THIRD SPECIAL MEETING OF THE INTELLIGENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP85S00362R000200110002-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 13
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 13, 2002
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: June 11, 1948
• Content Type: MIN

ed .Release 2002/08/21 :CONFIDENT
THIRD SPECIAL MEETING
INTELLIGENCE ADVISORY CO ITTEE
Fl
I ( for Rear Admiral
R. H. i . en coe er
STATE ! ra W. Park Armstrong, Jr.,
ARMY o Major General A. R, Bolling (for Lieut. General
S~ J, Chamberlin)
Rear Admiral P'hos., B, Irglis
Brig, Gen? W"/o R. Agee, USAF (for Major General
G. P Cabell)
Lieutenant Co T. R. Adams9 USN
Captain .J Eo Fitzpatrick9 AUS
Mr. Grant C 0 P anson
Colonel H,> G. Hayes
Lieutenant Coional ' Cuyler L. Clark
Captain C:, F. Espe
Captain J. Na Wenger
USAF : Colonel R. P. Kloccko
Lieutenant Colonel Harold B. Houston
A special Meeting of the Intelligence Advisory Ccmmittee for
consideration of the proposed National Security Council Intelligence
Directive relatwng to Communication Intelligence (COL1INT) was held
in Room 3E-789,Pentagon Building, Washington, D?C 0 , , at 1410 on
11 June 19480
C ON~.~ IDEN T I L
1
Approved For Release 2002/08/a1,,;a, ,2 D85S00362R000200110002-5
 FaWelease 20 ; ' ? - ' P85S00 R00020011.0002-5
AU1fR4I INGLIS noted the absence of the Wrec ~)T of Central
Intelligence and said he supposed that acceptable parliamentary
procedure would be for the remainder of the IAC members to elect
a t0ro tempore chairman.
25X1
'MR., A STRONG commented that s1*.ce I had been
deputizes to represent the Chiarman It would seem appropriate for,
the Captain to serve as Chairmar ~
1 b: r:R IL INGLIS replied that., such an arrangem ent would be quite
acceptable to him but that he nonetheless suggested that a vote 'be
b..1BERS di sc us sed. this matter brief it and
took the chair in the absence of Adrzi.ral Hillenkoetter0
25X1 I asked Admiral Inglis to repeat essential
portions of a conversation on the draft NSCID held with Admiral
Hillenkoeatte r before his departure from the USCIB .meeting,,
AD1.RA1a INGLIS said that the DCI had stated that he presented
the t"or ginal1A draft NSCID to the !Executive Secretary of the
National Security Council and that a day or so later the latter
had. expressed his opinion that the draft was not in conformity
with the National Security Act of 1947 and hence the NSC could bra
expected to reject it in its present form. ADMIRAL I.NGLIS added
that after examining the draft the ]executive Secretary had pre-
pared the memorandum containing the suggestions now before the
tine Secretary of the National Security Council (IMO) and would
be happy to surimarize the call it such were desired,
a
asked Admiral Inglis to describe the call?
AD1.1IRA L INGLIS replied that the Executive Secretary had said
that:
1, . He considered the dra.Lt NSCID to be excellent, with
the exception of one or two points,,
2:. He believed the draft not to be entirely in harmony
with the National Security Act cf 1947:,
3., He believed it would be worth while to have the IAC
consider any objections to the draft before such
objections w?aere brought to the attention. of the NSC;
thus giving the IAC an op-,;ortu.nity to reconsider
the drafts, and possibly aidennd it in light of said ob-
jections 9 before having it go to the NSC thus im-
proving the draft's chances s or quick approval,,
4., His actions in this matter were being motivated com-.
pletely by the desire to be helpful to t h.e iiAG and
that there was no wish on his part to change the sub-
stance; that his only desire was to brings the draft
into formal adjustment with the National Security
Act of 1947 ?
