conjunction with retirement 'ee Table C,
beloJ ranges from 11% in 1959 to 49% in 1963. (a unique year); the median
average for the nine-year period was 20%.
Awards Approved at Time of or in Connection with
Resignation, retirement, or Death of Recipient
by Year and Component
Number and Percentage, CY.1954 - 1964
DIM IMM CMw/D CM TOTAL
Year No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent
1954 -
-
1955 -
-
1956 5 .31. 5
19
1957 2 33 3 18 5
17
1958 1 100 3 43 4
29
1959 1 25 4 24 2 10 7
12.
1960 1 33 4 33 1 11 3 14 9
20
1961 2 100 7 64 1 .11 2 8 .12
26
1962 7 100 9 35 2 10 18
26
1963 3 75 8 62 14 47 4 33 '29
49
1964 1 50 7 29 4 15 1 5 13
18
2. There is not a perfect relationship between the level of the
award and retirement but the higher awards are given more often at this
point.* The highest merit award,. the DIM, has been given most frequently
upon retirement (with a range of 25% to 100% annually); the second highest
award, the IMM, is next most frequently given at this time (range of 18%
to 64%); the.CMw/D follows (ranges from 10% to 15%.except for 47% in the
unique CY 1963(;. and the lowest award, the CM, is least frequently given
at retirement (ranges from.0%0 to 14% for six years with 33% in the unique
CY 1963).
*This factor has not been recorded for the last two years.
- 24 -
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-00780R002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/2 Eelik1f 84-0078OR002100180020-0
3. It is logical that recipients of medals in senior positions
receive awards upon retirement in recognition of distinguished careers.
Although the record has not been checked, it appears that some of the
heads of career services and independent offices who have retired or
resigned have been awarded the DIM or the IMM upon retirement. Policy
now evolving will have to determine whether, as the number of retirees
in the Agency as a whole increases,-a larger number of certificates
will be awarded upon this occasion, or whether the new service retire-
ment emblem will be considered more appropriate.
4. A chart published in the Personnel Study covering the 11-year
period through CY 196+ for all awards by component at the time of
retirement* shows the following:
DCI
11 out of 17,
or some
65%
DDI
37 out of 136,
or 27%
DDS
.26 out of 115,
or some
23%
DDP
25 out of 170,
or some
15%
DDS&T
3 out of 21,
or some
13%
These figures suggest that the Intelligence and Support Directorates may
use retirement as a propitious time to bestow awards more often than
Clandestine Services. These two Directorates also tend to confer more
certificate awards. This leads to the further possibility that they
tend to view more functions performed by their personnel as subject to
special recognition on.the basis of continuous performance rather than
on single outstanding accomplishments.
*Includes retirement, resignation and death.
-25-
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-0078OR002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04I 9 P84-00780R002100180020-0
A. Introduction
1. The Office of Personnel has been responsible for administering
all of the Agency's awards programs since 1961 when the Office'of
Management, which had had authority for the incentive program from 1956,
was dissolved. The Director of Personnel is permanent voting chairman
of the two appointive bodies authorized to make or recommend awards to
higher authority and to develop policy. The Benefits and Services
Division (BSD) provides the administrative support, and full-time
executive secretaries for the Honor and Merit Awards Board and the
Suggestion Awards Committee are personnel of its Incentive Awards
Branch. The BSD is also responsible for administering the Public
Service Awards program which the Office of Personnel coordinates
directly with Agency components.
2. The formal organization for the honors programs is logically
anchored in the Office of Personnel, whose official functions coincide
with the objectives of a performance and service recognition program.
Similarly, it was logical to anchor the suggestion awards program in
the Office of Management: its official functions included stimulating
employees to seek office improvements in efficient work methods and
techniques. With the demise of the management staff, the logical suc-
cessor was the Office of Personnel under the Directorate for Support:
its normal duties encompass some of the objectives of the incentive
program (e.g., morale) even though it is not directly concerned with
management methods, techniques or procedures.
3. In the last analysis the prestige of honors awarded depends
upon senior officials throughout an organization. Their attitude
establishes the value of the recognition they seek for others, and
their actions generate the traditions of the honors system in deter-
mining who is to be formally honored for what.
4. The character and vitality of an honors program, on the other
hand, is determined largely by the formal organization which guides and
administers it. Efficient administration is necessary, and this has
been present in full measure. But the real life of the program depends
upon the ability of those in the formal organization -- in this case
the Office of Personnel in tandem with the Honor and Merit Awards
Board -- to engage the serious interest of responsible officers through-
out the Agency.
5. The careful development of the awards programs to now cover
all major areas, where special recognition is deemed appropriate, is a
tribute to those who have been formally charged with its administration.
