BUREAU TRANSFER POLICY PROGRAM EVALUATION OFFICE OF PROGRAM EVALUATIONS AND AUDITS (OPEA) INSPECTION DIVISION

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 124
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 13, 2013
• Sequence Number: 1
• Content Type: MISC

Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7 f
� 7=---
�
�
�
�
�
�
BUREAU TRANSFER POLICY
PROGRAM EVALUATION
OFFICE OF PROGRAM EVALUATIONS AND AUDITS (OPEA)
INSPECTION DIVISION
The current transfer policy has
caused experience imbalances in
many field offices. Small and
medium offices are overstaffed with
inexperienced Agents affecting
program goals and accomplishments.
Field Agents have little faith or
confidence in the current policy
especially the OP transfers. FBIHQ
has been unrealistic in projecting
transfer costs. To correct the
current imbalances and to restore
confidence, it will be necessary to
send new Agents to all field
offices from training school,
eliminate the current Top 12
offices as a transfer criteria and
increase the time in the first
office assignment. OP criteria
needs to be adjusted and
restrictions placed on specialty
transfers. Improvements in
transfer management can be
accomplished by increasing ADP
capabilities.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
I.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
PAGE
1
8
A. Purpose
8
B. Scope
8
C. History
9
CURRENT BUREAU TRANSFER POLICY
15
A. Authority
15
B. Current Policy
15
IV.
TRANSFER AND COSTS
18
A. Transfer Increases
18
�
B. Transfer Costs
21
V.
FIELD OFFICE STAFFING
24
A. Goal
24
B. Target Staffing Level
24
C. Experience Level
25
�
D. Lack of Experienced Agents in
Small- and Medium-Sized Offices
28
E. Top 12 Office Criteria
32
F. Training for First Office Agents
44
VI.
THE BUREAU TRANSFER POLICY AS VIEWED
�
BY SPECIAL AGENTS
49
A. Lack of Credibility
49
B. Instability of Bureau's Transfer
Policy
51
C. Office of Preference
53
D. Specialty Transfers
66
E. Hardship Transfers
68
�
F. Married Agent Couples
68
G. Family Concerns
69
H. Minorities
71
I. 10/1/69 Program
72
J. Cost of Living
74
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
�
�
S
�
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
PAGE
VII. REGIONAL TRANSFERS 78
VIII. MANAGEMENT OF THE TRANSFER PROCESS 80
IX. OTHER GOVERNMENT LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
AND INDUSTRY 83
A. Government Law Enforcement Agencies 83
B. Industry 87
X. CONCLUSION 89
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
Current Transfer Policy
1981 Transfer Policy
11/2/84 Airtel Re Specialty Transfers
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
s
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10 : CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The many changes. and variations of the Bureau's
Transfer Policy (BTP) that have evolved during the last 15 years
have yet to succeed in attaining the major goals of the policy;
40
that is, to provide balanced staffing levels for all Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) divisions and to be fair and
equitable to the field Agents. Furthermore, a continuation of
the current transfer policy could prove economically infeasible
due to the increased benefits for transfers. The FBI can ill-
afford to transfer 1,500 - 2,000 Agents yearly.
40
While the FBI has been diligent in addressing
individual problems that may be caused or corrected by transfers,
the Bureau has yet to solve the basic dilemma of placing Agents
41
where they are needed while, at the same time, satisfying the
concerns and desires of field Agents.
�
There is a need for a continuous and comprehensive
�
management effort to develop a transfer policy that forecasts and
predicts staffing, budgetary, and individual requirements, rather
than applying short-term fixes.
Specific issues found by the Office of Program
Evaluations and Audits (OPEA) during the course of this
evaluation that need to be addressed are:
�
�
Small- and medium-sized offices are staffed almost
exclusively with GS lOs and GS 13s. This imbalance
has caused:
1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
o a failure to increase office accomplishments due
to the frequent turnover, lack of continuity,
and the never-ending training requirements;
o a lack of continuity in investigations and
programs;
o First Office Agents (F0As) being assigned to
Special Operations Groups (SOGs), Foreign
Counterintelligence (FCI) work, Organized
Crime/Drug Enforcement (OC/DE) task forces, and
long-term, complex investigations which they
cannot complete during their office tenure;
o important investigative and program matters
which cannot be addressed;
o GS 13s to be overburdened with both complex
investigative assignments and training
responsibilities for new Agents;
o the inability of the small- and medium-sized
offices to develop and train for their own
specialized needs, necessitating more transfers;
The Top 12 office concept, which is the driving
factor, in the BTP should be changed. Not all 12
� offices should receive special attention through
the transfer process.
A lack of a consistent, systematic management
� approach in the transfer process and its exclusion
from the long-range planning functions has resulted
in a reactive system that applies quick fixes
� rather than long-term solutions.
A need exists to develop a computer-based
capability to apply to the transfer process to
� introduce forecasting and predictability.
i�
� 2 -
L Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Increases in specialized needs for each field
office are being addressed through the transfer
process on a short-term basis.
Increases in the number of transfers and transfer
costs are not realistically addressed in the budget
process.
A large percentage of field Agents have lost faith
in the transfer process and no longer consider the
policy to be fair and equitable. Personal
complaints aside, the Agents have expressed concern
over:
o the imbalanced staffing in the small- and
medium-sized offices;
o the decrease in the number of Office of
Preference (OP) transfers due to a large number
of first and second office transfers;
o speciality transfers that they view as
corrupting the seniority system for OP
transfers;
o the frequent transfers of Agents in their first
two years.
� Due to the investigative responsibility of the FBI,
it is impossible to place all Agents in an office
of their choice.
� Additional issues evaluated by OPEA and not considered
for any changes or actions include:
�
- 3 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10 : CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
The current rules and regulations covering
hardships and married Agent couples' (MACs)
transfers are fair. Any complications that might
result are best handled on an individual case
basis.
The absence of comparable data and field office
overlaps in economic and geographic areas would
make across-the-board cost of living adjustments
(COLAs) infeasible. No other Federal law
enforcement agency provides COLAs for domestic
assignment, nor is it generally practiced in the
Federal Government. Congressional approval would
be required and this seems unlikely at this time.
Other Government agencies, like the FBI, have
designed their transfer systems to meet the
agencies' investigative needs, rather than
individual employee's desires.
If a regionalized transfer policy was implemented,
it would probably lead to regionalized hiring.
This would negate the goals of the Broad Band
Selection Process now used in recruitment. Lesser
qualified applicants would be hired based on
geographic needs.
- 4 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
While industry provides some additional benefits
when transferring employees, frequencies of
transfers still cause personal and family
disruptions. Most industry transfers are geared to
promotions.
The current transfer policy, which excludes FOAs from
assignments to Top 12 offices, does not provide the means to
staff each field office with a balance of experience and
expertise to meet investigative goals. Field managers and
supervisors advised OPEA that it is not necessary to have an
exact spread of field grades, but each field office should have a
balance of inexperienced, mid-level, and experienced Agents. To
effect this balance, it will be necessary .to transfer new Agents
to all field offices after completion of training at Quantico and
to leave those Agents assigned to small, medium, or lesser impact
offices in place for a minimum of five years.
The prohibition against assigning new Agents to Top 12
offices should be dropped. Not all 12 offices are difficult to
staff, and as such, should not receive special consideration from
the transfer process. OPEA recognizes that the failure to
properly staff some offices would create a major impact, both on
FBI investigations and the transfer process. Only those offices
that cannot be provided a balanced staff through a combination of
OP and first office transfers should receive special transfer
attention.
� 5 �
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
S
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
OPEA, with the cooperation of the Administrative
Services Division (ASD), has involved the Technical Services
Division (TSD) in the development of a computer model to predict
staffing and transfer requirements. While the model is still in
the development stage, preliminary results have been encouraging.
This model can also serve as a management tool for the Special
Agent Transfer Unit (SATU).
The transfer budget is unrealistic in its estimates and
projections. The estimated transfer budget does not reflect the
increased number of transfers and increased transfer costs.
41
FBI field Agents have lost faith and confidence in the
�
�
transfer policy. There is special concern over the decrease in
the number of OP transfers and a corresponding increase in
specialty transfers. While it is the contention of the field
Agent that the OP system has failed, OPEA found that 67 percent
of all Agents are in their OP and 75 percent of GS 13s are listed
as being assigned to an office of their choice. Yet the many
instances of OP list jumping and specialized transfers without
the restrictions that apply to OPs need corrective action. The
41
sending of new Agents to all field offices should allow for more
OPs by freeing both monies and spaces in desired offices, and at
the same time, a detailed management approach to transferring
�
should ensure that a proper balance of experience is maintained.
�
�
- 6 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
OPEA is not recommending any radical changes in the
40
current transfer policy, but is proposing a combination of past
policies. That is, a free-flowing transfer policy based on
Bureau needs, Agents demand (OPs) and new Agents transfers with a
41
built-in system of checks and balances to ensure that each office
is staffed with a balance of investigative personnel.
The implementation process needs to be managed. It is
for this reason that OPEA and TSD are developing a computer model
that can serve not only in the implementation period, but as a
daily management tool. OPEA believes that because the current
40
experience levels in problem offices are high and the available
pool of Agents eligible for transfer to those offices is large,
the implementation of changes recommended in this report can be
41
accomplished.
�
�
�
�
� 7 �
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
0
�
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
II. BACKGROUND
A. Purpose
The primary purpose of this study was to determine if
the current BTP has been effectual in providing a balanced
staffing level for all FBI field divisions and, in doing so, was
deemed by FBI Special Agents (SAs) to be fair, equitable, and
creditable.
An additional purpose was to conduct a study of current
transfer costs, the number of annual transfers, and the Bureau's
financial ability to continue the current transfer process as it
has in the past.
The final purpose of this study was to determine
alternatives to the current transfer policy and to bring to light
additional factors that affect the transferee, the transferee's
family, and the changing composition of the population of FBI
SAs.
B. Scope
This study included a review of applicable
administrative files relating to Bureau transfer matters and an
analysis of the current BTP. A review was conducted of recent
transfers since 1981 and an analysis was made of the current
staffing levels of FBI field offices.
Interviews were conducted with the personnel assigned
to the SATU, ASD, and with other appropriate officials of ASD.
- 8 -
_ Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Computer support in the development of transfer models was
provided by the Special Studies Unit of the TSD.
Field visits were made to six field divisions; Boston,
Denver, Houston, New York, San Diego and the Washington Field
Office. Interviews at these locations were conducted with 17
Special Agents in Charge (SACs) and Assistant Special Agents in
Charge (ASACs), 50 Supervisory Special Agents (SSAs), and 272
SAs.
Contact was maintained' with the Training Division (TD),
In-Service and Student Services Unit relative to their ongoing
study of Probationary Agent Training.
A review was conducted of transfer matters as they are
handled in the private sector, and interviews were conducted with
appropriate personnel at four government agencies; Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms (ATF), the United States Secret Service (USSS) and
the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
C. History
Since its inception, the FBI has routinely transferred
SAs to meet investigative and administrative responsibilities.
All SAs are informed prior to their appointments that they are
subject to transfer at any time to meet the needs of the Bureau.
�
The Letter of Appointment to SAs (Form 3-302) reads in part, "It
�
�
is understood you are to proceed on orders to any part of the
- 9 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10 : CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
United States or Puerto Rico where the exigencies of the service
_
may require and it should be clearly understood that you will
continue to be completely available for any assignment whenever
and wherever the needs of the service demand. Further, you
cannot expect an assignment to an office of your own preference."
Additionally, spouses of prospective appointees are interviewed
and advised of the BTP.
The BTP has always been one of change and discussion.
Transfers of second office Agents were a topic of discussion at
the 1945 FBI Executive Conference. It was noted there had been
an increased hiring of SAs during the previous four years, and
the policy was being followed of transferring each new Agent from
his first office after three months. It was found that all new
Agents had reached their second offices so vacancies could then
be filled by transferring second office Agents to their OPs. It
was recommended by the Executive Conference and approved by
Director Hoover that no second office Agents be transferred to
their OPs, and only those Agents with three or more moves be
considered for transfers to their OPs.
The Executive Conference in 1949 recommended increasing
the first office assignment from three months to six months.
Director Hoover increased the first office time to nine months.
In 1952, the Executive Conference recommended that the policy of
transferring Agents after nine months in their first offices be
- 10 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10 : CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
discontinued. Director Hoover approved this recommendation with
a notation that there "is no set policy with respect to priodic
transfers of other Agents."
By 1969, Agents were transferred from training school
to their first offices, usually a small- or medium-sized office,
for a period of one year. They were then transferred to a second
office for an indefinite period. Many Agents, however, continued
to receive transfers beyond their second offices because of the
needs of the Bureau, specialized abilities, or their potential
for or interest in career advancement.
In 1974, after a study of the transfer policy by OPEA,
a new transfer policy was implemented. This policy stated that
in the future "the filling of Agent manpower needs will be
accomplished, primarily by transferring Agents to their OP or the
assignment of Agents from training school." New Agents were to
be transferred to a large office where they would remain until
qualified by seniority to an OP.
The 1974 poliey also set forth a program whereby Agents
assigned to the New York Office for an excess of five years would
be given every consideration for a transfer to an office of
preference over Agents in other offices with more seniority. The
policy set as a goal to eliminate the rotation policy and to
maximize the number of OP transfers. This policy eventually led
to a decrease of experienced Agents in the large offices and, at
- 11 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
the same time, burdened the offices with the responsibility to
train new Agents.
Some relief was forthcoming in the late 1970s, when
FOAs were again sent to small- and medium-sized offices and a
"mini-10/1/69 program" sent some experienced Agents to large
offices. Yet, by 1980, the large offices were again receiving
FOAs and, at the same time, had a shortage of experienced
personnel.
In December, 1981, a comprehensive transfer policy was
published that incorporated existing policy practices that had
been developed through consistent use, although no policy
existed, and a new policy. The 1981 transfer policy set the
goals of balancing the staffing needs of all FBI divisions and at
the same time, providing a transfer program that would be fair
and equitable to all employees. The policy set forth two major
premises:
1. All FOAs would be sent (after six months in
home office) to a small- or medium-sized
office for a period of two to four years.
2. All Agents would have to serve in a Top 12
office.
For the newer Agents, this meant that after spending
two to four years in a small- or medium-sized office, they would
fib be transferred to one of the Top 12 offices. But this movement
plan could not solve the immediate problem of providing
experienced staffing levels for the Top 12 offices. It was
�
- 12 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
S
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
decided, therefore, that Agents who entered on duty after
October 1, 1969, and who had been assigned only to two small- or
medium-sized offices would become eligible for transfer to a Top
12 office. This rotation was deemed necessary to correct serious
experience imbalances in the Top 12 and to ensure equity of
service among all Agents.
The 1981 policy outlined other new procedures for
transfers including:
- The New York Office five-year plan -- allowing
two extra years for determination of OP
standing after five continuous years of service
in New York.
- The San Juan five-year plan �"allowing Agents
to choose their next office of assignment based
on Bureau needs.
� � A detailed procedure to be followed for
Hardship Transfers.
- Transfers based on undercover assignments and
removal from the Career Development Program.
� Also included were the detailed procedures for
transfers of MACs in order to maintain a common household. An
important determination was made that the senior spouse's entry-
� on-duty (EOD) date would be the determining factor for an OP
transfer, provided the junior spouse had served two years in a
large office.
� Since 1981, the transfer policy has not changed
drastically. Due to the enactment of Public Law 98-68, new
Agents are transferred directly from Quantico to their first
�
�
- 13 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
assignments, eliminating the need to serve six months in their
home offices. Another change has been in determining MACs
eligibility for an OP. MACs may now average their EOD dates for
OP eligibility so that both can transfer together, or they may
choose to be listed separately; but for the latter, only one
spouse will be transferred when reaching eligibility.
LDeclassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10 : CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10 : CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
III. CURRENT BUREAU TRANSFER POLICY
A. Authority
The Director of the FBI has the authority to transfer
any employee of the Bureau from any point to any point at any
time when such transfer is in the best interest of the United
States Government. This authority emanates from Department of
Justice Order No. 175-59, dated April 1, 1959, wherein the
Attorney General of the United States delegated to the Director
the same authority relating to the transfer of employees as
delegated to the head of departments by the President.
B. Current Policy
The transfer policy of the FBI is generally governed by
the staffing needs existing within the FBI's 59 field divisions
and 407 resident agencies. More specifically, the staffing needs
of the 12 largest field divisions form the focal point of the
transfer policy.
The current policy briefly stated is that new Agents
will be transferred to a small- or medium-sized office after
completion of training at Quantico. They will remain in those
offices for a period of two to four years, and at the completion
of or during that period, they will be transferred to a Top 12
office. Service in a Top 12 office is required of all Agents.
Agents will remain in a Top 12 office until they receive an OP,
Career Development Program (CDP) Transfer or a need of the Bureau
� 15
Declassified in Part -'Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
transfer. Additional provisions are outlined in the policy to
cover OP Transfers, Hardship Transfers, Specialty Transfers,
Undercover Transfers, CDP Transfers, and MACs. (see Appendix A)
Each of these areas will be covered separately in this report.
The goal of the BTP is to fulfill the needs of the
Bureau within budgetary considerations, and while doing this,
satisfy the personnel needs and desires of all employees.
Based on the above, OPEA set out to determine:
1. Is the current transfer policy being operated in
an effective, efficient, and economical manner?
2. Is the current policy providing for the needs of
the Bureau by staffing all FBI divisions with a
proper balance of experience and expertise?
3. Is the policy fair and equitable to all Agents,
and is it perceived to be such by them?
4. Is proper planning and management control being
applied to the transfer policy?
OPEA set out at first to determine if the current
policy negatively affected either recruitment or retention of
personnel. The answer in both cases was no.
While there are qualified individuals who do not
consider joining the FBI due to the fact that they will be
transferred, at the present time there are approximately 2,400
fully qualified, tested candidates awaiting appointments as
- 16 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Agents. There is still another pool of 4,000 candidates awaiting
to be tested and interviewed.
The FBI turnover rate is among the lowest that can be
found in either the United States Government or industry. The
turnover rate for 1984 was three percent and that included losses
from all sources; retirements, deaths, voluntary and involuntary
separations. While some good Agents may quit rather than accept
what they consider an undesirable assignment, the number is
small. The Bureau averages 123 Agent resignations annually.
While the current transfer policy has little or no
affect on recruitment or resignations, serious concerns have been
expressed by management and supervisory personnel over the costs
involved, its inability to provide balanced staffing, and by
field Agents as to its fairness and credibility.
