THE SUPPORT SERVICES HISTORICAL SERIES - AGENCY TRAINING AUGUST 1949 - JULY 1951

• Document Type: FOIA
• Collection: FOIA Collection
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 02559616
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 128
• Document Creation Date: March 8, 2023
• Document Release Date: July 2, 2019
• Case Number: F-2016-01723
• Publication Date: July 1, 1970

Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
CIA HISTORICAL STAFF
The Support Services
Historical Series
AGENCY TRAINING
AUGUST 1949 - JULY 1951
S ET
CIA Internal Use Only
Access Controlled by
the Directorate of
Support
SOU
OTR 4
July 1970
Copy 1 of 3
pproved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
WARNING
This document contains information affecting the national
defense of the United States, within the meaning of Title
18, sections 793 and 794, of the US Code, as amended.
Its transmission or revelation of its contents to or re-
ceipt by an unauthorized person is prohibited by law.
GROUP 1
Excluded from automatic
downgrading and declassification
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
SECRET
CIA Internal Use Only
Access Controlled by the Directorate of Support
THE DDS HISTORICAL SERIES
OTR 4
AGENCY TRAINING
AUGUST 1949 - JULY 1951
by
Robert B. Shaffer
revised and updated by
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
Hqgh T. Cunninghtun
Diector of TrainInq
HIS TOR I CAL STAFF
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
SECRET
pproved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Foreword
In the development of training in the Central Intelligence Agency,
) the period from October of 1949 to July of 1951 was a period of transi-
tion, a period during which training practice and doctrine inherited
from the Office of Strategic Services developed and changed and became
responsive to the distinctive needs of CIA. From the beginning of CIA
in 1947 until the Agency's second birthday in 1949, the OSS training
patterns, both conceptual and organizational, continued. The brief
passage through the interim Central Intelligence Group had left them
unchanged, and it was not until CIA had established an identity and
character of its own that the old patterns could be altered to meet the
new needs.
The inheritance from OSS was, of course, entirely operational in
orientation -- training related to clandestine activities; the people who
directed and conducted the training were part of the inheritance and
were themselves operational in orientation. It was only natural, then,
that until the Agency developed its own training policy and identified
the need for a broader spectrum of training, the operational orientation
Q
� �
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
continued, and the training staffs continued to be components of the
clandestine services. It was not until July of 1951, when all Agency
training activities were consolidated within the Office of Training
under the command of the Director of Training, that the period of
transition was completed.
Preceding this period of transition, there was a period of transfer,
the period during which OSS training concepts and disciplines were
transferred from OSS, through CIG, to CIA. That period is described
in detail in SS Historical Paper No. OTR-2, History of the Office of
Training, 1945 - 1949. The present paper picks up the narrative of
Agency training development where that paper ends.
Perhaps it should be noted at this point that the segmentation of
the history of an institutional activity -- like that of the history of an
empire, of a nation, or of a great religious or cultural movement --
is often determined not alone on the basis of developmental phases but
also on the basis of leadership. Thus we find that identified with each
of the developmental phases of training in the Agency there is a man,
or a group of men, who gave direction to events and character to
-iv-
SELICIOL:1-
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
achievements. The period covered by this paper, then, is not only
one of transition; it is also one during which a small group of men led
by
helped to shape the future of Agency training.
(b)(3)
r� r � ''" t"
\ . �
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
I
Contents
Page
Foreword
I. Development of the Training Division 1
A. Background 1
B. Administration
1. Command 2
2. Budget 3
3. Personnel 4
4. Training Liaison 6
C. Training Requirements 8
1. Mission and Function _ 9
2. Objectives 10
3. Doctrine 12
D. Overseas Training 18
E. The Director of Training 21
II. The Expansion of the Training Division 32
A. Organizational Structure 32
B. Staffing Problems 35
-vi-
err7").CT
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
%.JL-1-11
C. The Rotation Problem
D. Space
E. New Courses
Page
40
43
45
III.
Special Problems in Training
51
A. Auditors
51
B. Outside Lectures
54
C.
The Pool
55
D.