A good deal of credit for the guiding philosophy belongs to the Recorder,
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-00780R002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04ft5jP84-00780R002100180020-0
1whose expert knowledge has been drawn upon for
.some ,years by .oars to differentiate between types and levels of
awards and their, appropriate use. But the credit for maintaining the
tone of the honor program is shared by all. those who have been associated
with the formal. organization and. have given it their serious attention.
it is. one thing to carry on traditions already. established, but it is
quite another to create a system for an.institutionwhich by its.very
nature usually evolves along with the life of the organization.
6. Decisions have been made on many major factors governing the
.honors program,.e.g., in eliminating emoluments, and in maintaining
only two valor medals while establishing service emblems for hazardous
duty. Practice to date has been eclectic,, but there area few areas in
which philosophy governing the program has not clearly evolved,. for.
example with regard to.: the level of performance to which the second
of the two. certificates should be extended; the conferring of performance
awards upon.retirees, and the general practice of participatingin
public service award.programs . These will be touched upon in ,the
sections 'below.
B. Honor and Merit. Awards Board
1. The Honor and Merit Awards Board.(HMAB), as presently constituted
and operating, handles. its case load and policy questions in biweekly
meetings with occasional special sessions. All material normally needed
to judge cases is in the hands of Board members several days before
scheduled meetings,-and the Board's time is further used economically
because the Recorder and the Chairman submit drafts. on substantive
issues for consideration before meetings. The quorum necessary to
conduct business is,largely guaranteed by the appointment of alternates
(who also receive all agenda. material) for each of the six voting
members* and,they often participate in the work. of the Board.. Any over-
all increase, of workload could be handled by incAasing the number of
regular meetings which. could be borne in part by the alternates if
necessary.
2. Tenure. Under the original regulation members were appointed
.for one.fi al year, with. reappointment permitted. There has usually
been some carry-over of membership, but the turnover has been relatively
high in recent years. The 1966 revised regulation now sets no time
limit on appointments. Headquarters Notices announce the: Board member-
ship as "dotil further notice", thus also avoiding a previous weakness
through which the.term of one Board could lapse before a new one had
*One representative for the DD/S, DD/I, - DD/P,. DDS&T, and DCI's
Office, and the Director of Personnel.
27 -
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-00780R002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/e1p-P84-00780R002100180020-0
been appointed. In a further step particularly intended to keep members
well oriented to the Board's responsibilities, a "Portfolio" was pre-
pared to provide basic documents on the Board's functions, reports on
the distribution of awards, and case studies of awards (i.e., formal
recommendations from the sponsoring official, profile of the nominees,
and types of awards approved).
3. An experienced membership is a requisite in any field which
depends upon familiarity with an established philosophy and involves
comparative judgments. Therefore it is hoped that the regulation will
establish longer continuity of service for Board members. Accumulated
experience in handling security problems of the awards program is equally
important. .(Recommendation 5 on Security Adviser is under Sec. C,
page 36.)
4. Policy Decisions. The major policy decisions represented in
the 1966 comprehensive honors program testify to the effective work of
the Board over the years. Some policy questions are currently being
worked upon and others will undoubtedly arise in time; but no new major
questions are anticipated in the near future.
5. Two proposals for new awards during FY 1966 did not seem to
place an undue burden on the Board in spite of the higher than average
case load with which it was confronted because of the Vietnam situation.
ee Table 4 in Appendices]. Decisions on many recommendations for
Vietnam awards were considerably. delayed because the system at that
time did not contain hazardous service awards and proposals by other
agencies similarly affected were being considered. These cases were
further complicated by lack of clarity as to whether they were based
on performance over a longer period of solely on the hazardous service
crisis in Vietnam.
6. Both proposals involving policy decisions were rejected. A
unit award to recognize equally all individuals engaged in a common
group effort had been considered and rejected two years previously.
In the Dominican Republic situation, which gave rise to the suggestion,
the Board noted that 21 of the 44 persons involved had already been
given individual honor awards and that other means of recognition for
the others were available, e.g., the Quality Step Increase commendation,
and now the Exceptional Service award. The earlier position, was also
affirmed because on at least three occasions in FY 1966, i.e., group
developments in communications, weapons systems, and reports analysis,
the persons cited had been given individual awards, sometimes on
different levels. It was, therefore, determined that a unit award
"was neither necessary nor desirable," the former because the available
awards were adequate, and the latter because a unit award would be
inequitable. The Board accepted the principle that two persons rarely
perform identically in any situation. There is usually a leader who is
a focal or stimulating point.