- 17 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
IV. TRANSFERS AND COSTS
A. Transfer Increases
The number of transfers has risen continuously for the
last three years. This rise can be directly attributed to
increased recruitment of SAs and the requirement to transfer them
first from training school to their first assignment and then
transfer them again in a two- to four-year period (currently
running at 18 months) to a Top 12 office. The following chart
depicts the number of transfers by type and the percent of total
transfers for the Fiscal Years (FY) 1980 to 1984. Since clerical
transfers are not a subject of this study, they have been
eliminated from the totals and figures in this section.
- 18 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
0
(D
0
CD
=PCDi
a
a
CD

BUREAU TRANSFER
SPECIAL AGENTS
1980 - 1984
'Jed U! IDOWSSepea
W W
m 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 m
m m
�=. �=.
N
m Type Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percery
a
0
o Total Cost Transfers 1,064
p
,.< Career Development 323
> Office of Preference 286
p
p New Agents
8
< (includes 6 months) 211
CD
Two-Four-Year Rotation 35
Resident Agency 121
88
Other Agent Transfers
7)
ml
(T)1- Total No Cost
w Transfer Agents 256
W 43
(D I
0
Total Agent Transfers 1,320
6
.r.
8
-
O 1includes 98, 10/1/69s
)7
32 includes 118, 10/1/69s
7)
O estimated
30.4
26.9
19.8
3.3
11.4
8.3
983
217
241
217
118
131
59
485
22.1
24.5
22.1
12.
13.3
6.
882
111
- 102
280
143
2021
44
333
12.6
11.6
31.7
16.2
22.9
5.
1,2920
128
140
511
213
2532
47
3702
9.9
10.8
39.6
16.5
19.6
3.6
1,468
1,215
1,662
a
o
1,664
181 10.9 ,-c3
95 5.7>
p
p
878 52.88
21.?i1
358
119
33 2. �
7.2 -h
7)
m
(T)
464 w
W
M
2,128 o
4
o
.r.
8
L-1-00060Z0800n10�900-06dC11-V10
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
A review of the above chart shows two interesting
trends:
The percentage of CDP and OP transfers has
declined from 30.4 and 26.9 percent, respectively,
in 1980, to 10.9 and 5.7 percent in 1984.
At the same time, the percent of new Agent
transfers and two- to four-year rotations have
increased from 19.8 and 3.3 percent in 1980 to
52.8 and 21.5 percent in 1984.
There is little that can be done to reduce new Agent
transfers, but the increase in two- to four-year rotation is
dramatic; a 1,000 percent increase in four years. Currently,
there are approximately 900 Agents in this category awaiting
transfers.
The CDP transfers offer an opportunity to compare
Bureau transfers with those of private industry. A November,
1984, survey published in the USA TODAY showed that 58 percent of
all industry transfers involved a corporate promotion. In 1984,
only 10.9 percent of Bureau transfers involved a promotion or CDP
transfer.
The Bureau had 2,128 total Agent transfers in 1984.
This figure, if constant, would equate to transferring most of
our Agents every four years. By the end of June, 1985, there
were approximately 1,100 cost Agent transfers.
20
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
B. Transfer Costs
Along with the increased number of transfers, there has
also been dramatic cost increases primarily due to the passage of
Public Law 98-151 which authorized increased relocation expenses.
The following chart shows the extent of increased transfer costs:
1978
$5,399
( 1)
12�Agents only
'Estimated
FBI Average
Transfer Costs
1984(1)
$13,300
1985(2)
$20,741
The 1985 figure remains an estimate since the increased
reimbursements went into effect in FY 1985 after the passage of
the FY 1985 budget. The increased transfer costs were not in the
1985 budget, but even so the 1985 costs are almost four times the
average cost in 1978.
The FBI budgets transfer costs in five categories:
CDP, OP, New Agents, Two- to Four-Year Rotation, and Support.
The OP category includes all other Agent transfers. The
following chart shows the estimated transfer costs for Agent
personnel for FY 1985:
�
- 21 -
I_ Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
1985 FBI
Estimated Transfer Costs
Transfer Number Average Cost Total
CDP
(1) 156 $32,104 $5,008,224
OP 132 31,629 4,175,028
New Agent 344 8,943 3,076,392
2-4 Rotation 424 22,742 9,642,608
TOTAL 1,056 20,741 21,902,252
(1)Includes all other transfers
By June, 1985, the transfer budget had been depleted
and SATTMU has prepared a request for an additional $4 million.
This has occurred even though the estimated number of Agent
transfers was reduced from 1,520 to 1,056. But 110 additional
new Agents will be hired by the end of FY 1985, and by June,
1985, there were already 1,100 cost transfers. If the 1,520 was
the true figure, estimated total costs for 1985 would have been
$31,526,320. If the same number of Agent transfers occur in 1985
as occurred in 1984, estimated costs would be $34,978,944.
Although the FY 1986 budget has yet to be approved by
Congress, transfers are estimated to be 1,567 with an estimated
cost of $22,504,000. Estimates for 1987 show 1,614 requested
transfers and estimated costs of $22,954,000. In view of
previous cost data exemplified, OPEA finds this to be an
unrealistic projection. In any event, with the ever-increasing
costs and possible future budget constraints, the FBI simply
- 22 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
cannot afford to continue the number of transfers that it has in
the past.
- 23 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
V. FIELD OFFICE STAFFING
A. Goal
One of the major goals of the BTP is to provide a
balanced staffing level in each FBI division. Each field office,
therefore, should be staffed with a balance of expertise and
experience to enable that field office to attain program goals
and objectives. Since the FBI staffing is grade oriented, the
implication is, therefore, that each office should have a balance
of field grades. FBI field Agents are spread through four grades
from the GS 10 to the GS 13 level. While successive grade levels
are reached progressively through the passage of time, they also
indicate an experience factor that relates to job assignment. An
Agent at the GS 13 level should be able to work the most
complicated cases with little supervision. GS lOs by definition,
work the less complicated matters with closer supervision. The
mid-level grades, GS us and GS 12s, progress in ability and
experience through more difficult work assignments to the GS 13
level.
B. Target Staffing Level (TSL)
The transfer process is an implement in effecting the
established TSL. The establishment of the TSL is the function of
the Resource Management and Allocation Board. TSLs are based on
the number of Agent work years available for distribution to each
field office. When the work-year schedule is available
- 24 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
(appropriated by Congress), each program is reviewed and examined
office-by-office. Consideration is given to previous year
accomplishments and work-year expenditures and the program
objectives for the forthcoming year. These considerations are
matched with the allocated manpower totals for each program as
established by the budgetary process. When all adjustments are
made, a TSL for supervisory and field Agents for each office for
the FY is set and approved. TSLs are to remain constant for each
FY and are reviewed in March of each year. The TSL for each
field division is an "ultimate" goal, but because of retirements,
resignations, transfers, the time required to hire and process
applicants, and possible changes in the budgetary allocation of
funded Agent levels, the on-board complement of Agents may be
more or less than the TSL.
Once a TSL is established and barring unforeseen events
that may affect, it, transfers are used to ensure that each office
is at or near the authorized level. While the TSL sets the
staffing levels, it does not set a balanced level of field grades
in each office. This balance is an informal goal generally
expressed as an "experience level" that equates to a desired
percent of GS 13s in each office.
C. Experience Level
The experience level is an informal goal and not
precisely defined. FBI officials believe that the GS 13 level in
- 25 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
each office should either equal the percent of GS 13s in the
field or 70 percent of an office TSL.
The experience level is based on the premise that the
Top 12 offices have a larger volume of complex cases and,
therefore, should have a higher number of experienced Agents than
the small- and medium-sized offices. In 1981, however, the
experience level in the Top 12 offices decreased to as low as 29
percent for GS 13s in the New York Division. This low level was
the result of the previous policy that sent new Agents to Top 12
offices from training school and filled the small- and medium-
sized offices with OP transfers. A 1981 policy change was
designed to correct this experience imbalance by:
1. Sending new Agents to only small- and medium-sized
-offices from training school;
2. then, transferring the new Agents from their
small- and medium-sized offices after 2-4 years to
a Top 12 office.
An immediate solution known as the "10/1/69 Program"
was adopted. This policy transferred field Agents who entered on
duty after October 1, 1969, and who had not served in a Top 12
office to one of those offices. The policy change was deemed
necessary to correct the experience level imbalances caused by
retirements, shifts in investigative priorities and to correct
- 26 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
the imbalance caused by the fluctuation of the transfer policy in
the previous decade.
The experience level in the Top 12 offices has grown
since 1981 as shown on the following chart:
- 27 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Experience Levels
GS 13%
GS 13%
Top-12 Offices
.2/82 - 1/85
GS 13%
Office
2/82
5/83
7/85
�
Baltimore
64
75
69
Boston
56
66
66
Chicago
45
63
54
Cleveland
51
65
62
Detroit
44
60
63
41
Los Angeles
59
69
65
Miami
63
77
71
Newark
61
68
66
New York
29
41
47
Philadelphia
61
69
67
San Francisco
66
76
65
41
Washington Field
32
55
51
�
�
0
�
D. Lack of Experienced Agents in Small/Medium-Sized
Offices
Wnile the above chart shows a high level of experience
in the Top 12 offices, the current policy prevents the goal of
balanced staffing levels in all field offices from being reached
for two reasons: first, by failing to set a realistic experience
level goal achievable fieldwide; and secondly, by a transfer
policy that prevents the distribution of experience levels
fieldwide. That all new Agents only be sent to a small- or
medium-sized office from training school and that all Agents must
serve in a Top 12 office are the two facets currently present in
the transfer policy that affect the staffing balance. New Agents
serve in small/medium-sized offices for two to four years and are
- 28 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
then transferred to large offices. As a result, there are no or
few GS lOs in large offices and no or few mid-level grades in the
small/medium-sized offices as can be seen in the following:
Grade Distribution by Office Type
July, 1985
Top-12
S/M
GS
10
2.3%
97.7%
GS
11
71.2%
28.8%
GS
12
92.5%
7.5%
GS
13
53.6%
46.4%
According to one SAC, the current transfer policy has
� "divested all but the Top 12 offices of experienced manpower. An
additional handicap placed on the less prominent offices is the
exclusive staffing of vacancies with GS 10 SAs. This causes an
0 imbalance of the experience level which manifests itself in both
the administrative and operational areas of management."
Experienced Agents in the small/medium-sized offices are
� constantly training new Agents who are transferred within 18
months perpetuating the process.
OPEA surveyed 67 FBI field managers and supervisors, 21
AD from medium-sized offices and 46 from Top 12 offices. Every SAC,
ASAC, and SSA from the three medium-sized offices asserted that
the current transfer policy does not provide their office or
� squad the adequate staffing necessary to effectively attain
program goals and objectives. Each one stated that because of
the training requirements impressed upon both management and
�
- 29 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
�
experienced Agents, accomplishments are less than what they could
be and that the frequent rotation of first office Agents upsets
the continuity of long-term investigations.
The extent of the experience imbalance can be evinced
by the following ratio of FOAs to experienced Agents found at the
time of the OPEA visits to the offices.
FIRST OFFICE AGENT
VERSUS
EXPERIENCED AGENT
FOAs
as % of
Office FOAs Experienced Staff
Denver 36 53 40.4%
Houston 68 64 51.5%
San Diego 52 50 50.9%
The high percentage of FOAs necessitates they be
assigned to squads and program work normally requiring more
� experienced investigators.
-- In Denver
- Fify percent of the Agents assigned to the OC/DE
AP Task Force are GS 10s.
- AGS 10 is now the applicant coordinator.
- Two of the FCI Agents are GS 10s.
� - Ten of 15 Agents assigned to WCC are GS 10s.
-- In Houston
- 30 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
- Fifty-six percent of the Agents assigned PCI work
are FOAs. 'Ralston has sixth largest PCI TSL.
- Fifty percent of the OC squad are GS 10s.
- Twelve of the 19 Special Agent Accountants (SSAs)
are FOAs.
- Houston's only bomb technician is a GS 10.
The only Agent with enough flight hours to be a
Pilot-in-Charge (PIC) is a GS 10.
In San Diego
The turnover rate was 128 percent in 26 months.
Five of the 10 Agents assigned to the SOG are FOAs.
- Seventeen of 22 Agents assigned to the FCI squad are
FOAs.
- Six of 13 Agents on the OC/DE task force--narcotics
squad are FOAs.
All three offices sent FOAs to Quantico for in-service
training including basic counterintelligence, Special Weapons and
Tactics (SWAT), firearm and defensive tactics, and general police
instruction. During the first six months of FY 1985, 80 Agents
with less than one year of field experience attended in-service
classes at Quantico.
Contrary to the opinions expressed by management of the
medium-sized offices, only a minority of FBI management in the
Top 12 offices believed that the current transfer policy had an
- 31 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
adverse affect on office staffing and investigation. Those who
did, believed so because of an absence of a particular skill and
expertise on their squad.
Two basic questions must be addressed before any
solution can be presented. First, should the Top 12 offices
continue to receive special consideration via the transfer
process? Secondly, can first office Agents be sent to all
offices from training school? Both questions and the answers are
interrelated.
E. TOP 12 OFFICE CRITERIA
The transfer policy is governed by the staffing needs
of the 12 offices which constitute the 12 largest offices in the
FBI. The size of the office, more than 170 SAs, the size of the
metropolitan area in which they are located, working conditions,
the complexity of the investigative work, the specialized nature
of the work, cost of living, and undesirability of an assignment
to these offices are the often-cited criteria used to distinguish
these offices from the other 47 field offices. Because of these
factors, these 12 offices receive special attention from the
transfer process, that is, no FOAs are assigned and all Agents
must serve a set period of time in them. OPEA, however, could
not find any documentation nor valid arguments as to why FOAs are
not sent to Top 12 offices.
- 32 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
S
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
In order to determine a common point to compare Top 12
criteria, OPEA selected 12. small- and medium-sized offices. The
12 small- and medium-sized offices selected all have a high
percentage of FOAs currently assigned. The offices selected were
Alexandria, Birmingham, Denver, Houston, Las Vegas, Minneapolis,
Omaha, Portland, Richmond, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, and San
Diego. The two groups were compared on accomplishments, cost of
living, and their desirability as a Bureau assignment.
Accomplishments
OPEA selected three factors to compare the two groups:
the percent of Priority Case Indicator (PCI) hours worked for FY
1984, the number of arrests and arrests per Direct Agent Work
Years (DAWYs), and number of indictments and informations per
DAWY. The following chart shows the comparative results:
- 33
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10 : CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
4,
TOP 12 vs.
COMPARISON OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS
OFFICES
Indict-
ments
Per
DAWY
12 SELECTED SMALL/MEDIUM-SIZED
Office
Percent
of PCI
FY 1984
Convictions Indict-
Per DAWY ments
Convictions
Top 12
Baltimore
80
269
1.67
288
1.79
Boston
85
179
.92
198
1.01
Chicago
84
429
1.32
429
1.32
�
Cleveland
88
212
1.35
222
1.41
Detroit
85
323
1.54
337
1.60
Los Angeles
86
689
1.78
752
1.96
Miami
87
203
1.22
406
2.44
Newark
86
262
1.29
209
1.03
New York
90
585
.65
739
.82
�
Philadelphia
89
431
1.53
602
2.15
San Francisco
84
387
1.46
371
1.40
Washington Field
85
156
.36
170
.40
NUMBER
4,125
4,723
AVERAGE
85.8
1.18
1.35
�
Small/Medium
Alexandria
79
113
1.76
116
1.81
Birmingham
82
115
2.04
161
2.86
Denver
83
128
1.66
144
1.48
Houston
86
116
1.07
133
1.23
Las Vegas
82
340
4.38
328
4.23
Minneapolis
85
197
2.31
214
2.51
Omaha
84
149
2.62
96
1.69
Portland
78
97
1.82
96
1.80
Richmond
79
82
2.03
91
2.25
St. Louis
86
81
1.24
122
1.87
Salt Lake City
84
63
1.81
67
1.93
San Diego
86
165
1.64
224
2.22
NUMBER
1,646
1,792
AVERAGE
82.8
1.99
2.17
Bureau's Average
85
1.65
1.84
�
- 34 -
L_ Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
The Top 12 offices had a higher percentage of PCI
(85.8 percent) than the small/medium (82.8
percent). The Bureau's average was 85 percent.
The small/medium-sized offices had 2.17
indictments/information for every DAWY compared to
the Top 12's 1.35. The Bureau's average was 1.84
indictment/information per DAWY.
The small/medium offices had 1.99 convictions per
DAWY compared to 1.18 convictions per DAWY recorded
by the Top 12. The Bureau's average was 1.65.
� While it appears that there is little significant
difference in PCI work between the two groups, the small/medium
offices seem to be out-performing the Top 12 as to indictments
41 and convictions. This comparison is not meant to determine rates
of performance, but to demonstrate that quality and productive
work exists in all offices and must be considered in staffing
40 policies.
Interviews conducted by OPEA with managers and
supervisors show that both groups are of the opinion that they
� all have high-priority and complex cases requiring experienced
investigators. It was discerned from the interviews, however,
that management and supervisory personnel in the small- and
40 medium-sized offices are being asked to perform on a higher level
than they are provisioned. While the FBI has supplied the Top 12
with experienced personnel to investigate highly complex,
411 priority cases, no one has told the small/medium-sized offices
that since they have a lesser experience level, they should
produce lesser results.
�
- 35 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
One OC supervisor interviewed by OPEA advised that he
saw himself to be a "minor-league manager." Every time he
developed a qualified and experienced Agent, that Agent was
"called up to the majors" via a transfer to a Top 12 office. But
the difference, he emphasized, is that he is still expected to
produce a winning record.
Another manager was more adamant in his opinion. He
stated that if the Bureau continued to put the experience in the
Top 12, then they should close the other 47 field offices and
make them RAs. Senior Agents point out that there are many
instances of cases that could be opened but are not, due to a
lack of experienced personnel to investigate them.
Economic Factors
The difficulties faced in the collection of comparable
economic data were compounded by the variances of the methods
used in collection and interpretation of the data, the
overlapping of field offices in a geographic areas, the
availability of up-to-date statistics, and the current economic
situation that fluctuates daily. OPEA chose as a standard, the
Rand McNally "Places Rated Almanac" 1985 edition which uses 1984
data. OPEA also chose to measure theeconomic status of the field
area using the following category:
1. Cost of living - 100 equals the average
2. Salary - average household salary for the area
3. State�and Local Taxes - state and local income
taxes and sales and percent
of taxes based on income
- 36 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
4. Cost of Housing - average housing cost
5. Property tax - amount of property tax payed on
average housing costs
The following chart reflects the cost differentials for
the Top 12 as compared to the 12 selected small- and medium-sized
offices according to the aforementioned "Places Rated Almanac."