Approved For Release 2002/08/21: C4A-RDP85S00362R000200110002-5
25X1
 -?-?m?- Approved F2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP85S00R000200110002-5
5, if the W-elease
insisted on submitting t,4 o: i finally
agreed draft NSCID to the Council he would have
to raise the objections outlined in his dreft
'memorandum now before the IAC,
ADMIRAL INGLIS continued that the Executive Secretary had been
most emphatic in disavowing any motivation other than the desire
to be of assistance to the interested departments and agencies,,
said that., based upon the Executive Secre-
tary's proposed memorandum, the CIA had prepared the revised draft
I4SCTD which had been furnished to USCIB members and had been
accompanied by a voting slip for forwarding to the DCI, He added
that a vote had been received subsequently from all. members except
the Army and he requested General Bolling's views on the revised
draft
G. `"ERAL ROLLING said the army was in hearty and ocmplete agree-
ment with t. e views expressed in the memorandum that had been for-
warded to the DCI from the Department of State? Eet added that the
original draft NSCJ had been unanimously agreed upon.,, after ex-
tended and deliberate consideration by both USCIB' and IAC me aberss
and that this agreed version should hence be sent to the NSC with
no change whatsoever,
asked whether the General had. expressed the
position being taken by the other members present,
AD URAL, INGLIS replied that the Navy agreed with the position
set forth in the Department of State's memorandum c.nd considered
it to be a fine paper? He added that the Navy had given some con-
sideration to the possibility of suggesting that ore course of
action which might prove acceptable as a safeguard against the
possibility that the original draft might be rejected by the NSC
in favor of the. DOT's revised draft would be to state definite
disagreement with the revised draft and submit two changes thereto
which would be designed to dispose of the Executive Secretary's
objections to the original draft,, yet 'ouldn't alter the substance
of the revised draft, so that USCIB" e authority over the COMI14T
field would not be diluted if the DCI's draft were to be" adopted
by the NSC Referring to the "original" draft,, he said the Navy
also recommended that the last sentence of paragraph 2 should be
amended so that "only those departments or agencies designated
by the President" would appear in place of the "designated by the
National Security Council" phrase presently shown, die- commented
that the idea behind this change sprang from the fact that the
NSC has no authority over nonmember departments and agencies,,
whereas the President has such authority, He added that the
Navy was also suggesting that paragraph 4 be amended if paragrapa
1 of the DCI version were to remain, He read the suggested re=
vision (see Enclosure (A)), adding that it appealed to the levy
as being a somewhat clearer statement of the requirement of
unanimity as a p:?erequisite to any action by Board members in
fields under USCIB' s purview
C WFIDEN TIAL
Approved For Release 2002/
S00362R000200110002-5
 :ONFIDENIIAL ved F elease 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP85S00 000200110002-5
MEMB1 RS discussed the foregoing summary and MR0 M STRONG
aim G !SRALS BOLLING and AGE E stated their unequivocal disagreement
with the rev:. sed draft's proposal that the DCI be Chairman of USE: IB
solely by virtue of his office.
C i-`i'hhIN E E cora rented that in suggesting changes to the re-
vised draft, the Navy had not d.js tu.lr bt d the proposal that the DCI
be et officio Chairman of USCIEE bece.use it had been considered that
the presence of that provision would answer any requirement by the
Hurd that all intelligence coordinating dealings with member depart-,
me.nte or agencies must be conducted via the DCI:,
ADMIRAL INGLIS agreed and commented that even though this pro-,
vision remained in the draft9 the two other changes proposed by the
Navy would impose. desirable limitations on the functions of the
Chairman.
