REVISED CIP REVIEW GROUP PROCEDURES FOR 1967

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP86M00612R000100040065-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 10, 2004
• Sequence Number: 65
• Publication Date: March 27, 1967
• Content Type: MF

Approl For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP8J00612R000100040065-9
27 March 1967
MEMORANDUM FOR : D/DCI/NIPE
SUBJECT Revised CIP Review Group Procecures
for 1967.
1. This year's operating procedures for the 1967 review of
the CIP spell out more clearly than ever before the rights and
the responsibilities of the Review Group members: the effect
is that each of them will now have to "stand up and be counted"
on every item in the CIP. When the Secretary of Defense receives
the recommended program from the Review Group this year,
it will carry either the formal concurrence for the DCI or a
specific written dissent from the majority position of the
Group with respect to the program as a whole or any specific
item or items included in it.
2. In summary, the rights and responsibilities of the
Review Group members are:
a. In preparation for the Review Group deliberations
each member is expected to review and analyze the PCB's
(Program Change Recommendations) submitted by the
DOD components and also the DIA recommended CIP,
then formulate a position on the program recommended
for each unit or activity included in the CIP (of which
there are over 150).
b. Requests for further information and notification of
any areas of disagreement a member may have with the
PCR's should be submitted to DIA by 15 May since the forrm.l
deliberations of the Group are to start on 5 June 67.
c. After DIA has briefed the Review Group on an
intelligence function, each of the members will present
his position thereon.
d. The members will obtain the concurrence of their
respective offices on the proposed PCD's (Program Change
Decisions) prepared for the Groups consideration by DIA's
Office of Plans and Programs.
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 CIA-RDP86M00612R000100040065-9
 Approvq&For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP86M0612R000100040065-9
c. In view of the tight time schedule for the review,
it will be necessary for each of the members to determine
expeditiously the position of his office regarding each
CIP unit and activity. This job should not be too difficult
if the necessary homework is done prior to the forma:
meetings of the Group. Revision of these preliminary
positions would pro-)ably not be necessary except in t}-.ose
cases where it develops that the majority opinion of the
Group is signi'icar_ty different than the position developed,
for example, by the DCI's representative. In such cases
the DCI's position woula be reviewed in the light o. the
additional evidence presented at the Groups meeting and
we would either con,:inue to hold the original position a--.d
be prepared to put in a written dissent or go along with the
maj ority.
f. Any member May request the Chairman to convene
the Group for a specified purpose.
Any member may request an Executive Session o
the Group from which all briefers, observors and bacA - ;gip
personnel will be exclu.aed except for individuals speci ically
requested to attend.
~. Review G oin-) ac-cion, positions and recommendation
will be determined by majority vote and each office represented
on the Group will. have one vote which may be cast by a
member or by his designated alternate.
i, Any statements of dissent from a position which
has been supported by a majority of the Review Group
and thereby reflects the Groups recommendation to tue
Secretary of Defense, will be in writing and signed by
head of the submitting office, Bureau or Agency, or a
designated deputy. In the case of the DCI that would be
the D/DCI/NIPE.
3. In light of the above it is clear that the DCI's position
with respect to the CIP, in whole or in part, will be a matter of
record. Accordingly, we should do our best to make sure that
any position the DCI takes with respect to an intelligence effort in
the CIP is not inconsistent with the positions he may be taking
on a related effort in the CIA, i. e. , same target, same functional
area, etc. To minimize wherever possible and at least be able
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP86M00612R000100040065-9
 Approvgd,For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP86ND0612R000100040065-9
to have early warning of any potential problem areas of this
type, we propose to carry on our review of the GIP in this
fashion:
a. As early as possible, at least by the time the .first
CIP material becomes available for study, we will get a
preliminary briefing on the upcoming CIA budget wi :h
specific attention to any significant changes in the alocation
of resources. '_!h-.s preliminary picture will of course be
based on the original Office submissions, the counter-
parts of the Service submissions in the CIP.
b. As each CIP unit or activity is studied to arrive at
our preliminary position on it, the following factors will
be considered:
(1) To what extent does the activity or unit uncer
consideration engage in intelligence activities functions ly
similar to chose carried on by the CIA and how closely do
they match in terms of the areas they are operating in
and the targets against which they are deployed?
