GEHA

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-04718A002200020015-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 11, 2000
• Sequence Number: 15
• Publication Date: June 8, 1956
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Release 2002/06/28 : CIA-RDP78-04718,40022P@0~Q9 -a
SUBJECT: GEHA
8 June 1956
r
ch.-,J 30: 5 C (1 it
.._,1.: H;i 70
__V
-VT B
1. The Board of Directors of cEH1
resolutions have moved that only true staff employees and staff
agents be accepted for GEHA insurance and that the Board desires
the policies already issued to other types of personnel be handled
through "appropriate operational procedures. " While not so
specified, this Board action is directed at the policies issued to
a special group employed by the Agency to carry out the opera-
tional aspects of Project AQUATONE. Apparently the thought
behind the Board action is that the AQUATONE group is under-
taking unusually hazardous duties and consequently there is a
possibility of substantial insurance claims which may constitute
a detriment to the other policy holders, either through reduction
of rebates or an increase in rates. Tied with this thought is the
fact that the AQUATONE group were recruited and employed
specifically for this one Project and upon its completion will
return to their previous status outside the Agency. Therefore,
as we see it, the Board feels that such a temporary group are not
"true" staff employees and, therefore, should not be eligible for
the GEHA benefits.
2. Presumably the Board's desire to have a situation of
this sort handled through appropriate operational procedures means
that any insurance or other benefits should be underwritten directly
out of official funds available to the Agency. The Board's action is
in the form of a motion and technically does not. I believe, affect
the current status of the AQUATONE group. While the Board has
authority to reject applications for GEHA membership, it does not
have any power to revoke membership once obtained. Furthermore,
the action refers to "true" staff employment. I have no difficulty in
concluding that the AQUATONE group, who have volunteered for an
unusually important intelligence mission at great risk to themselves,
Approved For Release 200;,(0(28 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002200020015-1
 Approved For Release 2002/06/28 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02200020015-1
are employees of the Agency and entitled to all the benefits any other
Agency employee could acquire. In this- regard it should be noted
that the alternative suggested of provision of benefits directly out of
official funds would impair an employee's entitlement under the
Federal Employees Compensation Act, which is one of the most
valuable protections available to the AQUATONE group.
3. The Board's action does, however, raise a question of
the basic philosophy involved in the creation of the GEHA insurance
program. On 8 May 1953 the Executive Secretary of the CIA Career
Service Board reported to the Career Service Board a proposal for
carrying out the decision to institute an insurance study. It was
emphasized that this decision was taken simultaneously with the
decision not to recommend a hazardous duty pay program. Paragraph
2. g. specifically states, "There is no question that there are risks
and hazards connected with certain activities conducted by CIA.
The policy decision taken by the Board was that these risks should
be covered by insurance if possible rather than by incentive or
hazardous duty pay. " In a draft, dated 19 May 1953, of a report
from the Insurance Task Force to the Career Service Board,
paragraph 2 states, "At this stage it appears that the most poignant
interest of the Agency in insurance matters lies in the field of risks
or hazard in the carrying out of missions. These risks are variable
in kind and in time. It also appears only basic justice to consider
if there be some compensatory insurance aspects. " The final report
of the Insurance Task Force forwarded to the Director 20 July 1954
repeatedly points out how normal commercial insurance does not
provide coverage for Agency employees under various conditions.
Tab B to that report in paragraph la(2) specifies the risks of Agency
hazardous and semi-hazardous duty not covered by ordinary life
policies. The Constitution and By-laws of GEHA, Inc. provide that
any employee of CIA may become a member of the corporation.
Article III, Section 1. Section 2 of Article III then provides that the
Directors are authorized to accept or reject any application.
4. Agency Noticel which established the GEHA
insurance plan, specifically recognizes the concepts discussed above.
In paragraph 1. b. it points out that the Agency has developed these
insurance programs in order to provide employees with better
benefits and to avoid the hazardous duty and security problems
2
Approved For Release 2002/06/28 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02200020015-1
SECRET
 Approved For Release 200 1 ' CIA-RDP78-04718AO02200020015-1
77
encountered in normal commercial insurance. It points out that
GEHA is a nonprofit organization made up entirely of Agency
personnel and points out in paragraph 2. a. that the new term
life insurance may be purchased by members of GEHA who are
staff employees, staff agents, or contract employees, or who are
civilian or military personnel detailed to the Agency.
5. Since GEHA was created to serve Agency purposes,
the Board's action on acceptance or rejection must be consistent
with Agency policy and needs. I believe it is clearly Agency poles
to do everything in its power to provide the best benefits possible
for employees, particularly those engaged in dangerous intelligence
activities. It certainly is a need of the Agency, as one of the primary
incentives to volunteers for dangerous missions is the knowledge
that their families will have the best possible financial security.
At this time the best arrangements we have been able to make have
been the combination of benefits of the Federal Employees Compensa-
tion Act and the insurance program worked out with GEHA, which
eliminates the exceptions normal to most commercial insurance.
I see nothing in the background or concept of GEHA which would
eliminate employees appointed for the purposes of a special project
who presumably would return to their previous employment on
liquidation of the project. In this connection, it should be noted
that the Director on 20 March 1956 specifically authorized that the
AQUATONE personnel in question be appointed by the Director of
Personnel for the purposes of Project AQUATONE only so that they
would qualify under the provisions of the Federal Employees Group
Life Insurance Program.
6. If the capabilities required for AQUATONE had existed
in the Agency and the group had, therefore, volunteered from
personnel already employed, I believe there would be no thought
of eliminating them from the insurance program. I can see no
rationale to distinguish such a situation from that which exists when
a group are asked to serve their country through employment by
this Agency on a dangerous mission. I recommend that the Agency
policies in this regard be made specific for the guidance of the
Board of Directors of GEHA.
LAWRENCE
General Counsel
FOIAb3b
cc: Personnel Office
Approved For Release 2002/0 /28 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02200020015-1
EC R, ET