- 37 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
ECONOMIC COMPARISON OF TOP 12
WITH SELECTED SMALL/MEDIUM
Cost of
Living
Average
Salary
Average
State
and Local
Taxes
Average
State and
Local as
% of Sal
Average
Housing
Cost
Average
Property
Tax
�
Top 12
Baltimore
106
$32,368
$1,267
3.91
$73,000
$1,001
Boston
116
36,644
1,695
4.63
84,300
2,047
Chicago
115
36,593
1,171
3.20
86,000
1,367
Cleveland
106
35,720
1,067
2.99
70,800
814
41 Detroit
102
33,858
1,589
4.69
59,100
1,583
Los Angeles
128
36,624
1,237
3.38
122,600
1,263
Miami
111
32,808
338
1.03
86,900
895
Newark
133
38,279
1,056
2.76
105,700
2,695
New York
133
36,047
1,637
4.54
95,800
2,462
Philadelphia
102
33,449
1,001
2.99
61,800
1,008
41 San Francisco
153
47,966
2,030
4.23
154,500
1,591
WFO
131
41,888
2,371
5.66
117,800
1,360
Small/Medium
Alexandria
131
41,888
2,371
5.66
117,800
1,360
Birmingham
95
27,835
876
3.15
57,900
722
� Denver
114
39,099
1,002
2.56
91,500
924
Houston
110
39,558
265
0.67
80,100
1,122
Las Vegas
112
32,626
331
1.01
87,300
673
Minneapolis
103
35,871
1,882
5.08
80,600
621
Omaha
93
31,912
784
2.46
52,100
1,162
Portland
114
33,020
1,553
4.70
80,800
1,664
I � Richmond
101
33,510
1,248
3.72
64,600
930
1
St. Louis
96
34,560
916
2.65
60,500
708
Salt Lake City
105
27,076
1,305
4.82
78,500
722
San Diego
137
32,586
997
3.06
123,503
1,272
Bureau Average
38,593.60
The average salary for a Bureau Agent in 1984 was
$38,593.60.
($28,999 in
The starting salary for
1984). As will be shown
a GS 10 Agent is now $30,014
later (See Section IX),
other Federal law enforcement agencies send new
York and other large cities
$21,804.
Agents to New
with salaries ranging from $14,390 to
- 38 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10 : CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
An analysis of the above information shows that
economic factors can be as. high, if not higher, in small- and
medium-sized offices than in the Top 12 offices.
San Diego with the highest percentage of assigned
FOAs has the second highest cost of living factor
and the second highest housing cost.
The Alexandria Office is rated as part of the
Washington Metropolitan Area and as such has the
same high costs.
Minneapolis and Salt Lake City have the second and
third highest local tax rate. This is even more
significant as Washington (including Alexandria),
which has the highest, includes a District tax that
applies only to District residents. The majority
of SAs assigned to WFO (and Alexandria) reside in
Virginia where the local tax rate is lower.
In 1984, the state and local income taxes paid on
the average SA's salary of $40,529.43 would have .
been higher in Minneapolis ($2,160.50), Salt Lake
City ($1,953.52), and Portland ($1,904.88) than in
Boston ($1,876.51) and New York (1,840.04).
OPEA selected three states that have both a medium and
a Top 12 office. As the following chart shows, there is little
in the way of economic factors that separate the pairs within the
states.
- 39 -
___ Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
COMPARISON OF TOP 12 WITH
� MEDIUM OFFICE -- SAME STATE
Office
Cost of
Living Housing
Average Local
Taxes
Pittsburgh
103
60,500
1,219.94
�
Philadelphia
102
61,800
1,211.83
Cincinnati
98
63,900
1,296.94
Cleveland
106
70,800
1,211.83
San Diego
137
123,500
1,240.20
�
Los Angeles
128
122,600
1,369.89
OPEA recognizes that economic data varies daily and is
always subject to challenge. It is not OPEA's intention to show
� which field office has the highest economic costs, but, on the
basis of data available, that there is not a wide range of costs
between the Top 12 and small/medium-sized offices.
� Office Desirability
Another factor that OPEA attempted to determine was the
desirability of an office for assignment. To do this, OPEA
� totaled the number of field Agents in each office who listed that
office as an OP and those not in that office but who listed it as
their OP. The January, 1985, OP list was used for this
� compilation. The total was compared to the Agent TSL for that
office. This resulted in a ratio of the number of Agents per
slot.
� As an example, in January, Portland had a TSL of 53
field Agents. There were 33 Agents listing that office as their
OP assigned to Portland and an additional 31 Agents desiring that
�
- 40 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
office as an OP. There were then 64 Agents desiring 53 slots or
a factor of 1.21 Agents per slot.
The following chart reflects a comparison of the Top 12
offices with the selected small- and medium-sized offices as to
their desirability on the OP list and where each office is
ranked. Also shown is the Rand McNally ranking of those cities
in its survey of 329 metropolitan areas.
- 41 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
Office
DESIRABILITY OF FIELD OFFICES
TOP 12 vs. SELECTED SMALL/MEDIUM
Rand 1
Desirability OP Rank McNally Rank
Top 12
Baltimore
1.65
5
15
Boston
1.06
32
2
Chicago
.67
53(t)
26
Cleveland
.77
47(t)
31
0
Detroit
.59
57
87
Los Angeles
.67
53(t)
38
Miami
1.12
27
52
Newark
.73
52
72
New York
.39
58
25
Philadelphia
.94
41
5
�
San Francisco
.81
46
4
WFO
.60
56
15
Small/Medium
Alexandria
1.01
36
15
Birmingham
1.13
26
93
Denver
1.26
20
30
Houston
.66
55
75
Las Vegas
.76
51
230
Minneapolis
.77
47(t)
51
Omaha
.77
47(t)
37
Portland
1.21
24
63
�
Richmond
1.62
6(t)
23
St. Louis
.89
42(t)
7
Salt Lake City
2.10
2
71
San Diego
1.25
21
28
(1) rank out of 329 cities rated
� (t) tied
�
�
�
As can be seen, three of the Top 12 offices have a high
desirability as to an OP, but at the same time, five of the
small/medium-sized offices have a low desirability, Houston
having the lowest factor. The entire exercise found Hawaii with
- 42 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
I Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
�
a 2.71 desirability factor as the highest office and San Juan
with a .37 factor as the lowest.
The Rand McNally study showed different results. Nine
of the Top 12 rank in the top 50cities compared to six of the
small/medium. The highest ranking was Boston (second overall);
the lowest shown was Las Vegas at 230. The highest Bureau office
on the list was Pittsburgh (ranked first); the lowest ranked
office was El Paso at 279.
During the field visits, OPEA asked Agents interviewed
to select their top three choices for a Top 12 office. A
compilation of their choices found the following:
1. Boston
2. Washington Field
3. San Francisco
4. Miami
5. Baltimore
6. Chicago
7. Philadelphia
8. Los Angeles
9. New York
10. Cleveland
11. Detroit
12. Newark
The sampling was influenced by the fact that both
40 Boston and Washington Field were visited during the evaluation.
Both offices, however, rank consistently high in all offices
visited.
40 There is, however, no clear evidence that on the whole,
the Top 12 offices are undesirable and some Top 12s could be
easily filled using the OP list and FOAs.
�
- 43 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
F. TRAINING FOR FIRST OFFICE AGENTS (FOAs)
Specialization is the point often raised to distinguish
between the investigative needs of the Top 12 and small/medium-
sized offices. Due to the nature of their investigations, more
specialized Agents are required in the Top 12 offices. Because
of this, Top 12 offices require special attention from the
transfer process and cannot provide the variety of assignments
necessary to train FOAs.
Specialization has indeed grown as an investigative
requirement. Language-trained Agents, technical-trained Agents,
pilots, accountants, and other specialties are constantly in
demand to meet the Bureau's ever changing priorities. This
specialization, however, does not apply just to the Top 12. As
pointed out earlier, FOAs are being assigned work usually
reserved for Agents with more experience and a degree of
expertise or specialization. As a result, the probationary
training of the new Agents suffers. Furthermore, the increase of
specialization in the small- and medium-sized offices further
reduces the reactive slots and squads traditionally used for
probationary Agent training. The Top 12 offices, however, have
more reactive spots and can provide an opportunity for training
in these areas.
A recently completed study by the In-Service and
Student Services Unit of the TD has concluded that new Agents can
- 44 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
perform their probationary Agent training in all field offices.
It further found that the current policy of sending FOAs only to
small/medium-sized offices is a detriment to a successful
Probationary Agent Program. The probationary training program
outlined by the TD cannot function when an office is over-staffed
with FOAs as the small- and medium-sized offices are now. The TD
posits that FOAs must be sent to all field offices in order that
the Bureau has a viable Probationary Agent Training Program
(PATP).
During its survey, OPEA asked if new Agents should be
sent to all offices from training school and could they be
effectively trained in all field offices. A summary of the
answers shows that:
70 percent of managers and supervisors believed
that new Agents should be sent to all field offices
and can be effectively trained in all offices.
82 percent of the SAC and ASAC responses from the
above figures showed that FOAs should be sent to
all field offices and that adequate training could
be provided.
71 percent of field Agents interviewed were in
favor of sending new Agents to all field offices.
90 Agents were interviewed who were sent to a Top
12 as their first office. Seventy Agents stated
that they received at least adequate training in
that assignment.
� Seventeen field managers were asked if they believed
that the current concept of Top 12 offices should be changed and
13 responded in the affirmative. An FBIHQ executive stated that
�
�
- 45 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
he could see no differences between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia,
and Cincinnati and Cleveland, and that there was a need to re-
evaluate the Top 12 concept.
The current problems relating to the transfer policy
and its role in staffing field offices emanate from the
elimination of the Top 12 offices as first-office assignments.
OPEA finds that while the current transfer policy corrects the
experience drain in Top 12 field offices, it also reduces the
experience balance in the small- and medium-sized offices and
impairs the investigative continuity of program work and goals.
It also hinders the in-house development of specialized skills
needed by the small- and medium-sized offices by the absence or
shortage of mid-level grades which are the usual sources of
speciality development. Another effect is found in the Career
Development Program. OPEA found only one relief supervisor out
of seven in the three medium offices visited who could be
considered a viable member of the CDP. The others only served as
relief to help out the office. This contrasts sharply with Top
12 offices where 73 relief supervisors were interviewed and 21 of
those interviewed admitted they were in the CDP primarily to get
out of their current office of assignment.
The key to alleviating the current experience imbalance
that exists among FBI field divisions is to eliminate the
restriction against sending new Agents to all field offices from
- 46 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
training school. This restriction is purely administrative and
is not supported by documentation or past experiences.
By removing the above restriction, only those large
offices that cannot be adequately staffed through a combination
of new Agent and OP transfers would receive special attention
through the transfer process. Currently, these offices would
include New York, Washington Field, Chicago, Detroit, Newark,
Los Angeles, and San Francisco. The balance in these offices
would be maintained by OPs, first-office transfers, and second-
office transfers of Agents originally assigned to offices not in
this category.
Agents in their first office would remain in that
assignment for a minimum of five years. This would:
Re-establish midlevel Agents (GS us and 12s) in
the small- and medium-sized offices.
Provide for investigative continuity.
� Reduce the current high turnover rate of Agents in
the small- and medium-sized offices.
Provide a pool of Agents for the development of
specialized skills.
� Provide Agents with both professional and personal
stability.
�
�
�
Reduce transfer costs by reducing the number of
mandatory second-office rotations. Second-office
transfers would be only to those offices not
adequately filled from the OP list.
Provide for an effective probationary Agent
training program in all offices.
- 47 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Some negative aspects of this proposal are:
Requires detailed management of the transfer
process.
It will not expedite OPs. Agents will still have
to wait 12 to 15 years before OPs become a
possibility.
Those assigned as FOAs to a Major Impact Office
will remain there until receiving an OP, CDP, or
needs of the Bureau transfer.
41 Those assigned as FOAs to the other offices may be
required to move after five years in one location.
�
�
�
�
�
�
If the policy is implemented, there will be a five
to seven-year gap before full benefits can be
realized.
The proposed changes would set forth two transfer
patterns for field Agents. Those sent to an office that has a
problem in maintaining a balanced staff would remain there until
receiving an OP transfer. Those sent to a nonproblem office
would probably be transferred to a difficult staffing office
after a five-year minimum, first-office assignment. CDP and the
needs-of-the-Bureau transfers could interrupt this pattern.
- 48 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
VI. THE BUREAU TRANSFER POLICY AS VIEWED BY SPECIAL AGENTS
A. LACK OF CREDIBILITY
There is probably no other aspect of the FBI that
receives closer attention and scrutiny from SAs than the BTP.
SATU receives numerous phone calls daily from field Agents with
questions as to their transfer status. In their meetings with
the Director, the Special Agent Advisory Committee (SAAC) usually
presents a list of questions dealing with transfer matters. It
is one thing that affects all SAs.
In the survey conducted by OPEA during its field
visits, SAs were asked if they "considered the current transfer
policy fair and equitable?" Of the 272 SAs interviewed, 221 or
81.3 percent replied that they did not believe the current policy
to be either fair or equitable in its operation and application.
The negative response is even more pronounced when almost 90
percent of the Agents in the Top 12 offices expressed a lack of
faith and confidence in the current policy.
Despite the fact that some Agents who expressed their
displeasures with the transfer process did so out of personal
reasons, there remain many valid areas of concern in the Agents'
responses. As far as transfers are concerned, however, there
exists in some offices a "rumor mill" that produces half-truths,
and innuendoes that contribute to a general malaise affecting
both Agent morale and productivity. This situation exists
- 49 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
despite the best efforts of SATU and other management personnel
involved in transfers to be responsive to individual Agent
concerns and questions, while at the same time addressing
universal transfer problems affecting the Bureau's goals and
objectives.
OPEA has collated those areas which are of concern to
field Agents and they are summarized as follows:
The transfer policy lacks stability. There are too
many changes and Agents never know where they
stand. Current policy appears to be arbitrary. It
does not provide stability to an Agent in either
one's personal or professional life.
The OP program does not work. There are too few
OPs. Some Agents receive more than one OP, while
others receive none. OPs are not based on
performance.
� Specialty transfers are abused. "Hooks and
favoritism" are used to obtain specialty transfers
They corrupt the OP program.
Hardship transfers are given in lieu of OPs. Many
are not valid.
-- The 10/1/69 policy was a disaster. It did not
accomplish what it was designed for and damaged
Agent's productivity and morale.
- 50 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
The MAC transfer policy should have been applied
retroactively. Not all MACs are assigned together.
There is little concern for an Agent's family
during transfers.
Minority Agents are assigned in an inordinate
proportion to undesirable offices.
The New York five-year plan does not work.
No consideration is given to the difference in cost
of living among field offices.
In the following sections, OPEA will address each of
the above concerns, and in some cases, separate the fact from
fiction.
B. INSTABILITY OF BUREAU'S TRANSFER POLICY
Field Agents �expressed concern that the BTP changes too
frequently and these changes affect the stability of both their
personal and professional life. A review of Section II, Part C,
shows just a few of the many changes that have taken place
throughout the years. New investigative priorities and
geographic and demographic realignments require frequent changes,
but Agents are confused and annoyed by all the different policies
in effect during their tenure.
The second concern affecting stability results from the
new Agent's assignment policy. The current policy assigns an
Agent to a first office for a period of two to four years. Prior
- 51 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
to reporting, Agents leave their families or homes for a 15-week
training period at Quantico. After leaving training school and
arriving at the first assignment, a decision must be made whether
to purchase or rent a residence. The indefinite period of time
in the assignment, two to four years, plus the knowledge that
current transfers in this group have occurred at approximately 18
months, does not make this an easy decision. If the Agent had
sold a residence prior to EOD, then there is the concern for
capital gain taxes. Even so, there is the need to invest in
property in order to realize a profit to assist in the purchase
of a home at the second assignment which will probably be a high-
cost area. To twice sell and buy residences in a two-year period
is a harrowing experience for most people. Furthermore, it may
not be cost effective for both the Agent and the Bureau.
Additionally, it does not allow for a family to become settled
with the specter of three residences in a two-year time frame.
The need for economic and family stability affects all
new Agents, not just those with families. Single Agents also
purchase residences and have a need to develop stable community
roles.
All Agents are affected by professional instability.
Many new Agents are assigned to and become involved in long-term
investigations. Many Agents are transferred before their
investigative efforts reach fruition. The transfers add to
- 52 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
administrative responsibility when cases must be reassigned or
transfer delays are requested because of the nature of the
investigations. OPEA believes that a five-year minimum, first-
office assignment would allow Agents to establish personal and
family stability, lessen financial hardships and provide a
positive area for professional growth. At the same time, it
would ease the administrative burden of case reassignment and
give continuity to program goals and reduce transfer costs.
C. OFFICE OF PREFERENCE (OP)
The OP system was established in the FBI in order to
provide a means to reward field Agents for faithful service by
sending them to an office of their choice. The system is based
upon seniority, consistent with the needs of the service and
budgetary considerations. It is a reward for service, not a
right. As stated in the employment agreement signed by all
Agents, "you cannot expect an assignment to an office of your own
preference."
Basically, the following summarizes the rules governing
OP transfers. (The complete citation can be found in Appendix
A.)
1.
After receiving an OP transfer, an Agent
receive a second one for five years.
2. Agents can change their OP at any time. Only those
listed on the OP list will be considered for an OP
transfer.
cannot
- 53 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
3. Agents on probation or the subject of a pending
� administrative action are ineligible for an OP.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
4. Agents passed over for an OP transfer due to
investigative assignment will be afforded first OP
available after the completion of that assignment.
5. Agents are ineligible if they have consummated a
cost transfer within past years or have less than a
year to mandatory retirement. Agents must have
capacity to serve one year in OP.
6. Bureau staffing needs remain the paramount
consideration. Specialized requirements, unique
Agent skills and/or qualifications, which are not
readily available elsewhere in the Bureau, are also
recognized as matters which must take precedence
when such needs exist. OP transfers made out of
order and other deviations from regular rotational
programs resulting from these unique requirements
are recorded in the appropriate headquarter's files
and approved by the Personnel Officer, ASD.
7. Agents who receive an OP transfer to an office with
direct assignment to a resident agency more than
200 miles from headquarters city may refuse that
transfer without penalty.
8. Agents who receive an OP transfer to headquarters
city, or an RA within 200 miles, may also refuse
that transfer, but in so doing, will not be
eligible for another OP transfer to that same
division for two years.
9. Agents who receive an OP transfer to either
Anchorage, Honolulu, or San Juan are not precluded
from receiving another OP transfer upon completion
of their two-year or four-year contractual
agreement. However, the Agent must be number one
net and there must be a staffing need in his/her OP
or the Agent will be reassigned to an office where
a staffing need exists. This policy applies to
these three offices only. The five-year OP rule
applies to all other offices.