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-0078OR002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 200310412g1 P f 84-00780R002100180020-0
7. The second suggestion made to the Board in Fl 1966 was to create
a special Agency award for non-CIA personnel serving on inter-agency com-
mittees (e.g., of USIB chaired by the Agency). After due consideration
the Board concluded that the Agency program did not properly lend itself
to this use but suggested two alternatives for the Executive Director-
Comptroller to consider, namely: a community intelligence decoration
suitable for both military and civilian personnel; or awards by each
agency to its own personnel assigned to such bodies. The latter proposal
is consistent with long-standing Agency practice: the Board has recom-
mended a total of some 40 such military awards to personnel detailed to
the Agency from the armed services. ee Table 6 in Appendices The
Mobilization and Military Personnel Division of the Office of Personnel
assures that appropriate recognition by their own services is recommended
for military personnel detailed to the Agency. This office keeps track
of the assignments of such personnel and acquaints their assigned offices,
when necessary, with military service awards practices.
8. Retirement Policy. The official decision with regard to retire-
ment awards-(i.e., service) was published in the FY 1966 regulation revision
as follows: "Honorable service terminating in retirement which meets the
criteria set forth below will be recognized by presentation of a CIA Retire-
ment Emblem." These criteria consist only of length of service, and the
Board assumed that the fact of retirement itself demonstrated that the
service had been "Honorable:' In fulfilling responsibilities placed
directly upon his office by the DCI, and in accord with the judgment of
the Executive Director-Comptroller, however, the Director of Personnel
found that there were unique cases in which the interests of the Agency
would not be served by automatically making such an award. When the Board
determined that retirement awards should be made retroactive, it was dis-
covered that a few personnel who had been allowed to "retire voluntarily"
would be included.
9. In discussing security problems, the Board reluctantly agreed
that the retirement emblem should not be conferred automatically on all
persons possessing the requisite number of years. Minutes for 29 November
1966 reflect the Board's thinking with respect to security aspects of all
awards, as follows:
"A discussion of this subject brought to light some
of the steps now being taken to make certain that the
prospective recipient of an Agency award, emblem, or
certificate possesses an untarnished background. In this
connection, DD/P representative7 proposed
that all hands be made aware of the fact that awards may
be withheld from those apparently eligible for them when
it has been determined by the Executive Director that it
is not in the best interests of the Agency to grant them."*
*For discussion of other security aspects, see Section C, "Security,"
especially pages 34-35.
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-0078OR002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release Vft%T 4-00780R002100180020-0
Later discussion of the security problems of service retirement awards
led to a determination of policy concurred in by the Executive Director-
Comptroller, namely: a determination of honorable status at the time of
retirement qualifies a retiree for an award, and a meticulous examination
of the entire work history of a proposed recipient is not necessary.
10. The list of recipients of merit medals suggests that most of
the senior officers who have retired from the Agency have received either
the DIM or the IMM. In general these awards are undoubtedly proper since
the selection of officers for the most responsible jobs in the Agency is
based upon careers which have demonstrated unusual capabilities and
performance. However, the attainment of high position does not nec-
essarily equate with performance which is, for purposes of formal
honorary recognition, supposed to be exceptionally distinguished. If
a pattern is set, e.g., of honoring senior officers upon retirement,
it would be difficult to diverge from it. It has become evident in
the course of this study that even one questionable honor award inclines
knowledgeable persons to become somewhat skeptical about the whole recog-
nition system. It is hoped that the Board can hew to its own principle
of objectivity based on performance criteria established for recommending
awards to the DCI -- at all levels.
11. It is believed that the increase in retirements in the next few
years may give rise to an increase in nominations for honor certificate
awards to retiring personnel. Presentation of nominations by sponsoring
officials vary in their impact and lead to the possibility that awards
will be unevenly distributed, especially should retirement come to be
looked upon in some areas as a propitious occasion for recognizing steady
but not necessarily outstanding contributions to the Agency. The need
for more definitive policy, especially for certificate awards, is becom-
ing increasingly apparent. See Recommendation Nos. 3 and 4, pages 33
and 34.7
12. Wearable Emblems. Lapel buttons for personnel who had received
certain Agency awards were considered by the Career Service Committee
Working Group on Honor Awards in 1952. The representative for the Office
of Security reported that it would be "impossible to authorize the wearing
of a distinguishing device that will associate the individual. with CIA."
The Board assumed, since the Office of Security did not object to wearable
emblems as part of an honor award, that the reservation was a matter of
degree rather than principle. Devices which did not identify the Agency
were available and the following action, as reported in the Group's
minutes of 19 July 1952, was taken:
"It is moved that the Working Group prepare a list
of various types of physical identification which would
indicate long service and that each type suggested be
rated by the Working Group in terms of effectiveness,
desirability and security."
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-00780R002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/29ha- I4-00780R002100180020-0
Several designs were prepared, but opinions remained divided about the
use of a wearable emblem and the proposal was abandoned.
