HISTORY OF THE JOT PROGRAM, 1950-1966

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-03087A000100030007-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 1, 2002
• Sequence Number: 7
• Publication Date: August 15, 1972
• Content Type: MF

Approved For ease 2002/06/05 : CIA-RDP78-03087A000100030007-4
AA/ylINISTRAa.i~ .? ;, T:c'~:i~::idsu USE ?
15 August 1972
MEM?R.ANDUINI FOR: Deputy Director of Training
SUBJECT : History of the JOT Program. 1950-1966
1. Generally, I think this history is well-written and comprehen-
sive. I am very familiar with the records from which this history was
drawn as it was my final task with the Career Training Program to
compile and arrange them for the historian. To the extent that it relies
on these records it is surprisingly accurate, indicating a high degree
of research and :selective jud ent. His recognition of the invaluable
STATINTL assistance provided by is commendable and most certainly
deserved.
2. On the other hand, in those many instances in which the w1iter
has resorted to recollections of his own involvement, and to judgments
which evolve therefrom, the text is much less objective and reliable.
Many of his comments are totally gratuitous and inappropriate.
3. Although I have not had opportunity to review the text completely,
I note some significant inaccuracies and omissions:
a. Recruitment - on page 73 of the manuscript, the statement
is made that the recruiting problem was still unsolved at the end
of the 1950-66 period, but vanished in the five-year period after-
ward because of the diminished demand for graduates of the Program.
This is an egregious error, underscored by the fact that in 1967
the largest number of trainees in the history of the Program was
enrolled. And even in 1972, though smaller, the Program cannot
satisfy the demand because of budgetary and ceiling restrictions
placed upon it. Even the reason for its diminished size is different
from that suggested by the author.
Approved For Release 2002/66/05 CIA=RDP7$-6A000100030007-4
 Approved For elease 2002/06/05 : CIA-RDP78-03087A000100030007-4
ADMINISMI :' .'VE
b. Maintenance of High Qualitative Standards - There are ample
records in the files of the CT Program to demonstrate that with
the expansion of the Program, beginning in October 1964, standards
for selection were not maintained, but rather were violated in a
significant number of cases in order to meet recruitment goals
established for Fiscal Years 1965-65. The judgment made at the
top of page 100 is substantiated neither by the Program records
nor by the experience of supervisors throughout the Agency who
communicated to us their gradual displeasure that graduates of
the Program 'there not what they used to be'
c. Career Trainees and the DDS - The coverage of this subject
on page;.-126-12 9 is far from complete. What it does not say, per-
haps out of reverence for senior officials of the Support Directorate,
is that the program initiated so earnesly and massively in 1964
to send JOT' s/CT's to the Support Services, collapsed almost
completely by late 1966 when the career development programs.
rotational tours overseas, and promotional opportunities which
had been planned for these trainees were abandoned.
d. Program Coordinator - The author, as Chief of the Intelligence
School during the periods when JOT Program Coordinators were
functioning, opposed the entire concept, a point he readily admits
in the manuscript by declaring there was no need for them. In
reality, the need was overwhelming and had been recognized by
the Inspector General in reports so freely alluded to elsewhere
in this history. The undersigned performed this function on a
somewhat modified basis, beginning in 1967, simply because of a
continuing lack of coordination among the Schools and Staffs with-
in OTR dealing with the JOT training cycle. Specifically. through-
out the 1960's there had been ongoing problems having to do with:
1) the same lecturer making the same presentation to the
same class but in a different course;
2) conflicting training objectives and techniques between
courses; the most graphic illustration of this is contained in
a vitriolic exchange of memoranda between the author of the
STATINTL
JOT Program history and a Deputy Chief
over the quality of the writing 5 I A I I N
instruction given by their respective staffs;
2
USE ONLY
 Approved g $Tim2/08%b5'pe&-F p7 &1016000100030007-4
3) frequent dispute between OTR components over scheduling
the JOT training cycle, especially during the summer months.
The problems of coordination have been all too real and if
STATINTL were less than completely success-
ful in their attempts to solve them, the fault was not entirely
theirs. I think the harsh judgments visited on these men by
the author are unwarranted.
4. Some of the author's statements which carry beyond 1966 are
gross generalizations which, at the very least, convey a wrong im-
pression and, at worst, are erroneous. The historian of the post-1966
period should not be faced with the burden of prejudgments and I think
all references to this period should be excised from the manuscript,
including footnote references.
5. Finally, the selection of Appendices strikes me as curious.
More basic documents which actually governed the day-today opera-
tions of the Program might have been included, if any were to be
included at all. Sorely missing, it seems to me, are statistical
compilations showing the numbers of trainees selected, annually and
cumulatively, Internals and Externals, numbers assigned by Director-
ates, retention and attrition factors, etc. Not only would these provide
better overall perspective, but they would also constitute useful back-
ground for the specific topics treated in the narrative.
STATIN
{ ONLY
Approved For Release 2002/06/05 : CIA-RDP78-03087A000100030007-4