lvIR. AR 11STRONG said that the Department of imitate had a funda-
mental objection to the proposal that the DCI be e: officio Chairman
of USCIBo He added that it seemed the Executive S'3cretary of the
NSC, while undoubtedly motivated by the desire to be of aid to all
concerned9 had made his recommendations without having a complete
understanding of the unique nature of the COWINT field,, He added
that, because ex officio Chairmanship would involve consolidation
under the CIA of the tactical arms of the several member departments
and agencies, the Department of State considered the "ex officio"
provision to be unwise and impractical in this CONiNT field of
intelligence,'
COLONEL !LMS agreed and observed that the adoption of the
proposed "ex officios' feature would obviate the necessity for
USCIB,
E1D1 iRA.L II' GLIS said that if the Navy's revised paragraph 4
were to be accepted (and where the ICI's version of paragraph 1
would be adopted by the P:SC) it was also suggested that a change
in paragraph 7 of the DCI's draft be made, He read the suggested
revision. (see Enclosure (A)) and noted that the modifying phrase
had been lifted intact from the proposed memorandum by the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, of the NSC and hence would pres-.naably meet with
his approval. Fie continued 9 however, that the two suggested para-
graphs he had read were merely offered as a possible means for
securing the NSC's approval in a minire.urm of time and with minimum
controversy. He added that if those present believed the sug-
gestions had little or no merit9 the Navy was willing to recede
from any or all of the proposals.
25X1
suggested that the most satisfactory way to
attack the.present problem would be to take the "original" draft,
INSCID and go over it paragraph by paragraph to see what modifice;=
tions could be agreed upon in accordance with the views of the
DCI, He asked whether members present would consider any change
at all In the original draft.
Approved For Release 2002/
P$5S00362R000200110002-5
 ~Ppiir ci
'A 51 ved F elease 2002/08/21 CIA-RDP85S00OR000200110002-5
fi r1.:
nY
v viTiAA L.a..r-L
ia: &aVaaev . ~.
GENERAL ROLLING replied in the negative,,
1-ARC 101.STRONG said the original version as commonly agreed
upon expressed all the necessary points but added that the De-
partment of State would consider any non-substantive changes
which would make it easier to get the NSC's approval of the NSCIDO
Gii,T E , AGEE said he believed that the most expeditious
handling of the problem would be to take each paragraph of the
original r-aft and consider it separately(,
COLOi ;L HAYES, noting that he was not a .member of the IAC,
said he felt that, since on two separate occasions in the past
this draft hSCID had been amended and forwarded up the line
only to have each such version thrown back down again, preparation
of a third amended version would be just a waste of time,, He
commented that perhaps the best course to follow noww>w vrould be to
wait and be told what to do,,
25X1 said the CIA consideredi 1 (the
Executive Secretary) opinion to be, in practice, an interpretation
of NSC?s policy
CtL'TAfl IuENGM said that he subscribed, for ADMIR.LI. STO1,7E.
to the statement of Navy policy voiced by Admiral Inglis,,
AD IRiU, INGLIS said he,would agree to consider the draft,
paragraph by paragraph,,
ALL ItE:PBERS agreed to attack the problem in this manner and
the original draft NSCID was so a onsideredo
During discussion of paragraph 1 of the original version,
as compared with.the paragraph 1 shown in the version revised
by the DCI in connection with r.. Souer's recommendations, GENERAL
AGEE suggested that the old paragraph 1 be used without change.
25X1 said that there were two possible. handlings
regarding this paragraph; first fl either to use tha revised 1 and
accompany it with a-statement that all concerned except the CIA
dissent, or, second, to show both the original and revised para-
graph 1 side by side and indicate the preferences for each.
Ma AR11STROIVG said he took this last part of the statement
to mean that data aoconpanying such a form of the draft would
indicate that all members preferred the old version of paragraph
la
said "Yes."
T ii
Approved For Release 2-CQ in'
IM, - P85S00362R000200110002-5
 ? CONFIDE
25X1
W
aiz fiR~LL AGE'E said the first procedure suggested by
seemed to be based upon a peculiar psychology.
MR. AR:t:'STRONG said he believed that such an approach was
required under th-e rules of procedure for the IAC?