13. The climate surrounding the custom of bestowing honor awards
has changed considerably in the last 15 years. General security prob-
lems related to the wearing of emblems by Agency personnel after they
retire appear to have been met, but special problems remain with
respect, for example, to a few personnel who serve in some deep cover
capacities throughout their careers or in their last years. Some now
believe that recipients of honor awards should, within the bounds of
security, have the opportunity to wear emblems after they retire. A
wearable emblem it is felt, is a status symbol which would increase
identification with the Agency and be a spur to morale.
It is recommended that: No. 1
a. The Director of Personnel direct the Recorder of
the Honor and Merit Awards Board to prepare a proposal for
appropriate emblems which could be worn after retirement
by recipients of honor awards;
b. The Board, after consideration of such a proposal,
present its opinion to the Executive Director-Comptroller.
14. Decisions and Appeals. Approximately 90% of the Board's recom-
mendations to the DCI in FY 1966 supported the proposal as submitted to
it by the sponsoring office. This high rate of acceptance results to
some extent from the fact that some officers consult Board members to
determine whether an award or the proposed level would be appropriate.
On such occasions the Recorder, and probably other members of the Board
have sometimes suggested that a written commendation or a Quality Step
Increase would be more appropriate. Component representatives on the
Board might encourage the practice of seeking advisory opinions, espe-
cially from lower initiating levels. A more likely explanation of the
high rate of affirmative action is the care with which sponsoring
officers appear to screen their nominees and the confidence placed in
their judgment by the Board.
15. Of the 122 awards approved in FY 1966, only one was rejected
as inappropriate and some 11 were changed by the Board from the recom-
mender's original proposal as follows: eight received lesser awards --
three from DIM to IMM, three from IMM to CMw/D, and two from CMw/D to
CM; and three cases received higher awards -- Intelligence Star to DIM,
CMw/D to Intelligence Star, and CM to CMw/D. In addition, after it was
decided to create the Exceptional Service awards, four cases recommended
for performance awards in connection with the Saigon bombing were shifted
to this category, to be conferred in FY 1967. Only two other awards
recommended by the same office were not made: these were withdrawn by
the originating office after the Board proposed a higher award in one
case, instead of the same level for each as originally recommended.
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-00780R002100180020-0
SECRET
 84-0078OR002100180020-0
Approved For Release 2003/04/ , E8 { PDP
16. Board minutes and observation at several meetings support the
conclusion that the HMAB has made adequate provision for discussing
cases, especially with originators, and for hearing appeals. In some
cases the Board may consider its adverse decision final and simply
report its action to the initiator -- as it did in one FY 1966 case
where it recommended a letter of appreciation as more appropriate in
view of the normal functions expected of the officer. In most instances,
however, it is willing to hear appeals which are usually brought to its
attention by the Recorder, or sometimes by the component's representa-
tive, who informs the originator of the action taken. The Board reversed
its own initial decision on several cases after hearing an appeal. It
is standard practice in more complex cases to invite the originating
office to brief the Board on details which cannot be included in the
formal recommendation, for example, in sophisticated scientific achieve-
ments and communications work. Aside from the unique situation of the
Saigon bombing, which took considerable time over a period of months in
discussing and redrafting numerous interrelated recommendations, the
Board has usually been able to decide cases at the same meeting in which
the additional information is made available to it,
17. The Board believes that the purpose of the recognition system
is best served by conferring the honor as soon as possible after the
meritorious action which has given rise to it. The Board's practice
in this respect is good: it usually acts upon recommendations within
two weeks of their receipt. When additional information is required,
action is not usually delayed more than another two weeks (the normal
period between Board meetings). The ceremony conferring the award takes
place as soon as those officiating can schedule it, invitations can be
extended, and the conferee can be present in headquarters. In general,
all of these procedures are very efficiently carried out.
18. Nominating Procedures. Knowledge about the honor awards
program seems reasonably widespread among senior officers, and com-
ponent representatives agree that the nominating system works satis-
factorily for the most part. Senior officials seem to be genuinely
interested in having their personnel recognized for meritorious service
and discuss this matter in their staff meetings. Below this level it
is possible that the responsibility for bringing meritorious service
to attention may not be exercised evenly throughout all elements of the
Agency. There is a noticeable absence of nominations from several
elements, but it is a moot question as to whether this results from a
lack of qualifying personnel.or failure to recognize or act upon
meritorious performance. Senior officials, absorbed in the complex
problems of their offices, cannot be expected to perceive more than
the dramatic or otherwise obvious contributions. Supervisors through-
out the organization should be made aware of their opportunity and
responsibility for stimulating proper recognition for meritorious
service by their personnel.
- 32 -
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-0078OR002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/2~VL 1 4-00780R002100180020-0
19. The concern expressed over the comparatively small proportion
of certificates awarded, and especially the Certificate of Merit, suggests
the possibility that some personnel engaged in the more routine aspects
of the Agency's work may be overlooked. Whether this is the case, or
these jobs seldom lend themselves to distinctive performance, or the
philosophy of the awards program largely excludes performance which is
simply "superior" within the job description, is a moot question. But,
even assuming a general agreement on what constitutes eligibility for
the CM, the question can still be asked as to whether this award is
being equitably conferred throughout all elements of the Agency.