57
(b)(1)
.:,(b)(3)
E. Improvement of Quality
59
IV.
Paramilitary Training
65
A. Area Training
65
B. The Area Training Branch -67
C. Training Camp No. 1 68
1. Establishment 68
2. The Classes 69
3. Problems on the Post 70
4. Field-Headquarters Relationships 72
5. Problems with Trainees 74
D. Mobilization Training Program 76
SECRET
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Page
81
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
F.
Special Projects
83
1.
ZRELOPE
84
2.
85
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
3.
KMKIMONO
86
4.
88
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
V. Summary and Conclusion 94
A. Temper of the Times 94
B. Summary 95
1. Development of TRD 95
2. Expansion of TRD 97
3. Special Problems 98
4. Paramilitary Training 99
C. Chronology 101
Appendixes
A. Identification of Positions 105
B. Mission and Functions of TRD 111
;')
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
I
C.
Index to Persons Mentioned
Page
Remarks to Training Review Committee . . . 113
115
(b)(3)
pproved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
OLUIXL I
AGENCY TRAINING, OCTOBER 1949 - JULY 1951
Chapter I
Development of the Training Division
A. Background
On 5 August 1949,
USA, was appointed
Chief of the Training Staff of the Office of Special Operations (050).t
On 14 September of that year, by agreement between OSO and the Office
of Policy Coordination (OPC),
was formally named Chief
of OPC training ** and thus the training elements of the two operational
Offices were combined. On 17 October, the Deputy Assistant Director
of OSO addressed a memorandum to
as "Chief of the Train-
ing Division, OSO/OPC. " Thereafter the unit that
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
headed (b)(3)
was referred to officially as TRD -- organizationally attached to OSO
but serving the training needs of both OSO and OPC. From that time
until
left the Agency to return to the army, in April of 1951,
his task was to consolidate the existing training activities of OSO and
OPC and to develop new programs to meet the operational needs of the
Agency. The problem of first priority was that of establishing the kind
of administrative framework within which TRD could function most
effectively.
**
5 August 1949, SECRET
September 1949, SECRET
SECRET
pproved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
_ _�
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
OL.A.JikL. I
B. Administration
The problem of TRD administrative relationships was a natural
consequence of the merging of two units which, although devoted to a
common mission, had different origins, different loyalties, and dif-
ferent objectives. Inherent in the situation were problems of command
channels,
ties.
financial management, personnel actions, and liaison activi-
1. Command. Before the formal merger of the OSO and OPC
training units, the skeletal training branch of OPC had relied upon OSO
facilities for many of its training requirements, and coordination had
been achieved through a Joint Training Committee made up of repre-
sentatives from OSO and OPC. When TRD was created, a decision con-
cerning a single command channel had not yet been made, and the
Joint Training Committee -- at that time composed of the Chief of
TRD, the Executive Officer of OSO, and the Chief of Support of OPC --
continued to provide command guidance. For organizational conven-
ience, TRD was considered a component of OSO. In a memorandum
dated 16 December 1949, addressed to the CIA Management Officer,
the Executive Officer of the Agency stated that the Director of Central
Intelligence wished to delay action on the determination of a single
-2-
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
OLUI1L1
command channel for TRD until the National Security Council had
made a decision regarding an amalgamation of OSO and OPC. The
memorandum further stated that the "current combined committee-
type of control" was temporarily authorized, with TRD being responsi-
ble to both the Assistant Director for Special Operations (AD/SO) and
the Assistant Director for Policy Coordination (AD/PC).
The Joint Training Committee, then, continued to control
the activities of TRD; and TRD continued to be charted as a component
of OSO. The OPC personnel serving as members of TRD were con-
sidered to be in an on-loan status. This "temporary" command struc-
ture made it possible for TRD to function as a training unit serving the
needs of both OSO and OPC, but it created a number of sticky adminis-
trative problems, the most difficult of which was the structure and
management of the TRD budget.