25X1 agreed and noted that proposed NSCID's
go to the National 'ecurity Council-as recomriendat:ions of the
DCI for the coordination of intelligence activities and are
,accompanied by a statement of the concurrence or non-concurrence
of the other IAC members.
GEITERAL BOLLING asked whether the DCI had not previously
concurred in the "original" draft NSCIDO
MR. ARMSTRONG replied in the affirmative and outlined the
events which.had apparently caused the DCI to withdraw his
earlier concurrence,
I.21~~I,ML S discussed. the role of the Executive Secretary in the
events referred to and G ifERAL AGNE said it seemed to him to be a
case where the CIA was dissenting from th?3 position taken by all
other USCIB members,.,
ADMIRAL INGLIS agreed that such was the case in practice n but
said that as the result of external evolutionary processes partici-
pated in by other departments and agencies represented on USCIB'
the place has been reached where the DCI aakes the recommendations
and the rest of the organizations can merely concur or dissent.
2J1R,. ARMSTRONG observed that said departments and agencies had
apparently put themselves in a sort of "tail wagging the dog"
positions
25X1 I said that the DCI would give careful con-
sideration to the full dissent from the revised paragraph 1
before he forwarded the draft on Lip to the NSC.
GENERAL AGEE said it appeared to him thatell members except
the CIA desired to reaffirm their preference for the original
paragraph 1 and this-left the CIA as the dissenter,
PMR. ARMSTRONG suggested that should revised paragraph 1 be
shown alone in the next draft NSCID, the philosophy uniierlying
the original paragraph I (as stated in the Department of State's
memorandum of comment to the DCI) accompany the dissenting state-
ment by the lAC members.
ALL I.MBER AGREED that this would be done
GENERAL AGE added that the same practice should be followed
in connection with paragraphs 4 and 7 of the revised draft.
Approved For Release 2002"IIP&IA5S00362R000200110002-5
 end FgOelease 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP85S00I&R000200110002-5
N J3SRS discussed the matter of continuing to take, the
original draft paragraph by paragraphs as opposed to sending two
versions of the NSCID up to the Council, accompanying the revised
version with the Department of State's memo of dissent plus the
notation that it represented the view of all members except the
CIA,, The paragraph by paragraph procedure was reaffirmed. With
the under tanaing that no unanimous agreement had 'nAATI reached on
25X1 paragraph 1, read paragraph 2g noting that the
term "designated by the President" had replaced "represented on
the Board ? s4
Gr_NERAL BOLL:ING said he withdrew his ob jectio::i to any changes
in paragraph 2, adding that he considered the cited substitution to
be an improvement
COLON EM HAYLS said that one nurnose of the substituted phrase
'was to permit the FBI to go ahead in C 01-411M but not he
represented on the Board,, while another was to take advantage of
the President's larger jurisdiction over the departments and agencies
of the Government,,
A discussion of these facets of the problem ensued during which
ADVIN.i L II GLIE stated his belief that it would be unrealistic to
assume that the FBI could be barred from participating in whatever
activities bear upon its responsibility for Internal security, and
COLONEL HAYES noted that despite any professions of disinterest in
the operational aspects of the COf INT effort, ASA and CSAtW continue
to receive translations from the Federal Bureau of Invostigation0
DECISION:
It was unanimously agreed that paragraph 2 of the "original"
draft n amended by the substitution of the phrase "designated by
the President" instead of "represented on the Board" vrould be
shown in the new draft NSCIU o
25X1 I noted that there had been no changes made in
paragraph 3 of the original draft in carrying it over to the
revised draft, hence agreement. by all was presumed
It was unanimously agreed that paragraph 3 of the "original"
draft would be shown in the new draft NSCID0
25X1 I read the old paragraph 4 and noted that the
revised paragraph 4 had been changed to make the DC;I ex officio
Chairman of IJSCIB;,
ADarlR,, L IN^LTS commented ~.at the Vemy's suggested revision
of paragraph 4 had been prepared to modify the Chairmanship concept
After a short discussion, all agreed to. accept the original
'paragraph 40
7
Approved For Release 2002/0.8/21: CIA :RDP85S00362R000200110002-5
 FIB ENIIAL
,_ Approved F elease 2002/ Q-~2pP,5S003 R000200110002-5
DEC,ISIG+IJ .._....