20. In view of the reasonable doubt that criteria for the
Certificate of Merit are fully understood or evenly applied throughout
the several components,
It is recommended that: No. 2
The Director of Personnel have the Honor and Merit Awards
Board define the phrase "sustained superior performance" in
more definitive terms to clarify Certificate of Merit awards
and make them more consistent. An indication of grade levels,
if any, for this award would also be helpful.
When such decisions have been made,
a. Instruct the Honor and Merit Awards Board to develop
procedures whereby each member can inform all responsible
officers in his respective component about the honors program,
and especially the Certificate of Merit, so that honor and merit
awards will be conferred consistently throughout the Agency; and
b. Consult the Board on the feasibility of establishing a
procedure, through Personnel Officers throughout the Agency, to
alert the heads of major offices about cases where a cumulative
record of significant commendations and. achievements appears to
warrant consideration for recommending certificates or other
awards as appropriate.
21. No one of these recommendations is intended to suggest that
nominations for honor awards should be solicited. No material used in
this study lends itself to the conclusion that the total number of awards
being given by this Agency is inadequate per se. The single question
raised is whether awards are being given equitably, particularly the CM.
22. Publicity. There is no regular means for disseminating infor-
mation about the honor awards program. The regulation is available
to all and any reissue brings the subject to the attention of some per-
sonnel; senior officials bring it to attention in their staff meetings,
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : A-RDP84-00780R002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/2?84-00780R002100180020-0
but the extent to which this filters down through the ranks is uncertain,
and each awards ceremony and new awardee acquaints a few more people with
the program. With the exception of a statement printed in the program
of the Annual Awards Ceremony (for years of service) citing the total
number of awards made during the year, information about the program or
individuals honored in it is largely by word of mouth.
23. The creation of the new service awards will be publicized
according to the decision of the Board as stated in its minutes of
29 November 1966, namely:
"3. PUBLICATION OF AVAILABILITY OF EXCEPTIONAL SERVICE
EMBLEM AND CERTIFICATE OF EXCEPTIONAL SERVICE.
"The Board agreed that as soon as criteria have
been approved governing award of these devices, an
employee bulletin should be published advising all
individuals of their availability and of the pro-
cedures to follow in applying for them."
24. There seems to be little reason for holding many names of
awardees under a total security blanket. The very nature of a recogni-
tion program implies a reasonable awareness that honors have been con-
ferred upon employees.
It is recommended that:
The Director of Personnel direct the Honor and Merit
Awards Board to study the feasibility of publicizing awards
which have been made, and present their findings to the
Executive Director-Comptroller.
C. Security
1. When provision was made for a security adviser to the HMAB,
officials were concerned not only with the general problems in making
awards (e.g., compartmentation, need to know, retention of awards) but
with the possibility that an awardee might at some time embarrass the
Agency doubly by the fact that he had been so honored. To preclude this
possibility, which is still a concern, thorough name checks are conducted
for all those recommended for awards.
2. The purpose of security checks was raised in connection with
retirement service awards.* A searching discussion ensued as to whether
*See pages 29-30 for policy on retirement awards.
-34-
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-00780R002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/ MIHT 84-00780R002100180020-0
a person who had committed gross acts could have been retained by the
Agency to occupy a position in which he could later distinguish himself.
The fact was established that this had been possible in the past: a few
such cases had been "swept under the rug" and were recorded, for example,
only in old Inspection and Review files. Board members believe that the
possibility of such occurrences is largely a thing of the past; officers
today, they believe, are acquainted with the records of their personnel,
the administrative system is tightened up, and an individual with a
serious blemish on his record would be unlikely to be in a significant
position. If the need to reject a recommended award for such reason
should arise, the current practice seems appropriate. that is, of
treating it on a need-to-know basis between the Office of Security (i.e.,
Security Adviser to the Board), an officer of the Board, and the official
sponsoring the recommendation.
3. The present security adviser, construes his 25X1
major function to be with the security implications o conferring awards
and any attendant publicity. His office does check records on the
possibility that a unique flagrant case is involved; and the Office of
Personnel conducts checks through other appropriate offices.
4. The range of cases handled by the Board over the last few years --
including sensitive scientific developments, paramilitary operations, and
political operations -- has exposed the security adviser to most situations
likely to arise. He has outlined the security concerns for different
cases, for example: whether an award can be offered at all, i.e., to a
person under cover or about to go under cover; conferred on one serving
overseas; what briefing is needed for family members or colleagues, and
for the recipient himself; who may be invited to a ceremony and what may
be said there; whether the recipient may retain the award or must leave
it with the Agency for a specified period of time. In especially sensi-
tive operations, knowledge that an award has been made must be restricted,
e.g., to the DCI, the recipient and his chief at a private ceremony; in
others, an award cannot be conferred upon the individual for several years
because of his locus and lack of access to Agency officials.