- 54 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Agents in OPs
How well the OP system works depends upon with whom you
are talking. Those in their OPs are happy, those not in their
OPs are unhappy. On July 2, 1985, 67.7 percent of all field
Agents were listed as being in their OPs. This percentage, when
broken down by grades, shows the following:
FIELD AGENT IN
OFFICE OF PREFERENCE
BY GRADES
1/31/85
GS 10 GS 11 GS 12 GS 13
# %
765 76.8 276 40.4 359 36.7 3,433 75.4
The validity of the above is open to challenge by the
high percentage of GS lOs who have listed their current offices
of assignment as their OP, as all but 22 GS lOs are due for
rotation to a large office. While their current listing might be
their true OPs, within 2 years they will be transferred and thus
not in an OP. Eliminating them, however, would only reduce the
percent of Agents in their OP to 65.5 percent.
A second and probably more important figure is that
75.4 percent of GS 13s are in their OPs. This figure compares
favorably to past years as shown below.
55 �
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
1954
88%
PERCENT OF GS 13s IN OPs
1972 1985
84% 75.4%
The current 75.4 percent stands out even more when it
is considered that the 1954 and 1972 figures counted Agents in an
OP if they were in their second or third choice'.
The July 2, 1985, figures showed 1,123 GS 13s not in
their OPs. Of this figure, 895 Agents were assigned to Top 12
offices. Based on previous OP transfers, the majority of the
1,123 Agents would have a small- and medium-sized office for
their OPs. While the experience level of the GS 13s not in their
OP was not determined, based on interviews many of these Agents
have less than 10 years in the Bureau except for the approximate
225 "10/1/69" Agents assigned to the Top 12 offices since 1982.
Decrease in OP Transfers
The following chart depicts the number of OP transfers
from 1980 to 1984:
OFFICE OF PREFERENCE TRANSFERS
FY 1980 - FY 1984
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
274 241 102 146 95
� The number of OP transfers has decreased from a high of
26.9 percent of Agent cost transfers in 1980 to 5.7 percent in
1984. As of June 1985, the 65 OP transfers were funded, but, not
�
�
- 56 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
all of them were "pure" OPs, as specialty transfers are also made
from the OP list without r.egard to overall seniority.
Staffing Offices from the OP Lists
It would be impossible to provide the staffing needs of
the Bureau both in Agent numbers and experience by using the OP
list. A review of the January OP list as compared to office TSL
found that 22 of 59 offices would be below TSL, a shortfall of
1,946 Agents. Not all of the Top 12 offices were included in the
22 offices.
Even by limiting OPs to more senior Agents, it would be
difficult to maintain a desired experience level. Assuming that
each office would have a percent of GS 13s equal to the percent
of GS 13s in the field, shortages and overages would exist if all
GS 13s were in their OPs. Assuming that the January 31 figure of
57.3 percent of GS 13s could be a desired experience level for
each office, the GS 13 staffing level for the Top 12 would be as
follows:
- 57 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
COMPARATIVE GS 13 STAFFING TSL
S
GS
TSL
VS.
OP TOP-12 OFFICE
GS 13
+-
13 GS 13
OP
Baltimore
104
131
+27
Boston
128
143
+15
Chicago
213
125
-88
Cleveland
99
84
-15
Detroit
134
77
-57
Los Angeles
246
188
-58
Miami
160
180
+20
Newark
135
110
-25
New York
605
229
-376
Philadelphia
179
177
-2
San Francisco
178
161
-17
WFO
276
128
-148
�
�
�
Furthermore, only 174 GS 13s had a Top 12 office as
their OP and 154 are now in another Top 12.
The number of Agents who actually receive an OP
transfer during the course of their career cannot be determined,
but the number is probably minimal. If OP transfers continue at
the same rate that OP transfers occurred in 1984 (95), it would
take 62 years to transfer all Agents not now in their OPs.
Agents are more likely to grow into an OP. That is, they receive
an assignment that was not a choice, but after they establish
roots for themselves and their families, they find that they are
"home." Surprisingly enough, a number of Agents believe that the
Bureau owes them an OP. Twenty-eight percent of the Agents
interviewed stated that the objective of the BTP should be to
send them where they want to be. Another Agent bluntly replied
- 58 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
S
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
that he believes that an Agent owes the Bureau 10 years of
service and then the Bureau owes the Agent the rest via an OP
assignment.
OPEA attempted to determine why Agents select an office
as an OP. OPEA gave all Agents interviewed the following list
of 15 factors and
selecting an OP:
asked them to rank the factors they use
Agent's home
Spouse's home
Parent's home
Cost of Living
Cost of Housing
Climate
Environment
Health Care
Education opportunities
Transportation
Recreation/Sports
The Arts
In-Laws' home
Challenging work
Health Care Availability
in
Overall, the cost of living, environment, cost of
housing, challenging work, and climate were rated as the top five
choices.
OPEA also attempted to determine what field offices
were the most popular as an OP. This was accomplished by
applying what OPEA determined to be the "desirability factor,"
that is, the Agents listing or desiring that office as an OP to
the Agent TSL slots available. The following is a ranking of
each field office as to its desirability:
- 59 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10 : CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
FIELD OFFICE DESIRABILITY
(JANUARY
Office Factor
-
FOR AN OP
1985)
Office
Factor
1.
Honolulu
2.71
31.
Buffalo
1.09
2.
Salt Lake City
2.10
32.
Boston
1.06
�
3.
4.
Butte
Anchorage
2.05
1.94
33.
Dallas
Indianapolis
1.05
1.05
5.
Baltimore
1.65
35.
Pittsburgh
1.03
6.
Richmond
1.62
36.
Alexandria
1.01
Seattle
1.62
37.
Memphis
1.00
8.
Tampa
1.57
38.
Milwaukee
.99
9.
Norfolk
1.53
39.
Louisville
.97
10.
Columbia
1.42
40.
Springfield
.95
11.
Sacramento
1.41
41.
Philadelphia
.94
12.
Jacksonville
1.38
42.
Kansas City
.89
13.
Charlotte
1.35
St. Louis
.89
14.
Albany
1.32
44.
Oklahoma City
.87
�
15.
Atlanta
Little Rock
1.31
1.31
45.
46.
Phoenix
San Francisco
.84
.81
17.
El Paso
1.29
47.
Cleveland
.77
18.
Albuquerque
1.27
Minneapolis
.77
Knoxville
1.27
New Orleans
.77
20.
Denver
1.26
Omaha
.77
21.
San Diego
1.25
51.
Las Vegas
.76
22.
Mobile
1.24
52.
Newark
.73
23.
Savannah
1.22
53.
Chicago
.67
24.
Portland
1.21
54.
Los Angeles
.67
25.
Cincinnati
1.16
55.
Houston
.66
26.
Birmingham
1.13
56.
Washington Field
.60
27.
Miami
1.12
57.
Detroit
.57
28.
San Antonio
1.11
58.
New York
.39
29.
Jackson
1.10
59.
San Juan
.37
New Haven
1.10
�
�
�
* indicates ties
The above list gives
differs from the previous
living and housing costs.
Anchorage and Butte
one of the wettest.
some indication of how the OP list
listed factors. Honolulu has high
Salt Lake City has high local taxes.
are among the coldest offices and Seattle is
Baltimore is a Top 12 and is listed as
- 60 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
having unacceptable air quality. Four small- and medium-sized
offices are listed Pr' the .bottom ten. The above serves only as
an indicator as the OP list changes monthly and some Agents do
not list an OP.
Agents Concern with OP Program
The OP program is the most important part of the
transfer policy as far as field Agents are concerned. Several
issues brought to OPEA's attention can be addressed. These are:
-- Limitations on OP.
Agents receiving multiple OPs.
Agents jumping the OP list.
OPs should be tied to performances.
The New York five-year plan does not work.
Extra credit for all Top 12 service toward an OP.
Abuse of specialty transfers.
Abuse of hardship transfers.
Limitation on OPs
Agents are concerned that there are limitations placed
on the overall number of OPs and the number of OPs into a
particular office.
OPs have decreased. The mandated transfers of the new
Agents from Quantico to their first assignment and their
subsequent 2-4 year rotation make up a high percentage of the
Bureau transfers leaving little money for OPs. Even if funds
� 61 �
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
S
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
were available, the large number of FOAs in small- and medium-
sized offices have placed .those offices at or over TSL leaving
little space for OPs, albeit many are in need of the experience
OPs can provide.
FBIHQ attempts to staff all field offices with a range
of experience levels. The-70 percent figure of GS 13s per field
office is the guideline used in determining whether or not OPs
will be sent to a particular office. On July 1, 1985, only eight
divisions were at or over this percentage. The 70-percent figure
does not limit OPs. Since the current level of GS 13s is 58.4
percent, there is an allowance for variances in the GS 13s as
they relate to OPs.
Some Agents are of the opinion that transfers to some
offices should only be OPs. Boston is one of these offices.
Transfers to BostOn are watched closely and then questioned as to
why it was not an OP. The fact is, that no office has any slot
reserved for OP transfers. While the OP system as a program
should be continued, staffing of any office should be based
primarily on Bureau needs.
Multiple OPs
A frequently heard complaint concerning the OP system
is that many Agents receive multiple OP transfers while others do
not receive any. OPEA has found no evidence that this is the
case. At the request of the SAAC, SATU attempted to determine if
- 62 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
this was true. Their attempt found such a small number that the
effort was discontinued. During interviews with Agents, OPEA
found only one Agent out of 272 who had received two OP
transfers. The first OP was to San Juan.
Agents are now being hired at an average age of 29
years and will retire between 51 and 52 years of age. Since it
takes a minimum of 15 years to receive an OP, there is little
chance of receiving more than one in a career. Current policy
requires a five-year waiting period between OPs. The SAAC has
recommended a seven-year to ten-year period between OPs. OPEA
finds no fault with the five-year rule. The problem is perceived
rather than documented. There is still a concern when the OP
list is used for specialty transfers and this will be discussed
in a later section.
OP List Changes
SAs are allowed to change their OPs at any time, but
only those listed on the monthly list will be considered for a
transfer. This has resulted in many Agents "OP shopping."
Agents will seek an office they can get to rather than the one
they truly want in order to leave an undesirable assignment
earlier. In some cases, Agents will change their OP based upon a
rumor or news that a certain office will receive an increase in
manpower.
- 63 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
OPEA finds validity in this concern. First the
maintenance of an OP list is an administrative function.
Although it is computerized, frequent changes require additional
management and manpower. Secondly, the selection of an OP should
be made on a higher criteria than a possible opening. The
process involved in the "OP shopping game" reduces an Agent's
productivity.
OPEA, in accordance with further recommendations
concerning the management of transfers, believes OP changing
should be limited. An "open season" much like the Federal Health
Insurance Program is suggested, wherein OPs can be changed in
line with the management process of staffing and forecasting
transfer needs. This "open season" would run from January 1 to
January 31, annually.
New York Five-Year Plan
One misconception found in the OP program is the
New York five-year plan. It is the consensus of the Agents
interviewed in New York that it does not work. There is the
impression that the plan means after an Agent spends five years
in New York, an OP transfer would be received. The plan,
however, only allows for two years to be added to an Agent's EOD
for OP purposes after an Agent served five years in New York.
This gives an Agent two extra years ahead of a classmate who has
not served in New York if they both list the same OP.
- 64 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Agents in New York complain that New York does not
receive its share of OPs. . In 1983, there were 30 OP transfers
granted to New York Agents. This was 20 percent of the OPs for
1983. New York has 13.5 percent of total field Agents.
A suggestion that has often been made is that the five-
year plan be extended to other Top 12 offices. Since the
majority of the Agents seeking OPs are in the Top 12, the
extension of the plan would put Agents in all 12 offices on an
equal footing and for all practical purposes negate the slim
advantage held by New York.
OPs and Performance
Both management and supervisory personnel suggest that
OPs be tied to an Agent's performance rating. At the present
time, an Agent who has been censured and placed. on probation is
ineligible for an OP for the probationary period. OPEA
subscribes to the idea that there should be something more
required than long service to be eligible for an OP, but the
changing performance evaluation system makes it difficult to
isolate a performance criteria. SACs have voiced the opinion
that they do not want another office's "problem" via the OP
system. Problems should not be rewarded via an OP transfer.
OPEA believes that a minimally acceptable or lower in one or more
elements, especially for an Agent with many years of service,
should negate a reward through an OP transfer. If at a future
- 65 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
time the performance appraisal system stablizes, a further
evaluation would be in order.
D. SPECIALTY TRANSFERS
Specialty transfers include Pilots-in-Charge (PIC),
Special Agent Accountants, Principal Legal Advisors (PLA),
technically trained Agents, linguists, and polygraph examiners.
FBIHO attempts to balance all field offices equally with
individuals having these specialties, but the ever changing
investigative needs plus office turnover necessitate transfers to
fill specialty needs.
Specialty requests are filled from the OP list. That
is, the first Agent with the desired skill on the OP list for the
requiring office is offered the first choice for a transfer. If
no one can be found on the OP list, then an inventory is compiled
and a survey of Agents possessing the skill is conducted to fill
the need.
In 1984, 52 cost transfers based on investigative needs
were made from the OP list with the overriding consideration
being the need of the field division for a stated background
rather than the net standing of the individual on an OP list.
It is the perception of field Agents that specialty
transfers are the result of favoritism or a "hook." Specialty
transfers are viewed as a corruption of an OP list and are being
used to avoid service in the Top 12 offices. For the period of
- 66 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
1982 to 1984, there were 104 specialty transfers. Seventy were
from Top 12 and 36 from small- and medium-sized offices. Thirty-
six of 70 transfers from the Top 12 were to another Top 12 and 23
of 36 from small- and medium-sized offices were to a Top 12
office.
SATU is concerned with the increase in the number of
specialty transfers and as a result issued an airtel in November
1984 (See Appendix B) advising all offices to develop their own
specialties. SACs in the small- and medium-sized offices point
out it is difficult to find Agents for the necessary training
among the GS lOs and the older GS 13s, and they are lacking the
midlevel grades in their offices.
Agents who receive specialty transfers from the OP list
are not governed by the five-year rule that applies to OP
transfers unless they are net one on the OP list. If specialty
transfers are made from the OP list, they should be treated as an
OP with all restrictions applying. OPEA believes that specialty
transfers of a long-term nature should receive the same
restrictions that apply to OPs.
OPEA also believes that there should be a full study to
determine the number and level of specialties required by field
offices. This recommendation has been seconded by SACs and
ASACs.
� 67 �
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
E. HARDSHIP TRANSFERS
A misconception of many field Agents is that hardship
transfers are abused and are used to circumvent the OP program.
OPEA has found that this is not the case.
The current policy concerning hardship is fair and
detailed (See Appendix A). In cases where the request is denied,
a Hardship Transfer Review Board has been established where the
decision can be appealed. Hardships are not given
indiscriminately. The following shows the number of hardships
from 1980 - 1984:
Hardship Transfers
1980 - 1984
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
14 11 7 5
In 1984, 62 hardship requests were received at FBIHQ
and four were granted. Three of those approved involved Agent's
health and one involved a tragic family situation.
The two leading categories of hardship requests are
Agent's health (26 in 1984) and aged/ailing parents (18 in 1984).
In the latter category, temporary duty (TDY) assignments have
been used instead of transfers.
F. MARRIED AGENT COUPLES (MAC)
The number of MACs is increasing every day and is fast
approaching 100 couples. OPEA interviewed 33 members of this
population and found an acceptance of current OP transfer policy
� 68 �
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
as it relates to MACs. Two problems, however, were noted in the
interviews.
While the primary goal of the BTP as it relates to MACs
is the maintenance of a common household, four instances were
found where policy-forced separations were in effect. Two of
four resulted from the requirement that FOA serve only in small-
and medium-sized offices. In both cases, the junior spouses were
in a medium-sized office, while the senior spouses were in a Top
12. OPEA cannot support this policy and believes that the
earlier recommendation concerning the assignment of FOAs should
correct this situation. The other separation resulted from recent
marriages and are now under review.
Two individuals were upset that the current MAC OP
policy was made retroactive. They entered the FBI prior to the
EOD options which are now used for OP standing. They believed
that the previous policy where the senior spouse's EOD determined
the OP standing that should apply to them.
Every effort should be made to maintain a common
household for MACs. If it turns out that this can be
accomplished only through assignments to large offices, then that
should be the case.
G. FAMILY CONCERNS
When an Agent is transferred, a family is usually
transferred too. During this survey, OPEA questioned the effects
� 69 �
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
that transfers had on an Agent's family. Specifically, questions
were asked as to the effect of transfers on children, if a
divorce or separation occurred because of a transfer, and the
effect on a spouse's career and employment.
Of the 272 Agents interviewed, only 28 Agents advised
that a transfer had a negative effect on their children, and only
one responded that it was of a long-term nature requiring special
attention. The other cases were relieved after a period of
adjustment.
Nineteen Agents responded that they were divorced or
separated due to a transfer. This figure included career-induced
separations, including four separated MACs.
The growth of dual-career spouses is phenomenal.
Nationwide, 52 percent of all marriages involve dual careers, and
it is predicted to rise to 70 percent by 1990. During its
survey, OPEA found that 50 percent of the Agents had working
spouses. Twenty-five percent of the Agents interviewed advised
that a spouse's career had been affected by a transfer. There
are mitigating circumstances, however, when a spouse knows there
will be a career interruption when the other spouse joins the
FBI.
The question that is paramount is, should special
transfer consideration be given to an Agent with a non-FBI spouse
who has a career? Currently, the transfer policy allows for a
� 70 �
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
hardship request to be made in the case of a spouse's career or
employment. From June 1983 to October 1984 five requests were
made and none were granted. If the requests were granted, then
it would have probably necessitated a replacement transfer of an
Agent with a nonworking spouse and family.
The current procedure of a request through the hardship
process is as fair as can be without isolating another segment of
the FBI community for special transfer considerations.
H. MINORITIES
During interviews with SA minorities, concern was
expressed that the current transfer policy has placed the
majority of minority Agents in the Top 12 offices. OPEA reviewed
assignments of all minorities and the results are shown below:
Minority Agent
Percent Of Percent In Percent In Percent In
Minority Bureau Top 12 New York OP
Blacks 3.6 64 5.7 22
Females 5.8 58 10.5 18
Hispanics 3.8 40 3.7 30
Asiatics .1 50 .8 23
Native
American .4 44.7 .3 20
Bureau
Average 48.7 13.5 67
While the above chart shows a wide range of disparity
of minority assignments to Top 12 offices, approximately 85
percent of minorities in the field have been recruited in the
last 10 years as a result of an extensive minority recruitment
� 71 �
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
S
�
�
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
program. As a result, minorities were assigned in accordance
with the transfer policy then in effect that would have assigned
them to a Top 12 from training school or the current policy that
would put them in a Top 12 after two to four years in small- or
medium-sized offices. Other senior minorities are in a Top 12 as
a result of the 10/1/69 Program, which moved many of them from
their listed OPs. There is no evidence that minorities are
singled out for assignment to Top 12. Their presence in the Top
12 is a result of the transfer policy affecting all Agents in the
time period they were recruited.