It was unanimously agreed that paragraph 4 of the "original"
deft NSCID would be shown in the new draft
25X1 I read original paragraph 5 and a discussion
ensued regarding the jurisdiction and operation of 1530113s de-
cisions. It was agreed that the concept embodied in the amendment
to paragraph 2 should be incorporated here too and., as a result9
the phrase w and any others designated by the President" was added
tmoo the text of the CIA's (the "revised") paragraph 5,
DECISIM
IT was unanimously agreed that paragraph 5 of the "revised"
draft NSCID would be amended by the addition of the phrase "and
any others designated by the President" after the word "Council"
and would be shown in the new draft NSCID.
In addition9 since the ."original" paragraph 6 had not been
ehanred when subsequently used for the "revised" d:caft 9 it was
agreed that the s"original" paragraph 6 should be shown in the
new draft
25X1 asked for views regarding paragraph 7 and
noted that the ehang a which were made over the original parad
graph had been incorporated light of the Executive Secretary's
proposed memorandum to the NSC,, He observed that paragraphs 1
and 7 of the-"revised" draft were mutually interdependent,,
M. ARMSTRONG said that it was on these two paragraphs that
the Department of State found itself unable to agree with the
Executive Secretary.. He added that his department was taking
the position that the NSC should decide this basic question?
25X1 cited NSCID #1 as containing the basic
definition of the relationship of the DCI to the NSC and to the
intelligence establishments of the departments and agencies
represented on the Council,,
COLONEL HAYES said he had heard that there had been an
oral understanding at the time NSCID #1 was r epared and
promulgated that it did not apply to the COMINT field.,
GENERAL AGEE moved that the original paragraph 7 stand,)
AD.:`IRAL INGLIS said the Navy would go along with this if all
other members agreed.
25X1 I suggested that9 as the means for disposing of
all those provisions of the draft NSCID on which unanimous agreement
could be attained,, the members by-pass paragraph 7 for the moment
and proceed to the less controversial remaining paragraphsA, He in-
vited comments on paragraph 8 of the "revised" draft,,
Approved For Release 2002O81 i CIA-RDP85S00362R00P200110002-5
 GqKF1UD ruT
PuIned F elease 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP85SQ0 8000200110002-5
C.~~JFIE~P
W
25X1
matters.
. W, ARMSTRONG said he noted a change over the wording of the
original paragraph and cited the added phrase "until concurrence
of the Board has been received"" He asked why this change had been
considered advisable.,,
replied that it protected USCIB against
COLONEL HAYES said USCIB could not judge the applicability
of the NSC's Intelligence Directives,,
existing NSC -:D's,,
replied that the Board could for COMINT
COLONEL HAYES expressed his belief that the added wording was
unnecessary, and GN:ERA-~L AGEE agreed,, The latter moved that the
"original" paragraph 8 be accepted without change and G ERAL
BOLLING agreed.
25X1 said that the members still ought to take
cognizance of the existing NSCID'so
After a short discussion during which .iDb9.IRAL INGLIS and
GENERAL BOLLING took the position that it would be presumptuous
on the part of USCIB to pass upon directives of the National
Security Council, and Mr., ARMSTRONG and GENERAL AGl'E ? agreed that
the paragraph was much clearer without the insertion, all members
agreed to accept "original" paragraph 8 unchanged,
DECISION:
It was unanimously agreed that paragraph 8 of the "original"
draft would be shown in the new draft NSCID.