5. The speed with which cases, are processed -- on occasion 25X1
has handled cases for public service awards while the secretary wai e
in his office -- is a tribute not only to his grasp of the total needs
of the security situation but to his methodical and efficient procedures.
While the honor award security concerns can now be handled largely with
form memoranda, recommendations for public service awards require indi-
vidual treatment in regard to security and editing of citations which
takes considerably more time. sees no problem for his office 25X1
in the coming year with the in ea a case load which the new retirement
and service awards will bring. His office processes thousands of cases
a year; responsibility for all honors awards constitutes only a small
part of this well-organized work.
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-00780R002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 200310412g1 P 184-00780R002100180020-0
6. has served the Board without the help of an alternate.
His assi his secretary are acquainted with the nature and pro-
cedures of this work, and his files contain a complete set of instructions
pertaining to every aspect of security which has arisen including form
letters to instruct recipients of various awards. The available instruc-
tions appear to cover almost every contingency. However, a second
security officer should have some direct experience in the deliberations
of the Board in order to provide full continuity of security support for
the awards program.
It is recommended that: No. 5
The Deputy Director for Support instruct the Director
of Security to appoint an alternate Security Adviser to the
Honor and Merit Awards Board.
D. The Office of Personnel
1. The effective execution of the total awards program is in no
small measure due to the system developed to administer it by responsi-
ble officials of the Office of Personnel.. Six personnel from this office
are assigned to the programs as follows: Executive secretaries for the
Honor and Merit Awards Board (HMAB) and the Suggestion Awards Committee
(SAC)(both in the Incentive Awards Branch) and their assistant and
secretary respectively; and the Public Service Awards officer in the
Benefits and Services Division (BSD) who with her secretarial help is
also responsible for Agency fund drives.
25X1
*Lists of personnel eligible for longevity and retirement awards, along
with other similar services, are processed in the office of the C/BSD.
- 36 -
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-00780R002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/2 Ik,P84-0078OR002100180020-0
for individual programs such as that recently developed 25X1
The work load for the Board involves processing several forms and
other papers for each nomination, disseminating and coordinating them
of a close time schedule, maintaining records on all cases, preparing
agenda, and arranging for ceremonies. The Annual Awards Ceremony
requires months of lead time to arrange the program and handle the
large number of participants directly involved.
4. Every two weeks the Board receives from the Executive Secretary's
office complete data on cases (i.e., nomination documents usually with
citations, authorizations, and background personnel data) which permit
immediate action. Each case is expedited from beginning to end --
testimony to the thorough, effective work done by this office.- Its
files and records are complete and in excellent order. Data is
immediately available for any type of analysis -- e.g., distribution
of cases, status at a given moment, time span in processing from
initial receipt to final action, comparative annual figures. The work
of the office moves smoothly and the staff believes it can handle a
reasonable increase in the number of merit awards as well as the
anticipated load of new service (retirement and exceptional) awards.
This estimate appears sound: it is based, for example, on proved
capability in handling 122 awards in FY 1966 (an increase of some 50
over the previous year), and in helping to set up the special recog-
nition program for employees F_ I along with responsibility 25X1
for the Annual Awards ceremony. uc an estimate assumes that the
office of the C/BSD will continue to provide timely help such as that
noted for the longevity and retirement awards, and that the Director
of Personnel and his deputy will be able to continue to give immediate
attention to this work.
5. Award ceremonies are simple and dignified: senior officials,
invited colleagues and family members of recipients (as appropriate)
are present; the citation is read; the Director or his representative
bestows the honor (an official picture is taken at the moment) and
makes a few remarks. The whole presentation takes not more than ten
minutes and flows smoothly. The importance of the atmosphere in
presentation ceremonies cannot be overstressed: the presence of the
recipient;'s official superiors and the tone in acknowledging his
particular contribution are the heart of the recognition system.
6. Special Proar S' Officers responsible for the personnel at
F feel that their special programs provide a
real suppor or morale. Further, members of this (I.G.) office who
have been concerned with problems of morale have recommended the use
of any reasonable means for extending recognition to employees who are
more or less dead-ended in routine, uninspiring and isolatedjobs.
Such programs provide at least some incentive for maintaining; per-
formance at reasonable levels. The amount budgeted for the programs
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-0078OR002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/2 -RR84-0078OR002100180020-0
NNOV by the Office of Personnel is insignificant, and cost in administering
them is almost nonexistent.