(2) Where a Cr? unit or activity does match one in
CIA, how do they compare in terms of both the size an
the trend of resources proposed for them?
(3) An effort wil also be made to obtain some
preliminary picture of the programming trend in the
CCP and the 1VRO so that any significant inconsistencies
between those programs and the CIP can be detected
early in the game and appropriate action taken.
c. We have a special problem with respect to thL -oar cf
the CIP that involves clandestine collection.
has informed us that some of the people in DIA that he dea.is
with in coordinating uncle r
of
course, nothing could be farther from the truth and t his
point has been made several times during previous CIP
reviews. However, we have new people in some parts of
DIA, so a further effort must be made to negate the devel,,,p-
ment of any such precedent. We propose to do the following:
(1) Those CIP units and activities that are engaged in
- J -
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 CIA-RDP86M00612R000100040065-9
 Approv or Release 2004/05/12: CIA-RDP86M O612R000100040065-9
clandestine co]le,ction will be coordinated withl I
and others in the DDP as appropriate and to the
extent necessary, in order to ensure that the DCI position
coordinators, we will bring the matter to your attentior
and work out a. elan of action,
course" with. the position held by the
programs in the Ci are on an obvious "collision
area act for the DCI just as we do for him in the Cii'
review. In other words, we are coordinating will:
people wearing heir DCI representative hats ratter
than their CIA hats. If we find that any of the proposed
other "designated representative" who in the
we develop wiL not be inconsistent with the views of his
(2) In any case, we will make it clear within the
GIP Review Group -,hat our approval of the proposed
program for a SIP unit or activity engaged in claadesti ae
'
'L-ha
collection does in no way constitute coordination o.
activity under the provisions of
However, any spec fic problems detected in this area
would best be handled directly between you and Ge-=era.
Carroll and not raised at all with the CIP Review u;roue.
In other words, it is strictly a "family matter" aac not
a subject for debate by any outsiders.
4. This year we should take advantage of the mo_e lor:na ;zee
CIP review procedures and use individual "position papers" not
just to indicate dissents (there are not likely to be many, is ar.y,
of them) but rather to educate all concerned, including tic
Secretary of Defense, with respect to the Community-wide: per-
spective from which ,he DCI is required to observe any _)art o,
the Intelligence Community. No other person represented on
the Group has the obligation to conduct his review with such a
comprehensive approach. it is also to be hoped tlat these
position papers taken together will illustrate the point that the
DCI looks upon the GIP units and activities with varying cegrees
of concern depending upon their relationship to the over.
Community in general and in particular, their relationship to
all other Community efforts of a similar or related nature. 1
is conceivable that we may find units or activities that should not,
in terms of the DCI's responsibility, be included in the Comrnunit'r
at all and this viewpoint could be brought to the attention of the
Secretary of Defense.
5. We continue to have a basic problem in the CiP a:.i?.a t .t
is its lack of corr_pleteness. The CIP does not and is not : nte:.ded
Approved For Release 2004/05/12: CIA-RDP86M00612R000100040065-9
 Approver pr Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP86MQW12R000100040065-9
to show the totality ol. DOD's intelligence effort less thoso
covered in the CCP. The exclusions are not even consis,.ent,
The policy is that intelligence activities of the numbered
armies and air forces and the intelligence staffs of the uniservice
and unified commands will not be included, yet the CIP s,Hows
any and all IDHS resource activities including those sup-portin -,
the excluded activities. We understand that the BOP is going
to make a move to have more of these things included in he
CIP and we will ha, se to consider our position with respect to
such proposals when its s;?ecific details become available.
The DCI must in principle agree with any such proposal
because there are no excla: ions in his responsibility to
coordinate the foreign inteLigence effort of the U. S.
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP86M00612R000100040065-9