I. 10/1/69 PROGRAM
No one transfer program has had a greater effect on the
credibility of the BTP than the 10/1/69 Program. It has been
described to OPEA as ill-conceived, vindictive, and a disaster.
The program was designed to increase the experience
level of the Top 12 offices which had declined drastically by
transferring those Agents who EOD after 10/1/69 and had yet to
serve time in a Top 12. Of the original group of 300 Agents, 228
Agents were transferred, 98 in 1982, 114 in 1983, and 6 in 1984.
There are still 12 Agents awaiting transfer. Others were
exempted based on OP criteria or a number of previous transfers.
The opinion is widely held, throughout the Bureau, that the
10/1/69 Program did not work for either filling the Bureau needs
or those of the Agents.
- 72 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
The degree of influence of the "10/1/69" transfers in
raising the experience level of the Top 12 office is debatable.
Some of the 10/1/69 transfers were "quid pro quo." That is, an
Agent was transferred to a Top 12 and soon after an Agent was
transferred from a Top 12 to the office just vacated. In 1982,
there were 98 10/1/69 transfers to a Top 12 and 77 OPs from a Top
12. In 1983, there were 114 10/1/69s and 88 OPs from the Top 12
offices. The growth of experience in Top 12 offices has been
attributed to the maturation of FOAs assigned from the 1975-1976
time frame, along with a decrease in the number of OPs.
In many cases, the 10/1/69 Agents did not provide the
leadership and expertise as expected. Fourteen of the 18 10/1/69
Agents interviewed stated that they were not used in accordance
with their previous Bureau background and experience. The
majority of the Agents had worked criminal matters their entire
career and found themselves assigned to FCI work where after two
years they are still asking questions of Agents with fewer years
of experience.
Many 10/1/69 Agents are bitter. They accepted their
previous assignments with no questions asked as a term of their
employment. Some admitted that at first they were not excited
with their previous assignment but, since the Bureau left them
there they grew into the area and sunk roots. They believe they
were punished for something that was not of their making and the
impact was devastating, both personally and professionally.
� 73 �
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Interviews with supervisors and Agent associates of the
10/1/69 Agents brought des.criptions of them ranging from
"useless" to "zombies." Several Agents stated that they were
frightened by some of the 10/1/69 Agents and went out of their
way to avoid them.
There are lessons to be learned from the 10/1/69
program.
Retroactive changes should be avoided. The Bureau
cannot make an assignment, then years later say
this was wrong and make the Agent suffer. Agents
fear other retroactive changes.
Policy changes as far reaching as the 10/1/69
should be studied to see effects in the out years.
There was a lack of forecasting and prediction for
the future. The problem for which the 10/1/69 was
developed, the inexperience level of the Top 12,
corrected itself.
-- Transfers can generate OPs rather than hinder them.
The transfers of the 10/1/69 Agents allowed for OPs
into the offices they vacated.
Any policy that does not allow for balanced
staffing of any portion of the FBI will someday
require extraordinary measures. These
extraordinary measures can cause, as seen with the
10/1/69 group, dissention, low morale and lack of
productivity.
4 J. COST OF LIVING
The variances in cost of living among FBI assignments
to and within field offices is dramatic. There is also the
� illusion that costs in all Top 12 offices are higher (See
Section V). It is true, there is a cost of living difference.
The difference between the high- and low-cost of living in some
10 cities can be as much as $10,000 at the same salary level.
�
- 74 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
There are difficulties in the determination of what
field offices are the most expensive assignments. First, there
is an absence of a single unit or index of measurement, and
secondly, the variance of the city (field office) measured
between where Agents reside.
The most widely used gauge to measure cost of living is
the Consumer Price Index (CPI). But, the CPI is not suitable to
measure the differences in cost between cities since price
changes in each city are computed from a different base (100).
The CPI measures changes within a city but not between them.
Another tool is the American Chamber of Commerce Researchers
Association (ACCRA), a trimonthly report showing the cost of
selected goods and services. It measures relative price levels
in selected cities as compared to a national average of 100. But
ACCRA changes what goods are measured and what cities are used
frequently, therefore, eliminating a comparative base.
The second ambiguity is that Agents do not always live
in the area measured. As stated earlier, the Washington, D.C.,
area which includes suburban Maryland, Virginia, and the
Alexandria Office shows high local taxes. This results from an
eight percent income tax levied on District residents but not the
commuter. Since the majority of FBI Agents live in the suburbs,
their local tax cost could be cheaper. In some cases, the cost
of housing in the suburbs is higher than in the city measured.
This is true in the Los Angeles area.
- 75 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
41,
A national consulting firm estimated that 80 percent of
the cost difference of living in different metropolitan areas is
made up of housing costs and direct taxes (local income, sales,
and property). Listed below are the 5 highest and 5 lowest rated
field offices for housing, cost of living, and local taxes
according to the Rand McNally Places Rated Almanac.
Housing Cost
Lowest Field Office
Highest Field Office
San Francisco
Honolulu
San Diego
� Los Angeles
Washington Field/
Alexandria
�
�
411
Honolulu
San Francisco
Anchorage
New York/Newark
San Diego
WFO/Alexandria
Honolulu
Minneapolis
Milwaukee
Salt Lake City
Only one field
all 3 categories.
Jacksonville
Knoxville
Birmingham
Indianapolis
Memphis
Cost of Living
Louisville
Charlotte
Mobile
Memphis
San Antonio
Local Taxes
Anchorage
Houston
Dallas
San Antonio
El Paso
office, Honolulu, made the high list in
San Francisco, Washington Field/Alexandria,
San Diego, and Anchorage made two of the high lists. Anchorage
was also on the low list for local taxes.
- 76 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
S
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
The suggestion has been made that cost of living
allowances (COLA) be given. for assignment to the Top 12 offices.
Based on current figures, there are inconclusive data to
substantiate the suggestion. At the present time, COLAs are
given for assignments to Honolulu, Anchorage, and San Juan.
These 3 offices are outside the continental United States. COLAs
for other offices would require congressional action. In lieu of
COLAs, merit-pay increases could be given. No other comparative
Federal law enforcement agencies give COLAs or merit pay
increases for service in high-cost areas. A recent survey of 608
major companies found that only 18 percent provided cost of
living adjustments related to a transfer to a high-cost area.
Although the United States Government does provide pay
differentials to about 30,000 workers in high cost areas, these
pay differentials result from salaries paid to Government
attorneys, engineers, scientists, and professional employees
whose salaries are lower than those of their counterparts in the
private sector. Generally speaking, Federal jobs in a given
grade carry the same salary regardless of location. For the FBI
to implement COLAs or merit pay increases, congressional approval
would be necessary. This does not seem likely based on the
traditional Federal pay guidelines and current budget problems.
- 77 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
VII. REGIONAL TRANSFERS
As far back as 1972, an OPEA study recommended that a
regional concept be instituted for transfers. A new Agent would
be transferred from Quantico to an office in the region of
his/her desired OP. This office would have a small OP list. The
second transfer would be to his/her OP. This concept would allow
more OP transfers and would aid in recruiting potential Agents
knowing they would be assigned to an office in the region of
their choice.
Based on this study, a Memorandum to All SACs dated
February 19, 1974, stated that there would be only two types of
transfers, OPs and new Agents. All vacancies would be filled
from the OP list, and new Agents would be assigned to an office
approximately 500 miles from their OP.
As a result new Agents were assigned to the larger
offices from training school where many still remain. At the
same time, senior Agents were transferred to their OP. The large
offices, unfortunately, suffered a severe drop in experience
levels which necessitated transfer policy changes to alter the
experience gap.
The second suggestion was that regional transfers would
facilitate recruitment. Hiring for a region or particular
office, however, is contrary to the current Broad Band Selection
Policy. To recruit for a region means that certain regions
- 78 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
(i.e., New York) would have a greater manpower need, therefore,
an applicant in that region would have a better chance of being
hired than one in a less manpower intensive region regardless of
qualifications. The recruitment process now is designed to hire
the most qualified candidates regardless of their geographic
location.
OPEA found during its field survey that management
split 50-50 over the question of regionalization. Some managers
fear what they refer to as the "8-to-5 attitude" of hometown
Agents. OPEA has found, however, no empirical data to support
this fear.
OPEA has found no data to support the long-standing
theory that new Agents should be sent to an office in a
geographical area of the country different from where the Agent
was recruited. Todays Agents are more mature and well-traveled
than those of the past. This theory as now practiced is
expensive and results in unnecessary multiple cross-country
moves.
While OPEA believes that a policy of regional transfers
tied to regional hiring would be ill-advised and exacerbate the
transfer process, common sense dictates that attempting on an
informal basis transferring Agents to a desired region would be
more beneficial for cost, morale, and productivity than multiple
intra-continental moves.
- 79 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
�
fi
�
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
VIII. MANAGEMENT OF THE TRANSFER PROCESS
SATU in its role as the manager of the transfer process
implements the means to fulfill Bureau staffing requirements.
SATU has no say in the development of the requirements and reacts
to the demands of others, the Resource Management and Allocation
Board, and the Applicant Unit. SATU cannot plan or forecast
transfers as the process of TSL, recruitment, losses, and the
budget never come together in a manner that could produce
predictability. All the factors function separately, and SATU
must respond to each planning function separately, while at the
same time respond to the daily demands of field managers and
Agents.
OPEA believes that the transfer process must become an
integral part of the long-range planning and recruitment effort
to effect a predictable annual transfer plan that is responsive
to management, budgetary, and field demands.
An effectively managed program in concert with
implementation of OPEA recommendations can serve to alleviate the
problems pointed out in this report that now plague the transfer
process. OPEA visualizes the following as a management guideline
that could be used in the process:
- 80 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Management Milestones
Staffing/Transfer Process
Date Function
January 1 to January 31 Open season for Agents to
change OPs.
March 1
April 30
May 1 to June 30
July 1 - August 15
September 1 - September 30
Intelligence and Criminal
Investigative Divisions submit
staffing requirements to long-
range planning.
Resource Management and
Allocation Board publishes TSL
and staffing goals for each
field office.
SATU reviews TSL needs,
potential gains and losses,
and determines transfers to be
made. Identifies transfer
eligibility of Agents and then
advises each office of
.projected transfers for
forthcoming fiscal year.
Each SAC reviews potential
gains and losses and
identifies specialized and
investigative needs to be
replaced.
TD reviews training needs set
forth by SACs and reviews
training schedule accordingly.
Transfers begin on October 1,
within budgetary constraints.
A detailed management program will eliminate experience
and staffing imbalances, reduce specialty transfers and maintain
OP integrity as only those on the list on January 30 will be
eligible for transfer. It will also allow each SAC to better
- 81 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
�
�
plan and meet his program goals; and allow for the individual
Agent who will be transferred, to adjust accordingly.
OPEA has worked with the Special Studies Unit of TSD in
the development of a computer model that can be applied to the
transfer process. The preliminary results are encouraging.
Additional input involving not only the SATU but the Personnel
Section of ASD and the Long-Range Planning Staff is necessary to
produce a finished usable model.
Although transfers usually increase with availability
of funds at the beginning of the fiscal year (October 1), every
consideration should be given to planning as many transfers as
possible during the summer months as not to upset the school year
for Agents' children. This has been done successfully by the
military operating under the same budgetary constraints.
- 82 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
IX. OTHER GOVERNMENT LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENICES AND INDUSTRY
A. GOVERNMENT LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
OPEA conducted interviews with individuals responsible
for the administration of transfers at the DEA, USSS and AFT.
Drug Enforcement Administration
DEA has approximately 2,000 Agents assigned to 19 field
offices in the United States and an additional 300 Agents
assigned overseas. DEA's transfer policy is based on
investigative needs with a primary concern of staffing its 5
major field offices: New York, Miami, Houston, Los Angeles, and
Chicago.
DEA has basically 3 types of transfers:
-- First office transfer from training school to any
office,
-- Second office transfer, and
-- OP, specialized, hardship, or administrative
advancement.
When an Agent finishes training school, the first
assignment is for a 3-year tour. (New Agents are GS 7s.) This
assignment is probably one of the major offices. If an Agent is
sent to a smaller office first, then the second assignment would
be to a major office. An Agent assigned to a major office can
receive another major office for his/her second assignment.
Second office assignments are for an indefinite length. Any
� 83 �
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
�
�
Ci
subsequent transfer will be an OP, hardship, or based on the
needs of the agency.
In 1984, DEA transferred 700 Agents with only 6 OPs.
To date in 1985, there have been 525 transfers with 19 being OPs.
Only GS 12 and GS 13 Agents are eligible for OPs. Agents in
management or supervisory positions are not eligible for an OP
transfer. DEA does not provide COLAs for assignment to any
offices in the United States.
DEA has 2 problems arising from its current policy.
First, there is a concern with the low-experience level in its
major offices, and secondly, the policy is not regarded as
credible by Agents due to the lack of OP transfers.
United States Secret Service
The Secret Service has 1,950 Agents assigned to
domestic and overseas assignments. There are 62 field offices in
the United States with the 2 largest being New York and
Washington Field.
In 1980, the Secret Service found that there was a lack
of experienced Agents in their large offices, especially New
York, and at the same time, most of their experienced Agents were
in their smaller offices. Secret Service then developed a three-
track system:
1. The first office is a large office such as New
York, Detroit, Los Angeles or Washington for a
minimum of six years, then three years of
protective duty in Washington, and finally an OP
transfer when space is available.
84
LDeclassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
S
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
2. First office is small office for three years, then
large office. for a minimum of three years, and
three years protective duty in Washington, finally,
an OP if available space exists.
3. Any assignment to New York can be indefinite if so
40 requested by an Agent.
�
�
�
Agents become eligible for an OP after about 10 years.
While seniority is a factor for OPs, prior office assignments,
productivity, and performance appraisals are just as important in
any OP transfer decision. Agents in OPs can be sent on frequent
and long-term protective assignments.
Secret Service does not give COLAs for any assignment.
Starting grades are GS 5 or 7 with a GS 12 being the journeythan
level.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF)
ATF basically transfers Agents as a result of a
promotion or career move. There are 1,200 ATF Agents and they
are hired for a particular opening in one of the big 12 offices
(Boston, New York, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, St. Louis,
Atlanta, Miami, Houston, Dallas, Los Angeles, and Cleveland). An
Agent can list 3 offices of preference, but the chances of
getting an OP are slim. ATF transfers about 100 Agents a year,
and 95 percent are for promotion or career moves. The remaining
transfers are OPs or hardships.
- 85 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Hardship transfers were at one time allowed at Agent's
expense. Now, ATF pays for them and they are limited. There are
probably no more than 5 in a given year.
ATF experiences problems with its transfer policy.
First, when an Agent is hired for an office, it may not be
his/her home, so after a few years, the Agent tries to get out of
the assignment. The second problem is that the smaller offices
are staffed by older Agents who are near retirement.
The entry levels for new Agents are GS 5, 7, or 9,
depending upon the degree of experience. ATF does not give any
COLAs in the continental United States.
ATF tried to increase OP transfers but was limited by
its budget. Currently, career transfer costs are averaging
about $40,000.
Central Intelligence Agency
STAT
- 86 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
B. Industry
Many FBI field Agents point to the private sector as a
model to be used in transfers. While a particular company or
companies might offer more in incentives for transfers, the
differences between industry and the FBI are those which would be
financially acceptable to industry as compared to those that rely
on public funds.
The average salary ($39,966) of the FBI Agent ranks in
the top five percent of salaries in the United States and is
higher than $33,121 median household income. The current
starting salary of $30,014 is higher than the average starting
salary for professionals entering the job market from graduate
school, except electronical engineers.
On the average, private corporations move 300,000
employees each year. This is a small figure based on the
estimated 40 million Americans who move annually. The majority
of transfers by the private sector are based on promotions (58
percent). The averagetransfer cost is $38,000. The frequency
of industry's transfer is best seen by the equating of IBM to
mean "I've been Moved."
Industry offers incentives to transfer including those
now offered by the Government. One incentive frequently
mentioned by field Agents is a COLA. Various surveys have
indicated that these are not normal occurrences. A survey of 608
- 87 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
S
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10 : CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
major corporations found only 18 percent offering COLAs. A
second survey of selected .companies found only 13 percent
offering COLAs.
Comparisons between the FBI and industry are difficult.
There are too many differences in goals and fiscal
responsibilities. The FBI has come a long way in just 5 years in
financial assistance for transfers and has greatly reduced the
cost burden. Congressional action is necessary for any changes.
In these fiscal times, any further incentives do not seem to be
forthcoming.
- 88 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
X. CONCLUSION
Each FBI field division must be staffed with the
necessary balance of personnel to meet its goals. OPEA believes
that to accomplish this, it will be necessary to first transfer
FOAs to all field offices from Quantico and to ensure proper
training is provided, and secondly, to leave those transferred to
small- and medium-sized offices there for a minimum of 5 years.
This would allow those offices to develop a cadre of midlevel
grades (GS us and GS 12s) that is necessary to achieve a balance
of experience.
OPEA also believes that the Top 12 concept should be
eliminated as a transfer criteria. Only those offices that
cannot be filled by OP and FOA transfers in the normal course of
events should receive special attention.
OPEA believes that the above would serve to provide
investigative balance to all field offices, reduce the time
served in the offices that are difficult, and provide for more OP
transfers without upsetting the staffing balance. Further, any
Agent recruited from an office that is difficult to staff, and
who desires to return should be transferred there even as a first
office assignment.
OPEA and TSD are working to develop a computer model
that would serve the transfer unit in determining the balance of
inexperienced, midlevel and senior field grades needed for each
- 89 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
field office. This model could further serve as a forecasting
tool not only as to the number of transfers, but to those who
would be transferred yearly.
TSD has already determined that to effect a balance of
experiences (field grades were used in the test, but other
variations can be used) in all field offices would require
approximately 1,300 immediate transfers. Therefore, OPEA
cautions that any changes in policy be gradual, that no one
office be overburdened with FOAs and that, more importantly, no
change be made retroactive. Agents serving in offices that might
be removed from the now Top 12, should be given credit for the
time served. The aforementioned computer model when development
is complete should serve to ensure a smooth transition.