7. With the exception of the special programs noted above and
Safety Driving awards, the Agency has not developed an organized
system for recognizing superior performance. (Commendations and
Quality Step Increases could be considered in this light, but what
is meant here is a aro ogram.) Personnel situations like those
25X1 exist in other places, offices, and types
roug ou e Agency. While a burgeoning of small special
recognition programs is not considered desirable,
It is recommended that: No. 6
The Deputy Director for Support direct the Director
of Personnel to look into those situations where maintenance
of morale is recognized to be difficult and, considering
the needs of the Agency as a whole, recommend to officials
directly concerned appropriate programs to encourage and
recognize superior performance.
8. Public Service Awards. At present, Public Service Awards are
handled by one officer who is also now responsible for Agency fund drives)
working directly under the C/BSD and receiving support from the Director
of Personnel's office. In its initial.years the program could only have
been described as a stepchild for want of interest in it. This was a
result of the youth of the Agency (i.e., few competitors available), of
the uncertainty with which the program had been adopted. and questions
as to its appropriateness for this Agency. who retired 25X1
in December 1966 after carrying the burden from e programs inception
(first as secretary to career and personnel boards and later under the
C/BSD of the Office of Personnel), was dedicated and exerted herself in
efforts to establish it.,
9. Three years ago the Office of Personnel began a concerted drive
to generate interest in the program and to establish procedures which
would ensure that there were appropriate nominations on a timely basis.
The hit-and-miss factor in finding nominees and the last-minute efforts
to prepare papers which had characterized the program were overcome in
the fall of 1966. Appeals through the Director of Personnel to the
chiefs of components and independent offices, distribution of explana-
tory material, and simplified procedures for making nominations all had
their effect.* Nominations for five of the eight private and quasi-
government programs were received by the end of August 1966, in
*See History, pages 8-9.
- 38 -
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-0078OR002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/ ejk )?84-0078OR002100180020-0
adequate time to process papers for the programs which extend from
October through spring. The current procedure of nominating can-
didates for all programs at the same time has made it possible to
put forward candidates for their most appropriate awards (i.e., rather
than nominate a candidate for the first relevant award that is offered).
The practice of calling for nominations before the invitations have
been received also now. eliminates the last-minute crisis of preparing
adequate papers in support of Agency nominations.
10. Alone among the honor programs the Public Service awards are
administered without the assistance of a representative committee. The
Office of Personnel did turn to the HMAB on at least one occasion for
assistance in selecting one from among five names presented for the
woman's award in 1965. It is conceivable that two or more components
might in the future nominate strong candidates, and, given the current
practice of sending forward only one nomination for a given award, that
a disinterested body should make the final selection. Such a body,
representing and with ties into all components of the Agency might
more easily maintain long term interest in the program.
It is recommended that: No. 7
The Deputy Director for Support direct the Director of
Personnel to request the Honor and Merit Awards Board to assume
responsibility for stimulating interest in nominating, and selec-
ting candidates from among those presented, for Public Service
Awards.
There would seem to be no valid reason for otherwise changing the
excellent manner in which the program is administered.
11. Whether this Agency should be engaged in public recognition
programs may be a moot question at this timet But the nature of
Agency work which restricts nominations to a point of inequity --
permitting some employees to be honored for less than others have
done -- suggests that the question of Agency participation might be
re-examined in another few years. Participation in the program could
result in a net loss to morale, rather than in the presumed gain.
Further, with regard to assumptions about the Agency's external image,
an occasional public honor may have relatively little effect.
12. Administrative Organization. The Office of Personnel has
been considering a reorganization to bring personnel concerned with
*See section on Public Service Awards under History, especially
pages 11-12.
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-0078OR002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/lift 84-00780R002100180020-0
various aspects of the recognition programs into a closer working
relationship. A more flexible and effective use of time would be
expected if all personnel and functions related to the programs were
in one unit.
13. The Public Service Awards are handled by personnel who are
also responsible for other activities, e.g., fund campaigns. The PSA
program has enough in common with the internal honor awards program to
warrant bringing the two together. There is some logic in the belief
that, while not every nominee for an external award would have received
an Agency award, there might be some interplay between the two, especially
in future years.
l4-. Special programs occupy a position some place between honor
and incentive awards. The special monetary awards are incentives but
also are a means for recognizing superior performance. Should these
programs increase they might develop a special character of their own
as superior performance awards for certain grade levels. These could
be handled within our general office which administers all recognition
programs.
15. The Benefits and Services Division undertakes a sizeable amount
of administrative support work for the personnel directly engaged in the
several programs. It is possible that some of this personnel time could
be attached directly to the awards office.
16. The contemplated reorganization which would place all personnel
assigned to the administration of the awards programs in one unit appears
to be sensible and feasible. We commend such efforts on the part of the
Office of Personnel as being in the right direction.