2. Budget. When TRD was established, in October of 1949, it
was decided by the Joint Training Committee that budgetary matters
would continue to be handled on an ad hoc basis -- as they had been since
17 September -- until command channels had been established. The
December 1949 decision of the DCI to defer determination of com-
mand channels made it necessary for the Committee to face the
-3-
SE'"'
pproved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
budgetary problem and try to find a solution. In a meeting on 4
January of 1950, the Committee did face the problem and considered
possible solutions. None of the alternatives, however, appeared to be
workable, and the Committee decided to continue the ad hoc approach.
In February of 1950 the OSO funds available for training
appeared to be running out, and in March the Committee met with the
finance officers of OSO and OPC to work out a course of action. In
that meeting it was agreed that when OSO training funds were completely
spent, OPC would provide -- from existing accounts -- the money to sup-
port TRD activities for the rest of the 1950 fiscal year. At this
time, the Committee, with the concurrence of the OSO and OPC finance
officers, recommended that the two Offices contribute equally to the
TRD budget for the 1951 fiscal year. This recommendation was never
officially approved, but it became the basis for continuation of the ad
hoc approach to TRD budget problems, an approach that kept TRD in
business until it found a secure budgetary home in the Office of Train-
ing in July of 1951.
3. Personnel. The lack of clearly defined command channels
during the 1949-51 period made personnel actions just as hard to handle
-4-
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
oronrc
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
as budgetary matters. The Chief of TRD was responsible for the ad-
ministrative supervision of all personnel in the Division, but control
of the table of organization, position classification, and candidate
qualifications was exercised by the Office of Personnel; and personnel
actions proposed by the Chief of TRD had to be approved and authorized
by either the Executive Officer of OSO or the Chief of Staff II of OPC,
depending upon the parent Office of the person involved in the action.
In effect, then, the Chief of TRD carried the responsibility for per-
sonnel administration in the Division but had no authority to make
decisions.
In January of 1950, the Joint Training Committee worked
out an agreement with OSO and OPC whereby all promotion actions
for people assigned to TRD were to be approved by the Committee,
and all travel requests and travel vouchers were to be approved by
the Executive Officer of OSO only -- regardless of the parent Office
of the person affected. This arrangement proved to be workable, and
at least one of the administrative problems of the Chief of TRD was
solved.
-5-
SERF
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
4. Training T,iaison. As early as 1948 the Training Staff of
OSO had established liaison with the other units of OSO through Train-
ing Liaison Officers (TLO's), officers who, in addition to their major
duties with their units, served as points of contact on training matters.
These TLOrs met frequently with members of the Training Staff for
discussion of mutual problems. As the OPC Training Branch began
to develop, late in 1948, it became apparent that a similar TLO
arrangement was needed in OPC; but it was not until August of 1949
that an effort was made to establish systematic procedures for desig-
nating OPC TLO's. The minutes of the 3 August meeting of the Joint
Training Committee record the recommendation that OPC designate
operations and planning officers to act as TLOrs.
Apparently implementation of the recommendation was slow
in coming. On 4 October of 1949, after
had taken over as (b)(3)
Chief of both OSO and OPC training, OPC had not yet come up with a
list of operations and planning officers who would serve as TLO's.
�
The minutes of the Committee meeting held on that date record that
the list would be forthcoming soon. Those minutes also record that
stressed the urgent need for orienting all TLO's to train-
ing procedures and recommended that at the next meeting of TLO's
-6-
� t r
i�����
(b)(3)
pproved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
-.. _�
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
with TRD officers, Division Chiefs of both OSO and OPC be present.
-There is evidence, however, that the TLO problem was slow in so-
lution.
At a meeting of all TLO's on 10 February 1950,
distributed a "Training Liaison Officers Guide, " outlining general
procedures to be followed, delineating TLO functions, and describing
the activities of TRD. Apparently the Guide failed to accomplish its
mission, at least in OPC, for in May of 1950
issued a
long memorandum describing procedures for handling OPC students
in training. This was followed, on 1 July, by a revised TLO's Guide
and by another memorandum explaining in greater detail the proper
procedures for enrolling OPC personnel in training courses and fol-
lowing them through to the completion of the training. It appears
that a part of the problem with OPC personnel in training was the
frequent use of pseudonyms and aliases, which created almost endless
confusion; other factors -- as pointed out to his staff --
were lack of planning for OPC training and failure of the TLO's to
study the various guides that had been prepared for them.