The FBI is unrealistic in planning transfer costs. By
June 20, 1985, 1,069 transfers had depleted the projected FY 1985
transfer budget of $22,504,000. This same figure ($22,504,000)
is projected for FY 1986 transfer costs with the number of
transfers increasing to 1,567. Furthermore, 1,617 transfers are
projected for FY 1987, a 51 percent increase over the June, 1985
level. Projected transfer costs for FY 1987, however, are
$22,954,000, only a 2 percent increase over the June, 1985,
costs.
Although many field Agents expressed displeasure and a
lack of confidence in the current transfer policy, some did so
- 90 -
___. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
S
�
�
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
based on personal reasons and unfounded rumors. There still
remains areas of valid concerns.
Confidence needs to be restored in the OP program.
This can be accomplished by reducing the opportunity for OP list
jumping and by applying the current OP restrictions to specialty
transfers when such transfers are made from the OP list.
Furthermore, the institution of a computer model should help to
predict OP availability for Agents and reduce the uncertainty of
when one might occur.
SATU needs to be part of the planning process for
resource management and allocation. Transfers cannot be a
separate function as they are an integral part of the resource
allocation.
The FBI transfer policy compares favorably to other
Government law enforcement agencies. Other agencies look to the
Bureau for guidance in transfer matters, and all are experiencing
similar transfer problems. Industry gears its transfers to
promotions and are unlikely to transfer personnel on a rotation
basis. While some segments of the private sector may provide
greater financial incentives to transfer, this is the result of
the ability of the private sector to be more liberal with its
funds than Government agencies who rely on public funding.
- 91 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
APPENDIX A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
STAT
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10 : CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
� PART I
SECTION 11. TRANSFERS
11-1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
41 (1) All personnel should be cautioned that they are not,
under any circumstances, to .discuss transfers of other employees
with una-iithorized individuals, such as realtors or employees of
mdVing companies. To do so will subject employees to severe
administrative action and possible criminal liability under the
Privacy Act of 1974.
�
(2) Agents under transfer are to be relieved of
assignments so that the transfer may be expedited.
(3) All Agents must report to their new office of
assignment within ninety days of the date of the official letter
� of transfer.
(4) Effective date of employee's assignment at new
duty station is the date of arrival at the new office.
(5) Requests for delays in reporting to a new office
� of assignment must be submitted to the Bureau with full justification
and may be submitted on a UACB basis. These requests are reviewed
individually and coordinated with the pertinent field offices
and/or headquarters divisions.
(6) Do not incur transfer-related expenses prior to
� receipt of the letter of transfer.
(7) Employees being transferred to any point within
the United States should advise the Postal Service that change of
residence is the result of an official Government transfer. All
classes of mail for employee and immediate family residing with
� employee will be forwarded free of charge.
(8) Those offices receiving cost-of-living (COL)
allowances must immediately advise the date the employee departs
since the COL is removed upon departure. Failure to advise FBIHQ
on a timely basis will result in an overpayment that the employee
� must refund.
(9) For policy concerning Agents who have completed a
language school or who have passed a Bureau language examination,
refer to Part II, Section 1, of this manual for additional instructions.
� 11-1.1 Use of FD-67 (Acknowledgment of Transfer Orders)
I.
(1) Letters of transfer must be acknowledged by FD-67
within thirty calendar days of receipt of transfer letter. Form
must show contemplated departure and arrival dates and leave being
taken.
-1-
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
. _
� Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
(2) Employees being transferred from FBIHQ must submit
an original and one copy of FD-67 to the Pay and Position Management
Unit, Administrative Services Division (ASD). Copy will be forwarded
to new office of assignment.
(3) In the event that the information contained in the
original-FD-67 changes, an amended FD-67 should be submitted
imniediately to FBIHQ and clearly identified as such.
(4) FD-67 should be forwarded to FBIHQ by former office
� on employee's departure date and by new office on arrival date
showing time employee reported for duty. Offices west of the
Mississippi River should submit forms to FBIHQ by airmail.
�
�
�
I.
11-1.2 Use of FD-655 (Routing of Salary Checks, Statement of
Earnings and Savings Bonds)
(1) The four-part FD-655 should be completed by each
employee receiving a permanent transfer and any employee assigned
to an extended temporary duty when special handling of his/her
salary checks/savings bonds is required.
(2) The original of the FD-655 should be submitted to
FBIHQ, Attention: Payroll Distribution Unit, to arrive no later
than the Thursday prior to the date of the first salary check to
be sent to the employee's new office of assignment or temporary
duty point. Part two should be retained by the submitting office;
part three should be forwarded to the new office of assignment;
and part four should be retained by the employee for his/her
personal records.
(3) Should the information on the initial FD-655 change,
a new FD-655 should be executed, the AMENDED block checked, and
forwarded immediately to FBIHQ.
11-1.3 Personnel File and Bureau Property
(1) The following items should be sent to the new office
by the SAC or division head of the old office: Personnel file,
firearms training record (FD-40), property record (FD-107), health
report card, if any, electrocardiogram tracings, report of medical
history (SF-93), biweekly AU0 report (FD-329), and Career Development
Summary (FD-477). Cover letter (FD-109) should advise new office
of technical training given, date of last physical examination,
date of last photograph, date of the last operator's road test
and driving certification (FD-288), and date of last FD-477.
Send Form FD-475 (Physical Exam Weigh-In Card) if used for record
purposes. File is to be forwarded by the first workday following
employee's departure on transfer. Refer to Time and Attendance
Manual regarding leave records.
(2) Prior to departure date, employee's property should
� be inventoried by item and serial number to ensure property charged
to employee on FD-107 coincides with property in employee's possession.
FBIHQ employees under transfer should check property with Property
Procurement and Management Section, ASD.
�
-2-
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
' Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10 : CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
11-1.4 Travel Time and Annual Leave
(1) Employees'under official transfer at the Government's
convenience are allowed travel time required for direct distance
travel between transfer points based on mode of travel.
- (2) Annual leave to be taken in addition to travel time
may be approved by the SAC or division head of the former office.
Algo see-Part I, Section 9, of this manual concerning absences
not charged to annual leave to locate housing.
11-2 SPECIAL AGENT TRANSFER POLICY
It is important to recognize that the governing factors
controlling transfers of Special Agents are the needs of the Bureau
and budgetary considerations. While the needs and desires of the
Agents are always considered in carrying out this policy, it must
be remembered that the overall needs of the Bureau take precedence.
11-2.1 Regular Transfers
(1) Agent appointees will be given the oath of office
by the SAC or SAC's designated representative where the Agent
was recruited or the field office headquarters nearest the Agent's
legal residence. Once a new Agent successfully completes new
Agent's training at Quantico, the Agent will normally be transferred
to a small- to medium-sized office where he/she will remain for
approximately two to four years. Following this assignment, the
Agent will be rotated to one of the twelve major offices where
he/she will remain until qualifying for an office of preference
(OP) transfer or promotion through administrative advancement.
However, reassignment from one of the larger offices to another
may be required according to the needs of the service. Assignment
to one of the twelve major field offices is required.
(2) The twelve major offices are Baltimore, Boston,
Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Los Angeles, Miami, Newark, New York,
Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Washington Field.
(3) Agents anticipating a transfer to a top-twelve
office may submit an informal memorandum, through their SAC, to
FBIHQ, Attention: Special Agent Transfers and Traffic Management
Unit (SATTMU), Room 6011, listing the top twelve offices in their
stated order of preference. Regardless of preference, first
office Special Agents will not normally be transferred back
home or to their spouse's home.
(4) Agents who entered on duty on or after October 1,
1969, ("10/1/69 Group") who have been assigned only to two small-
or medium-sized offices will be eligible for transfer to a top-twelve
office. Agents eligible will be transferred by seniority starting
with those entering on duty on October 1, 1969. Agents in the
"10/1/69 Group" may submit a memorandum to FBIHQ, Attention:
SATTMU, Room 6011, through their SAC, listing the top-twelve
offices in their stated order of preference. Efforts will be
made to accommodate these stated preferences where possible,
� �3�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10:
0 �
�
�
�
�
subject to the needs of the Bureau and the recorded OP listing
of more senior Agents. The five-year rule applicable to OP
transfers does not apply to the "10/1/69 Group" transfers where
a preference has been accommodated. Transferees in this Group
will be eligible for OP transfer consideration after two years
in a top-twelve office. Those Agents who have previously received
an OP transfer based on their seniority to their current small-
to-medium-sized office, any Agents who have sufficient seniority
to rank number one net on their current office of assignment's
OP list, and any Agents who have already been assigned to three
or more field offices will not be considered eligible. Additionally,
those Agents whq have experienced two or more cost transfers after
relocation to their second office of assignment and who would otherwise
be eligible for rotation, may apply to SATTMU, through their SAC,
for an exemption from this transfer program. These requests will
be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
11-3 SPECIAL AGENT OFFICE OF PREFERENCE (OP) TRANSFERS
(1) The OP system was established in order to provide
a means to reward Agents for faithful service by sending them to
an office of their choice. This system is based generally upon
seniority, consistent with the needs of their service and budgetary
considerations. If an Agent receives an OP transfer, that Agent
will not be considered for another OP for five years from the date
of arrival at new office of assignment.
(2) Agents are obligated to keep their listed OP current.
An Office of Preference Book and a movement list will be made
available on a monthly basis to each SAC and Assistant Director
for inspection by all employees. These printouts should be reviewed
by all Agent personnel for accuracy. An Agent must submit Form
FD-314 to change his/her OP.
(3) All employees must achieve the Fully Successful
level before they may be considered for OP transfers.
(4) If an Agent is censured and placed on probation,
that Agent will not be eligible for an OP transfer as long as that
Agent is on probation. If subject to disciplinary action more
severe than censure and probation, an evaluation will be made
on an individual case basis.
(5) Agents may change their OP at any time; however,
only those Agents actually appearing on the monthly computerized
OP printout at the time of the OP selection process will be
considered for transfer.
(6) Agents passed over for an OP transfer due to a
documented need, such as an operative in an undercover operation
or other specialized needs requiring that the Agent remain in a
current assignment, will be afforded the first OP transfer into
that office following completion of that assignment regardless
of standing on the OP list.
(7) Agents are not eligible for OP transfer if they have
consummated a cost transfer within the past one-year period.
-4-
nnrnved for Release 2014/04/10 CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
(8) Agents eligible for retirement and considered for
an OP transfer must have the capability of performing at least one
year of service in the requested office before being mandatorily
obliged to retire or to complete any contractual agreement signed
in connection with the transfer.
_ (9) Agents who have consummated a cost transfer must
remain in the service of the Government for one year following the
effective date of the transfer. Agents who terminate their Government
employment prior to the expiration of the one-year period are obligated
to refund to the Government all costs incurred in connection with
the transfer.
(10) Agents who are incapacitated and/or on limited duty
are evaluated on an individual basis to determine the feasibility
of receiving an OP transfer. Government regulations require that
transfers can only be made for the needs of the service.
(11) Bureau staffing needs remain the paramount consideration.
Specialized requirements, unique Agent skills and/or qualifications,
which are not readily available elsewhere in the Bureau, are also
recognized as matters which must take precedence when such needs
exist. OP transfers made out of order and other deviations from
regular rotational programs resulting from these unique requirements
are recorded in the appropriate Headquarters' files and approved
by the Personnel Officer, ASD.
(12) Agents who receive an OP transfer to an office with
di-rect assignment to a Resident Agency (RA) more than 200 miles
from headquarters city may refuse that transfer without penalty.
(13) Agents who receive an OP transfer to headquarters
city, or an RA within 200 miles, may also refuse that transfer,
but in so doing, will not be eligible for another OP transfer to
that same division for two years. The transfer must be refused
prior to expending Government funds for the transportation of the
Agent's family members and/or the movement of household goods.
(This penalty was previously five years and made the Agent
ineligible for an OP to all divisions). This change is retroactive.
(14) Agents who receive an OP transfer to either Anchorage,
Honolulu, or San Juan are not precluded from receiving another OP
transfer upon completion of their two-year or four-year contractual
agreement. However, the Agent must be number one net and there must
be a staffing need in his/her OP or the Agent will be reassigned
to an office where a staffing need exists. This policy applies
to these three offices only. The five-year OP rule applies to all
other offices.
11-3.1 OP Transfer Policy - New York Office
An additional two years will be added to the Agent EOD
of all New York Agents after they have completed five years of
continuous service in the New York Office in determining standing
on their chosen. OP list. Once the Agent is transferred from the
New York Office, the two-year add-on no longer applies.
�5�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
�
�
�
Declassified in Part-Sanitized Copy Approved forRelease2014/04/10 CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
11-3.2 OP Transfer Policy - San Juan Office
(1) Approximately ninety days prior to the completion of
five continuous years' service in San Juan, or ninety days prior to
the completion of any subsequent contractual agreement after five
continuous years' service in San Juan, the SAC, San Juan, will
notify ASD, FBIHQ, if an Agent does not wish to renew this contract.
Upon receipt of this notification, ASD will furnish the SAC, San Juan,
with a list of offices having existing needs from which the Agent
may select a choice. If the Agent selects an office which is not
his/her stated OP, the Agent will be required to serve a minimum
ef two years in that chosen office until becoming eligible for an
JP transfer.
(2) Agents assigned for the minimum four-year tour are
not entitled to select their next office of assignment unless they
qualify for an OP transfer based upon their seniority and a staffing
need exists in their OP. Agents who are assigned to San Juan for
four years or more will be deemed to have satisfied their requirement
to serve in a top-twelve office.
11-4 HARDSHIP TRANSFER REQUESTS AND PROCEDURES
(1) Request for transfer based on hardship must be
forwarded to FBIHQ through employee's SAC or division head. Request
received at FBIHQ directly from employee will be returned to
appropriate office or division for necessary handling. Statements
from doctors supporting medical hardships do not ensure the request
will be granted; however, they are a factor considered by FBIHQ in
the decision process concerning a hardship request. (Conditions
existing prior to an employee's entry on duty will generally not
be considered oE a hardship nature).
(2) Agents in the Career Development Program (CDP) can
also make hardship transfer requests to FBIHQ. These requests will
be reviewed by ASD using the same criteria as for nonsupervisory
� Agents, and ASD's analysis will be forwarded by the Personnel
Officer to the FBIHQ Career Board. Final determination in these
cases rests with the FBIHQ Career Board or with the Director, when
deemed appropriate.
�
11-4.1 Parental Hardship
If hardship involves parent(s) of employee or spouse,
all pertinent information which should be considered in the
decision process must be submitted to the Bureau. Such information
includes, but is not limited to: age of parent(s); written statement
from doctor setting forth diagnosis, prognosis, and recommendations
� regarding parent(s)' condition; income of parent(s), names, ages, and
residences of other relatives of parent(s), such as brothers, sisters,
and other children; identity of anyone presently assisting parent(s),
and statement why such assistance is not sufficient; whether parent(s)
own automobile and can drive; description of parent(s) current
residence, e.g., house or apartment.
�
�
�6�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
� Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
11-4.2 Hardship Involving Spouse or Children
If hardship involves employee's spouse or children,
employee must submit statement from doctor setting forth diagnosis,
� prognosis, and recommendations. Employee should be prepared to
provide necessary waivers in.the event it is necessary to contact
the physi-cian for additional information.
�
�
�
�
11-4.3 Hardship Involving Employee
If the hardship concerns only the employee, employee
must submit statement from doctor setting forth diagnosis,
prognosis, and recommendations. Employee may also be examined
at an appropriate Government medical facility.
11-4.4 Responsibility of SAC or Division Head
Employee must be thoroughly interviewed by the SAC or
division head concerning circumstances of hardship. Results of
the interview with specific recommendation for action must accompany
each hardship transfer request. The interview is considered one
of the most important factors in making a final determination
concerning the request. Merely forwarding the necessary material
with the recommendation that the employee receive favorable con-
sideration consistent with the needs of the Bureau will not suffice.
Interviewing official's observations should address whether a
temporary assignment or permanent change of station would be best
or.. whether a replacement would be needed in the event the request
is approved.
11-4.5 Temporary and Permanent Hardship Transfers
(1) In those instances where a temporary assignment
is granted, expenses of same must be borne by the employee.
� If a hardship transfer is granted, this matter must be reported
on annually to determine from employee if hardship continues to
exist. Every other year the follow-up must be accompanied by
documentation from the attending medical personnel, if the hardship
is based on medical reasons. This documentation should address
why the problem (if it continues to exist) must be treated in the
41 current location. On hardships which were approved for other than
medical reasons, SACs must ensure that the need for the employee
to remain there continues and that the annual follow-up justifies
the Agent's continued assignment based on the hardship condition
as it was initially approved. No employee will be considered
for promotion to supervisory positions until FBIHQ is advised
� that employee is completely available for administrative advancement.
�
�
(2) Due to their preferential nature, Agents who are
afforded hardship transfers are governed by the same five-year
rule as those Agents afforded an OP transfer.
-7-
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
(3) In the event an Agent advises FBIHQ that the hardship
situation no longer exists, or if such a determination is made at
FBIHQ based on the annual follow-up, the Agent's status is reviewed
by SATTMU to determine the feasibility of the Agent's continued
� assignment in that office. If that Agent has sufficient seniority
to rank number one net on that office's OP list, transfer is not
considered. However, if that is not the case, then other factors
axe considered, including, but not limited to, that office's
staffing needs, the overall needs of the Bureau, and that Agent's
prior rotatione ssignments, to determine if that Agent should be
0 transferred.
11-4.6 Hardship Transfer Review Board
A Hardship Transfer Review Board has been established
at FBIHQ. When a hardship transfer request is denied, this decision
41 may be appealed by submitting a letter to ASD, FBIHQ, requesting
that the transfer denial be reviewed by the Hardship Transfer
Review Board. The Board will review each case and submit a
recommendation to the Assistant Director, ASD, for final adjudi-
cation. If an Agent's hardship situation changes, he/she may
resubmit a request with additional information at any time.
�
11-5 TRANSFER POLICY FOR MARRIED SPECIAL AGENT COUPLES AND
FOR SPECIAL AGENTS WITH NON-BUREAU SPOUSES
(,l-) All SAs, including married SA couples, must be
available for general and special assignment. This includes,
40 but is not limited to, first office assignment to a small- to
medium-size office for two to four years, and then assignment
to a top-twelve office.
�
(2) In assignments of Agent married couples, the Bureau
will make every effort to preserve a common household.
(3) Requests for transfer or for transfer cancellation
based upon the outside employment of an Agent's non-Bureau spouse
will be reviewed as a hardship request. Requests must be well
documented and approval will be the exception rather than the rule,
as is the case with all hardship transfer requests.