40
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-00780R002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/2t,RPl_4-00780R002100180020-0
APPENDICES
Table I
Total Awards by Type and Component
Through September 1966
by Number
Award DCI DDI DDP DDS DDS&T Other* Total
DIM 5 6 32 3 5 4 55
Is - 1 35 3 8 - 47
IMM 9 39 86 49_, 11 2 196
CND 3 61** 72 47 7 - 190
cm 2 63**;~c 54 41 3 - 163
Total 19 170 279 143 34 6 651
- 41 -
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-00780R002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/2?F 1f84-00780R002100180020-0
Awards by Type and Year, for CYs 1954-1964
FY 1965, and FY 1966 With and. Without Awards
.Connected with the Dominican Republic and
Vietnam, by Number
DIC
DIM
IS
IMM
Mw /D
CM
Total
1954 -
3
2
-
-
-
5
1955 -
-
-
3
-
-
.3
1956 -
8
4
16
-
2
30
1957 -
6
-
17
-
6
29
1958 -
1
-
7
-
6
14
1959 -
4
3
17
20
20
64
196o -
3
-
12
9
22
46
1961 -
2
-
11
9
24
1+6
1962 -
7
6
26
20
17
76
1963 -
4
14
13
30
12
73
1964* -
2
5
24
27
19
77
1965*(FY) -
6
5
26
44
11
92
1966 (FY) -
8
4
33
118
29
122
1966 (FY)
w/out
DR and VN -
5
3
7
27
10
72
Total
54
43
205
.
207
168
677
*The figures in these two years contain some duplication because of
the shift from CY to FY. Consequently the grand total overstates the
number of awards by a small amount.
- 42 -
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-0078OR002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-0078OR002100180020-0
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-0078OR002100180020-0
 Approved For Release 2003/04/2?j tk 84-00780R002100180020-0
Table 4
Awards by Type and Component for FY 1966
With and Without Awards Connected with the
Dominican Republic and Vietnam, by Number
AWARD
COMPONENT
DDP
DDI
DDS
DCI
DDS&T
Total
DIM
Total
4
1
2
-
1
8
W/out DR
and VN
1
1
2
1
5
IS
Total
4
W/out DR
and VN
3
IMM
Total
18
1
8
1
5
33
W/out DR
and VN
12
1
8
1
5
27
CMw/D
Total
21
6
15
1
5
48
W/out DR
and VN
6
6
10
5
27
CM
Total
20
6
2
1
W/out DR
and VN
4
6
-
-
TOTAL
Total
67
14
27
3
11
122
W/out DR
and VN
26
14
20
1
11
72
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-0078OR002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-0078OR002100180020-0
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-0078OR002100180020-0
 Approved For Release 2003/04/2?i]R1f84-00780R002100180020-0
Table 6
Total Non-Agency Awards to CIA Personnel and
Military Awards to Armed Service Personnel
Detailed to CIA, by Component, through September 1966
by Number
Award DCI DDI
DDP
DDS DDS&T
Total
National
Security
Medal
Medal of
Freedom - -
3
- -
3
Military - 2
4O
11 9
62
Other - -
3
TOTAL 4 2
48
11 9
71+
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-00780R002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/2?i1M84-00780R002100180020-0
THE STUDIES: IN INTELLIGENCE AWARD
An annual award of $500 is offered for the most significant con-
tribution to the literature of intelligence submitted for publication
in the Studies. The prize-may be divided if the two or more best
articles submitted are judged to be of equal.merit,-or.it may be with-
.held if no article is deemed sufficiently outstanding.
Except as may be otherwise announced from year to year, articles
on any subject within the range of the Studies' purview,.as defined in
its masthead, will be considered for the award. They will be judged
primarily on substantive originality and soundness, secondarily on
literary qualities. Members of the Studies editorial board and staff
are of course excluded.from the competition.
Awards are normally announced in the first issue (winter) of each
volume for articles published during'the preceding calendar year. The
editorial board will welcome readers' nominations for awards, but
reserves to itself exclusive competence in the decision.
- 47 -
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-0078OR002100180020-0
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/04/jE, 1 84-0078OR002100180020-0
Three Presidential Awards are defined (see Appendices 25X1
Table 6), namely, the National Security Meda , ress en ial Medal of
Freedom, and the President's Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian
Services
The National Security Medal has been awarded to six CIA officers,
as follows:
Walter B. Smith, DCI, 1953
Colonel Edward Lansdale (DDP/FE), 195+
Kermit Roosevelt, (DDP/NE), 1955
Allen W. Dulles, DCI, 1961
John A. McCone, DCI, 1965
Vice Admiral William Raborn, DCI, 1966
25X1
Approved For Release 2003/04/29 : CIA-RDP84-0078OR002100180020-0
SECRET