At a meeting of the Joint Training Committee in December
of 1950, the TLO problem was being discussed, and Mr. William
-7-
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
cc r)}1
pproved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Rerease: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
k.)LL)111-1
-- the OSO representative on the Committee -- suggested
that a partial solution of the problem might be the appointment of a
full-time TLO in each of the Offices.
agreed with the
idea and went ahead with the paper work necessary to implement it.
In February of 1951,
who had been in agent training
since OSS days, was appointed OSO Training Officer. Similar action
was not taken by OPC, but the appointment of
marked the
beginning of the senior training officer system that is still in effect
in the Agency.**
C. Training Requirements
One of the major problems that
inherited when he be-
came Chief of TRD in October of 1949 was the identification of train-
ing requirements. Before the merger of the Training Staff of OSO
and the Training Branch of OPC, no systematic attempt had been
made to re-define the old OSS training requirements in terms of the
needs of CIA -- probably because those needs had not themselves
* For identification of positions held by major OSO, OPC, and DDP
officers, see Appendix A.
Agency records.
real name,
-8-
is used in official
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
been clearly defined. In facing the overall problem of training require-
ments,
found that concise statements of training missions
and functions depended on agreed conclusions concerning training
objectives, that training objectives could be defined only in terms of
operations doctrine, and that training requirements could be determined
only after doctrine had established objectives and objectives had clan-
fled missions and functions.
1. Mission and Function. On 25 July 1950,
sent to
the AD/SO and the AD/PC a memorandum on "The Mission of the
Training Division." The memorandum was a statement of the mission
and functions of TRD as
saw them at the time. Approval
was not requested, and the statement of mission and functions was not
issued as an official TRD document. Actually,
memoran-
dum was unofficially approved by both AD/S0 and AD/PC, and sub-
sequently it was used as a major guideline in instructor training
cour se s.
The statement placed heavy stress on training requirements.
Indeed, the first of the functions listed by
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
was "to ascertain (b)(3)
the training requirements of OSO and OPC, " and the entire text of
-9-
T
SECRE
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
L,U L
the statement makes it clear that training missions and functions
remain intangible until requirements are determined.* Implicit in
the statement was the conclusion that the first step in the determina-
tion of requirements was the definition of objectives -- both quantita-
tive and substantive.
2. Objectives. The TRD effort to determine realistic and spe-
cific training objectives was a continuing one. It began informally
when
became Chief of TRD; it was, in effect, formalized
by the 25 July memorandum; and as late as March of 1951 the Joint
Training Committee was urging OSO and OPC to give TRD more
specific requirements. The Committee pointed out that identifying
the general needs of the operating Offices was not enough; TRD had
to have a breakdown of the training load in terms of the courses that
were given. TRD had found, for example, that it was not getting as
many students for "area" training as had been estimated; if this short-
age should continue, TRD would have to move some "area" instructors
to staff training or covert training in order to meet the demands of
The text of
given in Appendix B.
statement on TRD mission and functions is
-10-.
SECRET
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
those activities, said that TRD needed not only a specific
'statement of the long-range requirements, but also a general. state-
ment forecasting the trends to be expected for various types of train-
ing. This forecast was needed immediately so that TRD could plan
properly. These needs were never really met, and consequently
TRD was drawn into preparing for requirements that never material-
ized.*
On 14 November 1949, OPC had circulated throughout the
Agency a memorandum asking for comments on the effectiveness of
OPC' s existing structure. The comments were for the use of a com-
mittee that had been assigned to study the organization and function of
OPC. On 15 November
responded with a memorandum
that listed a number of difficulties that TRD had experienced with
OPC because of its organizational structure. He noted that the person-
nel of the Planning Division and those of the Operations Division dif-
fered widely in their understanding of training objectives. He said
that he had observed that some officers of the Planning Division did
* See the discussions of
pp. 84 - 88 below.