(4) In assignments of Agents with non-Agent FBI employee
spouses, every effort will be made to provide the non-Agent FBI
employee spouse with FBI employment opportunity in the new office
if such is requested; however, no guarantee as to grade level and
positions available can be made.
�
(0 In determining seniority for OP transfer purposes
for married Agent couples, the couple may choose joint OP eligi-
bility by EOD averaging. This method guarantees a "common
household" OP transfer - both would be transferred together.
The junior spouse, however, will not qualify to accompany the
� spouse to that OP under the "common household" policy until the
junior spouse has served at least two years in a top-twelve office.
�
-8-
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
� Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
(6) Married Agent couples may choose separate OP eligi-
bility based on their own EODs. Under this method, each Agent
must qualify for an OP based only upon his/her own seniority and
any resulting separation will not be the basis for hardship transfer
� consideration.
- (7) Married Agent couples need not preselect one
eligibility method. Rather, they may choose either the joint
or the separate method at the actual time they qualify for OP
selection.
�
11-6 REMOVAL FROM CARtER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
(1) All Special Agents who accept transfer to FBIHQ
will remain assigned to the greater Washington, D. C., area for
a minimum period of two years regardless of their standing on
41 an OP list, unless staffing needs dictate they be transferred
elsewhere.
(2) A Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) who has served
two years at FBIHQ and/or has not received a cost transfer within
the past two years and requests removal in writing from the CDP,
will be afforded an OP transfer only if that Agent is number one
on the desired office's OP list and that office has a staffing
need.
(3) An SSA assigned to FBIHQ who requests removal in
writing from the CDP and does not qualify for an OP transfer as
set forth in (2) above, will be transferred, at no cost to the
Government, to Washington Field Office, Alexandria, or Baltimore
(unless staffing needs dictate otherwise) and, thereafter, be
afforded the same OP privileges as any other Agent.
(4) An SSA assigned to a field division who requests
� removal in writing from the CDP will be afforded an OP transfer
only if that Agent is number one net on the desired office's OP
list, and a staffing need exists; otherwise, the Agent will remain
assigned, in an investigative capacity, in that same division
with the same OP privileges as any other Agent.
41 (5) An SSA who has completed two years at FBIHQ who
requests removal in writing from the CDP but does not stand number
one net on the desired office's OP list and/or that office does
not have a current staffing need, may request that his/her name
be "flagged" on the OP list to indicate "requested removal from
CDP." The SSA will remain in his/her current assignment, at the
� option of the Division Head, until attaining number one net OP
standing and a staffing need exists in the respective office,
otherwise, he/she will be transferred in accordance with (3)
above. The Agent will not be considered for further admini-
strative advancement while awaiting movement into the OP office.
�
�
�9�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10 : CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
11-7 UNDERCOVER TRANSFER POLICY
(1) Selection of Undercover Agents (UCA) will continue
to be made by Criminal Investigative Division (CID) and Intelligence
Division (INTD). Upon identification of candidates for a particular
assignment, ASD will review the selections for transfer eligibility.
After ASD's review, CID or INTD will select the UCA for the assign-
ment and, thereafter, make recommendations to ASD regarding transfer
of thatindividual depending on the particular operation and
duration of the assignment.
(2) Upon completion of a./ undercover assignment or
termination of an operation, CID or INTD may make recommendations
for transfer of the UCA (a) for reasons of the UCA's mental well-
being or ability to effectively function within that division
of current assignment, (b) due to a documented danger to the
UCA and/or the UCA's family, or (c) if the continued presence
of the UCA would endanger the security of an ongoing operation.
(3) If transfer is deemed appropriate, assignment will
be made to the Agent's OP if the Agent has sufficient seniority
to warrant same and a staffing need exists. If the Agent does
not qualify for an OP transfer, assignment will be made as deter-
mined by ASD.
(4) An OP transfer will not be used as a reward in
connection with undercover assignments.
(5) SATTMU will follow Agents who have received transfers
for undercover roles. When that role has been completed, the
personnel files of these Agents will be reviewed much the same
as SATTMU evaluates Agents whose hardship, which resulted in a
transfer, is declared over, to determine if transfer is warranted.
11-8 NO-COST TRANSFERS - INTRADIVISIONAL
(1) All requests for no-cost transfers will be reviewed
by FBIHQ on an individual case basis. Only those involving intra-
divisional moves in situations permissible under the governing
statute, and recommended by the SAC, will be approved. This
statute, Title 5, USC, � 5724, prohibits, in part, the unauthorized
augmentation of appropriations which is interpreted to mean that
the Government shall pay the transfer expenses of an employee
who is transferred in the interest of the Government. Transfer
expenses may not be paid when the transfer is made primarily for
the convenience or benefit of an employee or at the employee's
request.
(2) Agents requesting no-cost, intradivisional transfers
must submit a signed memorandum to their SAC setting forth the
reason(s) for the request, and must include a statement that the
Agent will bear all transfer expenses. The SAC will then forward
each request to FBIHQ with a cover communication containing his
recommendation.
�10�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
11-9 NO-COST TRANSFERS - INTERDIVISIONAL
No-cost interdivisional transfers generally will not
be approved because of their adverse impact upon other transfer
policies.
11-10 _ TRANSFER TO FOREIGN OFFICES, ANCHORAGE, HONOLULU, AND
SAN JUAN - SPECIAL AGENT AND SUPPORT
11-10.1 Service Agreement (FD-382)
Employees selected for assignment Li the offices set
out below must dxecute a service agreement to serve tours of duty
as specified:
(1) Anchorage and Honolulu - Agents and support personnel
must serve two years with subsequent tours of one, two, or three
years at the employee's option.
(2) Bern, Bonn, Canberra, London, Mexico City, Ottawa,
Paris, and Rome - Agents and support personnel must serve two years
with subsequent tours of two years at the employee's option.
(3) Bogota, Hong Kong, Montevideo, Panama City, and
Tokyo - Agents must serve two years with subsequent tours of two
years at Agent's option; support personnel must serve two years
with subsequent tours of one, two, or three years at the employee's
option.
(4) San Juan - Agents - four years for initial contract,
renewable annually thereafter. Agents are entitled to receive
home leave at the conclusion of their first two years and after
their third year.
(5) San Juan - Support Personnel - two years with
subsequent tours of one, two, or three years at the employee's
option.
11-10.2 Execution of Service Agreement
(1) Three copies of the Service Agreement will be
attached to the letter of transfer to Anchorage, San Juan, Honolulu,
and foreign offices. All must be executed and two returned to
FBIHQ. The third copy should be retained in the field file.
(2) The Service Agreement must 'be executed by employee
before the Bureau can pay any transfer-related expenses, including
travel and transportation of employee, employee's family, and household
goods. The terms of the Service Agreement must be fulfilled before
the Government will pay return expenses. If the terms of the
Service Agreement are not completed because of separation from
service, the reasons for separation must be beyond the control of
the employee and agreeable to FBIHQ before return expenses are
paid by the Government.
-11�
_ Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
� Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
11-1073 Annual Leave, Home Leave, Travel, and Additional Tours
(1) Employees and dependents are eligible for travel
and transportation expenses to their home of record after completion
of the agreed tour of duty and execution of an additional Service
Agreement for a subsequent tour. For detailed information concerning
travel and transportation allowances, see Chapter 2, Federal Travel
Regulations.
(2) Employees assigned to foreign offices f,ir 24 months
of continuous service are entitled to additional leave, termed
home leave, in addition to travel and transportation expenses.
Bureau employees earn home leave for each 12 months of service
abroad. For details concerning home leave, see Part I, Section
9, of this manual.
(3) In event of any change of legal residence in the
United States, employee must execute a new Service Agreement
showing that change which must be approved by the Bureau before
commencing any annual leave or home leave travel.
(4) A new Service Agreement must be executed by those
employees seeking an additional tour of duty. The new Service
Agreement must be completed prior to the termination of the
existing tour of duty. Advise FBIHQ at least three months
prior to completion of existing tour of employee's intention
td seek an additional tour and employee's plans concerning
annual and/or home leave travel.
11-10.4 Physical Examinations
Service and support personnel transferred to San Juan
and foreign offices must be afforded a physical examination.
Results of the examination and any special tests required by FBIHQ
must reach the Bureau prior to departure of employee to new office
of assignment.
11-10.5 Cost of Living Allowance
Employees assigned to Anchorage, Honolulu, and San Juan
are entitled to a cost of living allowance not subject to Federal
income tax. The amount of allowance fluctuates based on periodic
studies made by the U.S. Department of Labor. Employees should
contact FBIHQ, ASD, Voucher and Payroll Section, to determine the
current allowance.
11-10.6 Transportation of Household Goods
SATTMU, ASD, will handle necessary arrangements for
transportation of household goods of employees. For details,
see Part II, Section 6, of this manual.
11-10.7 Checks and Bonds
In the event employee does not want checks and/or bonds
forwarded to office of assignment abroad, FBIHQ, Voucher and
Payroll Section, should be given instructions as to their handling.
_ln
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
S
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
11-10.8 Income Taxes
Employee should be aware of regulations concerning
payment of Federal and local income taxes. Residence in a foreign
country may not excuse employee from being taxed by authority
covering-previous office of Assignment. Immediately advise FBIHQ
should a controversy arise with any taxing authority.
11-11 TRAINING OF EMPLOYEES FOR FOREIGN ASSIGNMENT
Material on living conditions in Honolulu, Anchorage,
San Juan, and our foreign installations will be transmitted with
employee's letter of transfer. SAC should arrange for an employee
under foreign transfer to utilize local library facilities for
appropriate books concerning the culture and background of the
country of assignment.
11-11.1 Training of Support Employees for Foreign Assignment
(1) Field Support Functions - Support employees selected
for foreign assignment must, before their departure, receive
� two full weeks' training in field support functions. SACs should
ensure that the training afforded them is type they would need
if they were assuming duties of Support Services Supervisor in
small- to medium-sized office and should encompass the following:
(a) Handling of mail (including stamping, searching,
� matchingr indexing, serializing, etc.)
(b) Opening and closing cases
(c) File reviews
� (d) Preparation of administrative report
(e) Preparation of expense accounts
(f) Handling and filing of SAC letters and SAC
memoranda
(g) Preparation of 1-A serials and bulky exhibits
(h) Tickler systems
(i) Maintenance, consolidation, and destruction
� of files
(j) Assignment card box
(k) Operation of duplication machine
� (1) Preparation of vouchers connected with operation
of official cars and maintenance of office fund
records
� -13-
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10 : CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
(2) Cryptographic systems - Employees under transfer to
foreign offices will be given three to five days' training at FBIHQ
in the operations and security of cryptographic systems.
(3) Briefing by SAC or division head at FBIHQ - For
various reasons, it is not always possible to bring field support
personnel selected for foreign assignment to FBIHQ for briefing
before their departure. SACs should call employees' attention
to fact that while in foreign office of assignment they will be
known as an employee of the American Embassy, insofar as general
public is concerned, although official contacts of the office
know of relations between Bureau and Legal Attache's office.
(4) Conduct - It should be stressed that conduct abroad
must be maintained at all times in accordance with Bureau standards.
� In matters of conduct and dress, employees must adhere to good taste
within the standards of the country to which they are assigned.
Inform employee that if employee plans to take his/her personally
owned automobile, uniform regulations maintained by the U.S. Posts
require that only inconspicuous automobiles should be imported.
� (5) Instructions by Legal Attache - Legal Attaches are
responsible to ensure new employees are instructed in maintenance
of teletype records, listing and preparation of pouches, security
of information pertaining to pouch preparation, maintenance of
pouch records and use of courier service. Legal Attache must also
ensure new employee is afforded cryptographic systems training
� and in the preparation, handling, and dissemination of classified
documents. Legal Attache should also instruct new employees in
maintenance of security peculiar to the Attache operations,
including the use of the telephone, personal contact, disposal
of trash, and social gatherings.
� 11-12 SUPPORT AND SERVICE PERSONNEL TRANSFER POLICY
11-12.1 General Policy
Under normal circumstances field office vacancies are
filled by local recruitment into entry level positions rather than
� by transfer from FBIHQ or from another field office. Exceptions
are discussed in subsequent items.
11-12.2 Office of Preference Lists
No OP list is maintained for support employees except
� for those employees who are assigned to a special position and
subject to transfer either on a permanent or temporary basis
as a part of their employment agreement or career path. Such
OP lists are maintained by the FBIHQ division having program
responsibility for the position.
� �14�
_ Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
11-12.3 Special Position Transfer Policy
Incumbents of Accounting Technician, Electronics Technician,
Automotive Maintenance, and Language Specialist type positions,
� are subject to transfer at the convenience of the Bureau as a
condition of their employment and/or retention in a specific career
path. Although every effort will be made to fill vacancies while
hgnoring an individual employee's choice of assignment to a given
office,-the needs of the service take preference. Specific
recommendations for transfer are made by the various FBIHQ program
� managers consistent with existing policy governing each position
and overall budgetary and manpower considerations. If a transfer
cannot be accepted, it may be necessary to remove an employee from
his/her position.
�
�
11-12.4 Hardship and Personal Convenience Requests
(1) As previously noted, field office vacancies are normally
filled by local recruitment and not by transfer. However, the
Bureau will consider individual requests based on a hardship or
for the employee's personal convenience provided a vacancy exists
and no other employee will be denied a promotional opportunity and
it is determined to be in the Bureau's best interests to effect
such a transfer. Consideration will be given based on circumstances
existing at the time of receipt of the employee's request. No
OP list is maintained.
(2) No support employee, or anyone acting in his/her behalf,
is to personally contact another office inquiring about OP
�
possibilities. Employees are not to be told of an existing vacancy
in another field office or encouraged to seek transfers from their
present office of assignment. Transfer requests made by an employee
to another office should be made a matter of record. Advise
FBIHQ and employee's present office of assignment of the request
� and instruct employee to discuss request with SAC or division head.
Under no circumstances should an employee's present SAC or division
head discuss employee's chances for the requested transfer or what
recommendation was made to FBIHQ concerning a request.
11-12.5 Employee Responsibility
An employee desirous of being considered for a transfer
based on a hardship or for his/her own personal convenience must
prepare a memorandum from himself/herself to his/her division head
or SAC that includes the following information:
� (1) Detailed reason(s) necessitating the request.
(Refer to 11-4 of this section concerning hardship transfer
requests and procedures).
�
�
assigned.
(2) Specific office to which employee desires to be
(3) Statement as to willingness to defray any and all
expenses that may be incurred in connection with a transfer and
to accept a demotion if necessary.
� -15-
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
11-12.6 Division Head and SAC Responsibility
The employee's division head or SAC must forward the
� employee's request to the Personnel Section giving sufficient
information upon which to base a determination in employee's
case. The following data should be included:
�
�
- (1) Whether or not alternate solutions have been explored
to solve the employee's problem.
(2) Comments concerning employee's work and attendance
records. A performance appraisal of less than Fully Successful
and an attendance record less than satisfactory will preclude
consideration. In addition, employee must have satisfied all
work and training agreements.
(3) Assessment as to the merits of the employee's
request and the recommendation of the division head or SAC.
(4) Whether or not it will be necessary to replace
the employee should a transfer be effected.
(5) In the case of a field office employee requesting
transfer to another field office, copies of the employee's memorandum
and SAC's transmittal letter should be forwarded to the other office.
The receiving office should immediately advise the Personnel Section
and the submitting office whether or not a vacancy exists for which
� the employee is qualified and if the employee's assignment to that
office is acceptable. Except in rare circumstances, an office
will not be allowed to exceed the approved complement of the
office to accommodate a transferee. Even though both field offices
are mutually agreeable to a transfer request, final decision will
be made at FBIHQ after evaluation of all factors. (Refer to
� Part I, 1-15.1 of this manual).
(6) Contact by employees with a field office concerning
a transfer is limited to Personnel Section employees specifically
assigned to handle such matters.
� 11-12-7 Office Unable to Fill Vacancy in Key Position
In the event a field office has no qualified candidate
to fill a key position such as Support Services Supervisor (Office
Services Manager), FBIHQ will consider a request to canvass all
employees in order to assist in filling such position. When an
� office desires to canvass, the Personnel Section, FBIHQ, should
be contacted for assistance. Any transfer resulting from a canvass
will be considered in the best interest of and for the Bureau's
convenience.
�
11-12-8 Payment of Transfer Expenses
Costs incurred in connection with transfers made for the
convenience of the Bureau will be borne by the Government. Costs
incurred in connection with transfers made for the convenience of
the employee will be borne by the employee.
-16-
_ Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
�
0
�
�
�
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
APPENDIX B
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
41 - PERSONAL ATTENTION
'1EMORANDUM 45-81
U.S. Department M Adee
�
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Washington. D.C. 20535
December 2, 1981
0
i
MEMORANDUM TO ALL SPECIAL AGENTS IN CHARGE:
RE: SPECIAL AGENT TRANSFER POLICY
� For some time, FBI Headquarters has been aware of
the need to review and study thoroughly the entire Special
Agent transfer program. This study of our transfer policies
revealed that several practices have been governed by existing
policy; other practices have followed certain procedures that
have developed through consistent use over a period of time
41 although formal policy was never established; and in other
situations, neither formal nor informal o
e isted. M
,
la
'-.)
t, 1,rP-P%01-Alr^"
Tiz'kt 1.;. . , � ,1,17''
....
..r,..41 11 ,- -.
41 1 Aw'....t* ,,,,ML:i mind that the
implementation o t is po icy requires a degree of flexibility
to accommodate exceptional situations; reasons for any vari-
ations will be made a matter of record.
� AGENT ROTATION
Six-Month Program
The rotation program begins when a New Agent
successfully completes New Agents' training at Quantico.
41 At this time, New Agents who were formerly employed as Bureau
support personnel will normally be transferred to a small-
medium sized office where they will remain for approximately
two to four years. Following this assignment, they will be
rotated to one of our twelve largest offices where they will
remain until qualifying for an office of preference (OP)
� transfer. New Agents who were not previous Bureau support
employees will be returned to their home office for a minimum
period of six months. This is necessary to comply with a
1979 Comptroller General decision. These Agents will then
�
12-2-81
MEMORANDUM 45-81
�
RECORTIED
12 DEC 16 1981
41wHIMIIMMO vimerworms
R51/ DO./
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
S
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10 : CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
,4771's
normally be rotated to a small-medium sized office for
approximately two to four years, and then to a top-twelve
office where they will remain until they qualify for an
OP transfer. This applies as well to Agents who are
returned to a top-twelve office following New Agents'
training. The plan thus contemplates the same number of
moves for each Agent.