DECISIOT
I stated that the draft NSCID as revised by
the had not changed paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12,
It was unanimously agreed that paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12
of the "original" draft would be used in the new draft NSCIDO
returned to the disputed paragraphs l and 7
and asked for a further expression of views,
AD IRAL INGLIS said that unofficially the Navy would like to
with him when he went to talk with the DOI,,
C CNFIDE11, TI AL
Approved For Release 2002/M8/Q1 CIA-RDP85S00362R000200110002-5
list on his paragraph 1, ADLIIRAL HILLENKOETT'ER agree to make the
suggest a gentleman's agreement whereby if the DCI wanted to in-
changes suggested by the Navy (see Enclosures (A) and (B)) for
paragraphs 4 and 7
25X1 I agreed to take the suggested amendments
 oved F elease 2002/08/21 : CfA-RDP85S00 R000200110002-5
CA1 THIN WEN R invited attention to the phrase "in fields
other than communication intelligence" appearing in. the Executive
Secretary's proposed memorandum to the NSC and asked what the
phrase should be taken to mean ADMIRAL INGLIS, GENERAL AGEE, and
COLONEL W YES voiced their similar perplexity regarding this phrase
25X1 I observed that NSCID #1 had established the
DCI as the executor of NSC policies insofar as the coordination of'
intelligence efforts of member departments and agencies are
ocncerned.
AD;IE1.L INGLIS commented that the NSC would have to umpire
such relations in any event.
COLONEL HAYES replied that if the NSC desires the DCI to act
as its spokesman for policy, he still could do this in nis capacity
as a USCIB member and hence there seemed to be no nand for any
change in the "original" paragraph 1.
25X1 C dTAIN !.'V%1N.GER agreed and added that. the arrang3ment noted by
would seem to obviate the need for a USCIB
organ zat ono GENER, L AGEE concurred CAPTAIN WYENGER continued
that he considered a difference'to exist between the requirement
of unanimous consent for purposes of offering advice as opposed
to such unanimity for purposes of taking action,
ADMIRa-kL INNGLIS again suggested unofficially that the "revised"
paragraph 1 could be accepted if the DCI agreed to the Navy's
paragraphs 4 and 7 being adopted in such case.
GE1' Ek;1,L AiGEE reiterated his aversion to the situation where
from the position advocated solely by the DCI.
the majority of the members were put in the position of dissenting
25X1 once again cited NSCID #1 as an expression
of N5C policy, and ADMIRAL 114GLIS again sketched the events leading
up to-the present situation-mcomrdenting that the Navy had preferred
to have USCIB placed under the Joint Chiefs of Staff but this had
not proved acceptable to the civilian members of the Board and the
matter had been referred to Secretary Forrestal who, after con-
ferring with Secretary Marshall, had replied that the Board should be
placed under the NSC.
25X1' I said he would go on the basis that all IAC
members were in unanimous disagreement with the DCI's version of
paragraph 1 (i.e. the "revised."version).
MR, iU MSTRONG commented that here the real situation could
be described best by saying that members were considering an "IAC
version, concurred in by the DCI" and a subsequent "Executive
Secretary version,," prepared by the DCI to accommodate the ob-
jections of the 'Executive Secretary of the NSCO He added his be=
25X1 lief that it would be best to send the former version up to the
NSC and let the Executive Secretary subriit his comments at that
level:, He asked why the DCI would not follow that procedure, and
replied that the DCI would give it full con
y
s era Approved For Release 2002/08/21 CIA-RDP85S00362R000200110002-5
 CON IIDDI,N
ON IDEN
ved F elease 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP85S00#JR000200110002-5
ADMIRAL INGLIS moved that the meeting adjourn and the other
memos indicated their consent
LIEUTENA.14T ADAMS asked ADMIRAL INGLIS whether a. decision had
been reached on the disputed paragraphs 1 and 7 and the Admiral
25X1replied that he was Chairman of USCIDO The question. was subse-
quently refe.?red to who expressed satisfaction
that a decision had been reached as follows:
DECISION.,
It was unanimously agreed that :
(a) paragraph 1: All members except the CIA strongly
expressed non-concurrence with the "CIA" draft of
paragraph 1. In this connection, the views of the
Department of State, expressed in its memorandum
of comment submitted to the Director of Central
Intelligence in accordance with his request for
voting slips were considered, The Department of
State requested with. the Army, Navy and Air"Force
members concurring, that this memorandum accompany
the revised draft when it is submitted to the
National Security Council and be considered., by
the Council as representing the views of their
respective departments?
