LETTER TO(Sanitized)FROM S. B. FRANKEL

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82R00129R000100070026-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 14, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 11, 2003
• Sequence Number: 26
• Publication Date: February 25, 1963
• Content Type: LETTER

Approved For Rase 2003/07SEOR - t P82R001 29FW01 60070026
25X1
S-15533/P-2
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
WASHINGTON 25, D.C.
25X1A I
Executive Secretary, united States
Intelligence Board
Central Intelligence Agency
Washington 25, D.C.
25X1A
0
2 5? FEB 1963
In preparation for the next meeting of the PNIO Review Committee, I have
first of all, as was suggested, set down what I believe to be the purpose
of the PNIOs. It is to focus attention and generate action on critical
intelligence problems whose resolution is necessary to the National
Security Council in the formulation of policy and in the making of
decisions affecting the security and foreign policies .of the United
States.
To accomplish this purpose, my concept of the PNIOs is that they should
simply state the problems and indicate how critical they are; the
intelligence collection requirements and the actions stemming therefrom
being generated by. the USIB members. Each member must determine the
appropriate effort required by his Agency or Department in the light of
its resources and capabilities as related to the intelligence deficiences
or gaps noted. The process is well.set forth in paragraph 3 of the
Memorandum For the Special Group (C.lo) of 12 February 1963. In
addition, a combined review by the USIB to insure as complete coverage
as possible, would serve to identify community wide gaps in the
collection or production effort and would reduce undesirable duplication.
Likewise, frequent reviews of DCID 1/3 by the USIB would improve the
basic guidance for the coordination of intelligence research and
collection. It would also cause the PNIOs to be reevalued in the light
of new developments and trends so that the intelligence product might
be more responsive to NSC policy requirements.
Close contact with the NSC would seem to be essential in order to receive
the guidance that would insure appropriate and, timely .support of the NSG.
Such cooperation could extend all the way from the sort that occurred in
the days of the Planning Board to the formal approval of the PNIOs by'
the NSC, a matter which I would like to see explored.
DIA review(s) completed.
Approved For Release 2003/07/03: CIA-RDP82R00
IQPr T
29 O O 115kUTOMMATIC
REGRADING; DOD DIE 5200.10
DOES NOT APPLY
25X1
 Approved For Re# se 2003/05 RIh- f DP82R00129ROW1000'70026-5
As we all know, the PNIOs were expanded rapidly over the years to the
point where they had lost much of their original meaning, encouraging
by their very inclusiveness, dependence upon them for the direct
allocation of resources and the justification of budgets. Recently,,
some progress has been made to reduce the number of PNIOs in an attempt
to restore, to them their true priority status and at the same time to,,
return resource allocation for collection and analysis to. its proper
place in subsidiary, detailed listings. I hope this recent trend..
continues.
Much of the misconception concerning the PNIOs and also the.dissatis-
faction over them stems., I believe, in large ,part from the present
format, the definitions, and certain ambiguities of the directive.
Some aspects of the first two of these confuse',me, I confess, and the
last leads me to hope that the next revision of DCID 1/3 can-be written
.in simpler and more direct language.
With the above comments in mind, I have the following changes to suggest
in DCID 1/3.
As to the general form and substance of the introductory paragraphs of
the directive, I would, for the sake of simplicity and clarity, like
to see paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 replaced by the substance contained,in.,
paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of the Memorandum For the Special Group (C0I?)
of 12 February 1963. Certain changes in the text, I believe,would'be,.
appropriate. Add to old paragraph 1 the sentence, "The DCID is
reviewed at frequent intervals, at least semi-annually, and is revised
whenever a need to do so is indicated." In substitute paragraph 2,
delete "and effort" in the next to the last line. In substitute
paragraph 4, delete the bracketed next to last sentence. I would like
to see just after the DCID title on page 1 and before the first
paragraph the underlined statement, "A reading of the following
introductory paragraphs is essential to an understanding of the.PNIOs."
As I said earlier, I am confused by the definitions following each of
the category headings which appear to delinfate and 4irect the degree
of effort necessary in each case. I would favor no definitions at
all, because priorities 1, 2, 3, and 4 as such for the objectives
speak for themselves. In any event, substitute par graph 4 states
simply what the categories stand for. If, however?? it is decided
that further explanation is required, I would suggest that after
each numbered category.the corresponding criterion in the Annex be
adapted for descriptive use.
As far as the body of the PNIOs is concerned, I would like to see the
size of the third and fourth categories reduced substantially.
2
Approved For Release 2003/07/03 : CIA-RDP82R00129R000100070026-5
I _q F PP PT
 Approved For Reuse 2003/07/~Q-WP82ROO129RO 100070026-5
25X1A
25X1
25X1
25X1
The Annex, I feel, is no longer required because of the new introductory
paragraphs, provided the essence of paragraphs 3 (time of validity) and
4 (scope) of the Annex are brought forward as part of the introduction.
I would favor abolishing it. Annexes have away of being neglected by
the reader in any event.
In the last paragraph of study on PNIOs that was given
to us at the first meeting of the Committee, he refers to
views on the importance of the more systematic use of the findings of
the USIB subcommittees in their respective fields as part of the PNIO
problem. We should, I think, give some thought to this.
The ideas expressed in this letter are, of course, subject to change
even before our next meeting as a result of studying the contributions
received from my fellow committee members.
Sincerely,
S. B. FRANKEL.
Rear Admiral, USN
Chief of Staff
Approved For Release 2003/07/03: CIA-RDP82R00129R0001 bOdt0026-5
SECRE
25X1A