Former First-Office Agent �..ogram
Those Agents who are a part of the former First-
Office Agents' Program, who entered on duty prior to the
establishment of the Six-Month Program, will be rotated to
a top-twelve office after completing approximately two to
41 four years in their first office. Listing one of the top-
twelve offices as an Agent's OP will not preclude rotation
to that office. Consistent with overall staffing needs in
the major offices, the Special Agent Transfers and Traffic
Management Unit (SATTMU), Administrative Services Division
(ASD), will attempt to accommodate Agents who list a top
41 twelve as their OP when they are rotated. If transferred
to that office, the five-year rule would apply.
�
�
�
�
�
Second-Office Special Agents -
Reassignment to Major Field Offices
Agents who entered on duty on or after October 1,
1969, who have been assigned only to two small-medium sized
offices will be eligible for transfer to a top-twelve office.
Agents eligible will be transferred by seniority starting
with those entering on duty on October 1, 1969. Those Agents
who have previously received an OP transfer based on their
seniority to their current small-medium sized office, any
Agents who have sufficient seniority to rank number one net
on their current office of assignment's OP list, and any
Agent who has already been assigned to three or more field
offices will not be considered eligible. Agents transferred
to a top-twelve office must serve a minimum of two
years in that major office before becoming eligible for an OP
transfer. This rotation is necessary to correct serious
experience imbalances in our field offices and to insure equity
of service among all Agents. Agents eligible may choose to
list one of the top-twelve offices as their OP and will receive
consideration for transfer to that office if they have standing
on that OP list at the time the transfer action is taken.
However, if transferred to that office, the five-year rule
would apply.
12-2-81
MEMORANDUM 45-81
2
jDeclassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
TOP-TWELVE FIELD DIVISIONS
The top-twelve or "major" field divisions for transfer
purposes involving rotation of Agents among field offices are
as follows: New York, Los Angeles, Washington Field Office,
Chicago, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Newark, Detroit, Miami,
Cleveland, Boston, and Baltimore.
Agents who served in Baltimore or Miami pr to these
AP offices being designated "major" field divisions on L.-le 13, 1980,
will not qualify as having served in a "major" field division.
OFFICE OF PREFERENCE (OP) TRANSFERS
41 (1) The OP system was established in order to provide
a means to reward Agents for faithful service by sending them
to an office of their choice. This system is based upon
seniority, consistent with the needs of the service and budgetary
considerations. If an Agent receives an OP transfer, that Agent
will not be considered for another OP for five years.
�
�
(2) If an Agent is censured and placed on probation,
that Agent will not be eligible for an OP transfer as long as
that Agent is on probation. If subject to disciplinary action
more severe than censure and probation, an evaluation will be
made on an individual case basis.
(3) Agents may change their OP at any time; however,
only those Agents actually appearing on the monthly computerized
OP printout at the time of the OP selection process will be
considered for transfer.
(4) Agents passed over for an OP transfer due to a
documented need, such as an operative in an undercover operation
or other specialized need requiring that the Agent remain in a
current assignment, will be afforded the first OP transfer into
that office following completion of that assignment regardless
of standing on the OP list.
(5) Agents are not eligible for OP transfer if they
have consummated a cost transfer within the past one-year
period.
(6) Agents eligible for retirement and eligible
for an OP transfer must have the capability of performing
at least one year of service in the requested office before
being mandatorily obliged to retire.
(7) Agents who have consummated a cost transfer must
remain in the service of the Government for one year following
� the effective date of the transfer. Agents who terminate their
�
12-2-81
MEMORANDUM 45-81
3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
tk.:174PX;'-.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
Government employment prior to the expiration of the one-year
period are obligated to refund to the Government all costs
incurred in connection with the transfer.
(8) Agents who are incapacitated and/or on limited
duty are evaluated on an individual basis to determine the
feasibility of receiving an OP transfer. Government regula-
tions require that transfers can only be made for the needs
of the service. Therefore, Agents who are in a limited-duty
40 status may not qualify for an OP transfer.
(9) Bureau staffing needs remain the paramount
consideration. Specialized requirements, unique Agent skills
and/or qualifications, which are not readily available elsewhere
in the Bureau, are also recognized as matters which must take
40 precedence when such needs exist. OP transfers made out of
order and other deviations from regular rotational programs
resulting from these unique requirements, are recorded in the
appropriate Headquarters files, and approved by the Personnel
Officer, ASD.
� (10) Agents who receive an OP transfer to an office
with direct assignment to a Resident Agency (RA) more than 200
miles from Headquarters City may refuse that transfer without
penalty.
(11) Agents who receive an OP transfer to Headquarters
� City, or an RA within 200 miles, may also refuse that transfer,
but in so doing will not be eligible for another OP transfer
to that same division for two years. The transfer must be
refused prior to expending Government funds for the transporta-
tion of the Agent's family members and/or the movement of household
goods. (This penalty was previously five years and made the Agent
� ineligible for an OP to all divisions.) This change is retro-
active.
�
�
NEW YORK FIVE-YEAR PLAN
An additional two years will be added to the Agent
EOD of all New York Agents after they have completed five
years of continuous service in the New York Office in deter-
mining standing on their chosen OP list.
SAN JUAN FIVE-YEAR PLAN
Approximately 90 days prior to the completion of
five continuous years' service in San Juan, or 90 days prior
to the completion of any subsequent contractual agreement
after five continuous years' service in San Juan, the SAC,
San Juan, will notify the ASD, FBI Headquarters if an Agent
does not wish to renew this contract. Upon receipt of this
12-2-81
MEMORANDUM 45-81
- 4 -
i_am Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10 : CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
� -
�
�
�
r
notification, ASD will furnish the SAC, San Juan, with a
list of offices having existing needs from which the Agent
may select a choice. If the Agent selects an office which
is not his/her stated OP, the Agent will be required to serve
a minimum of two years in-that chosen office until becoming
eligible for an OP transfer.
Agents assigned for the minimum
for any time period less than five years, ar hot entitled to
select their next office of assignment unless they qualify for
an OP transfer based upon their seniority and a staffing need
exists in their OP. Agents who are assigned to San Juan for
four years or more will be deemed to have satisfied their
requirement to serve in a top-twelve office.
HARDSHIP TRANSFER POLICY
The procedure to be followed in connection with the
submission of hardship transfer requests has not changed and
requests should be submitted in accordance with the Manual of
Administrative Operations and Procedures (MAOP), Part I, Section
11, 11-2. These requests will be reviewed in SATTMU and a
recommendation made to the Personnel Officer for adjudication.
When a hardship transfer request is denied, the
� Agent may appeal the decision in two ways: (1) Resubmit
additional information to SATTMU for further consideration,
or (2) submit a letter to FBI Headquarters, Attention ASD,
requesting that the hardship transfer denial be reviewed by
the Hardship Transfer Review Board. The Board will review
each case and submit recommendations to the Assistant Director
� of the ASD for final decision.
Agents in the Career Development Program can also
make hardship transfer requests to FBI Headquarters. These
requests will be reviewed by the ASD using the same criteria
as for nonsupervisory Agents and ASD's analysis will be
� forwarded by the Personnel Officer to the FBI Headquarters
Career Board. Final determination in these cases rests with
the FBI Headquarters Career Board, or with the Director when
deemed appropriate.
Due to their preferential nature, Agents who are
� afforded hardship transfers are governed by the same five-year
rule as those Agents afforded an OP transfer.
As currently set forth in MAOP, if a hardship transfer
is granted, this matter must be reported on annually to determine
from the employee if the hardship continues to exist. Biannually
� the follow-up must be accompanied by documentation from the
attending medical personnel, if the hardship is based on medical
� 12-2-81
MEMORANDUM 45-81
�
5
neclassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
� -
reasons. This documentation should address why the problem
(if it continues to exist) must be treated in the current loca-
tion. On hardships which were approved for other than medical
� reasons, SACs must insure that the need for the employee to
remain there continues and that the annual follow-up justifies
the Agent's continued assignment based on the hardship condition
as it was initially approved.
�
�
In the event an Agent advises FBI Headquarters that
the hardship situation no longer exists, or if such a determi-
nation is made at FBI Headquarters based on the annual follow-
up, the Agent's status is reviewed by SATTMU to determine the
feasibility of the Agent's continued assignment in that office.
If that Agent has sufficient seniority to rank number one net
on that office's OP list, transfer is not considered. However,
if that is not the case, then other factors are considered,
including, but not limited to, that office's staffing needs,
the overall needs of the Bureau, and that Agent's prior rotational
assignments to determine if that Agent should be transferred.
� TRANSFER POLICY FOR MARRIED SPECIAL AGENT COUPLES AND FOR
SPECIAL AGENTS WITH NON-BUREAU SPOUSES
1. All SAs, including married SA couples, must be
available for general and special assignment.
� 2. In assignments of Agent married couples, the
Bureau will make every effort to preserve a common household.
3. Requests for transfer or for transfer cancellation
based upon the outside employment of an Agent's non-Bureau
spouse will be reviewed as a hardship request. Requests must
� be well documented and approval will be the exception rather
than the rule as is the case with all hardship transfer requests.
4. In assignments of Agents with non-Agent FBI
employee spouses, every effort will be made to provide the non-
Agent FBI employee spouse with FBI employment opportunity in
� the new office if such is requested; however, no guarantee as
to grade level and positions available can be made.
5. In determining seniority for OP transfer purposes
for married Agent couples, the EOD of the senior spouse will
be used to determine eligibility. The junior spouse, however,
� will not qualify to accompany the spouse to that OP under the
"common household" policy until the junior spouse has served
at least two years in a top-twelve office. If the senior spouse
delays the OP transfer until the junior spouse satisfies the
top-twelve requirement, the married Agent couple will receive
the next available OP transfers to that division, regardless of
� standing on the OP list.
12-2-81
MEMORANDUM 45-81
�
6
N. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
� -
REMOVAL FROM CAREER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
(1) All Special Agents who accept transfer to FBI
� Headquarters will remain assigned to the greater Washington, D. C.,
area for a minimum period of two years regardless of their standing
on an OP list, unless staffing needs dictate they be transferred
elsewhere.
1-1 A Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) who has served
41 two years FBI Headquarters and/or has not received a cost
transfer witnin the past two years, and requests removal in
writing from the CDP, will be afforded an OP transfer only if
that Agent is number one net on the desired office's OP list,
and that office has a staffing need.
41 (3) An SSA assigned to FBI Headquarters who requests
removal in writing from the CDP and does not qualify for an
OP transfer as set forth in (2), above, will be transferred,
at no cost to the Government, to Washington Field Office,
Alexandria, or Baltimore (unless staffing needs dictate
otherwise) and be afforded the same OP privileges as any
� other Agent.
(4) An SSA assigned to a field division who requests
removal in writing from the CDP Will be afforded an OP transfer
only if that Agent is number one net on the desired office's OP
list, and a staffing need exists; otherwise, the Agent will
remain assigned, in an investigative capacity, in that same
division with the same OP privileges as any other SA.
UNDERCOVER TRANSFER POLICY
� (1) Selection of Undercover Agents (UCA) will
continue to be made by Criminal Investigative Division (CID) and
Intelligence Division (INTD). Upon selection of UCA for a
particular assignment, CID or INTD will make recommendations to
ASD regarding transfer of that individual depending on the parti-
cular operation and duration of the assignment.
(2) Upon completion of an undercover assignment or
termination of an operation, CID or INTD may make recommendations
for transfer of the UCA (1) for reasons of the UCA's mental
well-being or ability to effectively function within that division
of current assignment, (2) due to a documented danger to the UCA
� and/or the UCA's family, and (3) if the continued presence of the
UCA would endanger the security of an ongoing operation.
(3) If transfer is deemed appropriate, assignment will
be made to the Agent's OP if the Agent has sufficient seniority
to warrant same and a staffing need exists. If the Agent does
� not qualify for an OP transfer, assignment will be made as
determined by ASD.
12-2-81
MEMORANDUM 45-81
�
�
- 7 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10 : CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
� _
It
(4) An OP transfer will not be used as a reward in
connection with undercover assignments.
� (5) The SATTMU will follow Agents who have received
transfers for undercover roles. When that role has been
completed, the personnel files of these Agents will be reviewed
much the same as SATTMU evaluates Agents whose hardship, which
resulted in a transfer, is declared over, to determine if
transfer is warranted.
�
NO-COST TRANSFEMJ - INTRADIVISIONAL
All requests for no-cost transfers will be reviewed
by FBI Headquarters on an individual case basis. Only those
involving intradivisional moves in situations permissible
41 under the governing statute, and recommended by the SAC, will
be approved. This statute, Title 5, Section 5724, USC,
prohibits, in part, the unauthorized augmentation of appro-
priations which is interpreted to mean that the Government
shall pay the transfer expenses of an employee who is trans-
ferred in the interest of the Government. Transfer expenses
� may not be paid when the transfer is made primarily for the
convenience or benefit of an employee or at the employee's
request.
Agents requesting no-cost, intradivisional transfers
must submit a signed memorandum to their SAC setting forth the
� reason(s) for the request, and must include a statement that
the Agent will bear all transfer expenses. The SAC will then
forward each request to FBI Headquarters with a cover communica-
tion containing his recommendation.
�
NO-COST TRANSFERS - INTERDIVISIONAL
Interdivisional transfers will not be approved because
of their adverse impact upon other transfer policies.
OP BOOK AND MOVEMENT LIST
� Each SAC and Headquarters Assistant Director will
receive the OP Book and Movement Sheet on a monthly basis.
REPORTING TIME
All Agents may take up to 90 days from the date
� of the transfer letter to report to their next office of
assignment.
Manual changes to follow.
�
12-2-81
MEMORANDUM 45-81 - 8
William H. Webster
Director
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
1 0
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
APPENDIX C
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
�
Director, FBI
All SACs
AIRTEL
SPECIAL AGENT TRANSFER POLICY
� INVESTIGATIVE PROGRAMS/"SPECIALTY" TRANSFER REQUESTS
FISCAL YEAR 1985
�
�
11/2/84
Recently, all offices were notified as to legislation
passed pertaining to the new relocation benefits available
for FBI personnel who receive cost transfers, to include
arranging for the sale of a transferred employee's residence.
While you must applaud the intent of this legislation, the
passage of these new relocation services will increase the
cost of a transfer, while, at the same time, require the FBI
to operate within the approved Fiscal Year (FY) 1985 transfer
budget. For this reason, FBI Headquarters must closely monitor
transfer procedures during FY 1985.
For your information, during FY 1984, approximately
1,710 cost transfers were effected. Cost transfers consist
of (1) assignment of Career Development personnel; (2) movement
of new Agents; (3) rotation of first-office Agents to a Top-12
office; and, (4) office of preference (OP) transfers. As for
OP transfers, this category is further broken down into transfers
which cover (1) straight OP transfers based on seniority; (2)
hardship requests; and, (3) transfer of Agent personnel to
fill program investigative needs (white-collar crime, FCI,
organized crime) or a specific "specialty" vacancy (Principal
Legal Advisor, technically-trained Agents, polygraph-trained
Agents, and Pilots).
During FY 1984, 52 OP transfers based on investigative
program needs or "specialty" requests were honored with the
overriding consideration being the need of a field division
� Exec AD Ada. --or a stated background and not the net standing of the
E-"A"----individual on an Q? list.
Erma AD LES �
r .1 r +,
Aset.DirA
r...%'
.�
I
Adm. Sorsa. Is� 1 - Mr. Colwell :,,- 4;:i 1 - Ni. Blum
.1...
Wont. 1 - Mr. Otto . 1 - Mr. Green (CID)
ai Insp. 1 - Each Assistant Director 1 - Mr. Furgerson (LABD)
W Intoll. 1 - Mr. Hotis 1 - Mr. Oberholtzer (TSD)
Lab n.
Legal Cann. � 1 - Mr. Murray 1 r,Miss Devine
Off. Cong. & DR:lan (84) 1 - Manuals Desle
Public All.. �
Rae. likint � 94#116
Trish. Servs.�See note, page 3.
,.... Training
IP Telephoner Rim.
Direstere� Sires WAIL ROOM =I
lom Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
�
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10 : CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
Airtel to All SACs
Re: Special Agent Transfer Policy
Investigative Programs/"Specialty" Transfer Requests
Fiscal Year 1985
Commencing with the date of this communication, FBI
Headquarters will conduct a close review of all such requests
to insure all efforts have been made by the submitting field
division to fill the vacancy from within. It must now be the
responsibility of each SAC to evaluate potential needs and
plan for replacements through reassignment of investigative
duties or training at the FBI Academy of on-board personnel.
Several communications have been received by FBI
Headquarters from small/medium-sized field divisions requesting
assignment to their divisions of experienced personnel to fill
critical needs in the investigative programs, i.e., accounting,
FCI, and organized crime. It is recognized by FBI Headquarters
that these requests are different from the above described
"specialty" requests as a small/medium-sized office will lose
an experienced investigative Agent due to transfer/retirement/
resignation but because of current transfer policy can only
reclaim this loss through an OP transfer of an experienced
Agent into the division.
40 Such requests will be honored only after an evaluation
has been made of. the current investigative program in the
division and if the program warrants the influx of an experienced
Agent.
�
With regard to "specialty" vacancies, it is recognized
by FBI Headquarters that occasions will occur when a sudden
or unexpected transfer/retirement/resignation may well justify
the need for an experienced replacement. The approval of
"specialty" vacancy requests must now become the exception
rather than the rule and FBI Headquarters will now look at
most "specialty" requests as being trainable and look for office
management to fill such vacancies from within.
Administrative Services Division (ASD) currently
has pending requests from seven divisions requesting transfer
of personnel from other divisions to fill "specialty" vacancies.
These requests are being closely reviewed by ASD with the
40 appropriate substantive FBI Headquarters division to determine
if the vacancy can be best handled by training or reassignment
of investigative duties of on-board personnel and to compare
the request with similar needs in other divisions. Each division
will be notified as soon as this review is completed.
�
-2-
40 sib
1)p:cl2ssified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7 _
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7
�
Airtel to All SACs
� Re: Special Agent Transfer Policy
Investigative Programs/"Specialty" Transfer Requests
Fiscal Year 1985
NOTE: All SAC airtel being prepared to-advise SACs that approval
40 of requests for OP transfers to answer needs for experienced
SAs possessing either investigative program expertise .or
"specialty" background will now be the exception rather than
the rule. SACs being advised FBIHQ will look for the offices
to plan ahead and fill needs from within.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
APPROVED:
Cr
DirectrlAjA''-d/
Exec. t.
AD-Mv.
Exec. AD-LES M.O.
�3�
Leboratory
Lacs! Coun.
Rc:7. itACT1i.
os7, k;;, ccag.
Aff3.
im Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/04/10: CIA-RDP90-00530R000802090001-7