(b) Farfacraph 7: All members except the CIA strongly
expressed non-concurrence with the CIA draft.of
paragraph 7;.. The State, Army, Navy and Air Force
members requested that paragraph 7 of the "oriaina1"
draft accompany the revised draft NSC ID when it Is-
submitted to the National Security Council and be
considered as representing the choice of the
Departments of State,.Army, Navy and Air Fcree?
The meeting adjourned at 1605?
WO_
. ATR
_ T
E. FITZP~1'ATRIGK
Ad Hoc Secretariat
CCu~I? i:~v a,,_
Approved For Release 2002/08/21 CIA-RDP85S00362R000200110002-5
 CONFIDE N`~~ed F~el~easse ~00/~OD8~~1t': CICA-~R,~DyTP85S0~0~R000200110002-5
PARAGRJO'HS 4, ANTD 7 OF DRAFT CHARTER (USC lB -11~ 14)
(e) Change paragraph 4 to read:
"Decision, of the Board will be based on the
principle of unanirrtyt, which will be a pre:-
requisite for action oi% matters riithin the
Board9 s purview, and the Director of Central
Intelligence will act as CChairman0 When d?s-
cision cannot be reached, the Board will
promptly refer the matter for resolution to
the National Security Council; provided that V
when unanimity is not obtained among the
Department heads of the National Military
Establishment, the Board shall present the
problem to the Secretary of Defense before
presenting it to the National Security
Council""
(b) Change paragraph 7
The Director of Central Intelligence shall
act for the National Security Council to
insure proper and full implementation of
Council directives by issuing such su3ple-
aentary directives as may be required pro-
Prided that the Director of Central In^telli--
Bence shall be required to obtain the
unanimous, concurrence of the Board prior to
taking any coordinating action in the
Communication Intelligence field? Such im-
plementing directives in which the Board
concurs unanimously shall be issued to and
implemented by the member Departments and
Agencies 0 99
CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Release 2002/08 0362R000200110002-5
 Approved For$elease 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP85SO03f 000200110002-5
TOP SECRET
24 May 1948
The Director, CIA
Brief of Special IAC Meeting on USCIB
Charter, 13 May 1948.
1. The purpose of the meeting was:
a. To reconcile the various versions on the status of the
DCI in the Charter, and
b. To consider the CIA proposal which eliminated FBIB
activities from USCIB jurisdiction.
2. The exclusion of the FBIB was immediately accepted. Consider-
able discussion took place on the status of the DCI. This discussion re-
sulted in giving the Board a dual function:
a. An executive function - in that it will effect the
authoritative coordination of Communication Intelligence
activities of the government.
b. An advisory function - in that it will "advise the
DCI in those matters in the field of COMINT for which he is
responsible."
(NOTE: Paragraph 8 of the Charter states, in effect,
that the DCI is responsible only ? those CO]INT matters -eor
which the NSC specifically directs the DCI to be responsible.
This means that, unless and until, the NSC directs that
certain of its NSCIDs (in addition to this Charter) are
"specifically applicable to Communication Intelligence,"
the Board has no advisory function with respect to the DCI.)
25X1
Chief, Advisory Council
Approved For Releases/ DP 85SO0362R000200110002-5