-11-
(TC"rf
and ZRELOPE,
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
LA./ M., 1
not feel that they should take the same training courses given to the
Operations personnel. In trying to get substantive training objectives
from the two Divisions, TRD had found wide discrepancies in the
viewpoints of the planners and the operators. As a result, TRD
could not design courses that met the requirements of both Divisions.
In his memorandum
also noted that the planners repre-
sented certain activities and the operators represented certain areas;
in his view, this difference constituted a basic flaw in the structure
of OPC.
OPC also had some complaints about TRD at this time. In
December of 1949,
reported to his staff that the AD/PC
felt that the Intelligence Orientation Course was too strongly weighted
in favor of OSO activities. It was then decided that some effort should
be made to revise the course to reflect a more nearly even distribu-
tion of coverage of OSO and OPC -- an example of the kind of make-
shift compromise necessitated by the lack of clearly defined objectives.
3. Doctrine. It is interesting that in none of the documents
recording TRD efforts to identify training requirements and formulate
training objectives is there a definition of the word "doctrine" or a
-12-
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
S F C
pproved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
L.kilig-f
clarification of the relationship of doctrine to objectives. It must be
assumed that before the appearance of OPC there was no real need to
define either the word or the relationship. The OSS concept of
"doctrine" being operational -- the accepted and organizationally ap-
proved principles that govern methods and techniques of operational
activities -- and "objectives" being the specific training goals to pro-
vide the capabilities to apply the doctrine, had been carried over;
and the Training Staff of OSO had no major problem of defining ob-
jectives consistent with doctrine. With the advent of OPC, however,
and the merging of the OSO and OPC training units, new and different
operational activities were introduced; doctrine for them evolved
slowly, and training objectives could not be formulated in the absence
of doctrine.
recognized this problem soon after he became
Chief of TRD, and in December of 1949 he made an organized effort
to solve it. At that time it had been decided -- there is no record of
how or by whom -- that OPC required training courses in resistance
force operations, sabotage, psychological warfare, economic war-
fare, and political warfare. At a staff meeting on 14 December,
announced that each of the TRD instructors assigned to
- 1 3 -
SECRL
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
k)L.U1-ir,
the development of one of these courses would be responsible for the
writing of a training manual for his course. Deadlines of from three
to six months -- varying with the different courses -- were set, and
the instructors were told to develop the doctrine upon which the manu-
als would be based.
By June of 1950, had concluded that TRD should (b)(3)
.not and could not be responsible for the development of doctrine, and
in a meeting of the Joint Training Committee on 15 June he so informed
the OPC member of the Committee. It was then agreed that OPC
itself would take on the task of preparing the manuals, working from
topical outlines supplied by TRD.
Staff I of OPC was assigned the job of developing the doc-
trine and preparing the manuals. In October of 1950 the OPC member
of the Committee reported that Staff I had set March of 1951 as the
earliest possible- completion date for the manuals. The major
reason for the slow progress, according to Staff I, was the extreme
difficulty in reaching agreement on doctrine. In early April of 1951
the draft of the first of the manuals -- on economic warfare -- was
submitted to TRD and was found wanting; TRD instructors felt that
it failed to identify doctrine and it needed considerable revision
-14-
SECRET.
pproved for Release: 201-9/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
before it could be useful in training. Progress continued to be slow,
and as late as December of 1951 TRD was finding the manuals being
prepared in OPC to be of variable usefulness. The manuals on covert
political warfare and covert economic warfare, for example, were
almost useless in giving instruction in clandestine operations; they
merely presented general surveys of overt methods of operations.
Although the covert psychological warfare manual and the escape and
evasion manual were weak on doctrine, they were of considerable
use as far as the definitions and general policy were concerned.
This dragging out of the writing of manuals by OPC finally
led TRD to take the initiative in setting up a more orderly approach.
On 7 April 1951,
who had been an instructor in
TRS and TRD since 1948, submitted a memorandum to the Chief of
TRD on the subject of the development of doctrine.
took the
position that although the responsibility of TRD in the development of
doctrine was not openly recognized in the operating Offices, the ten-
dency to depend on TRD had become increasingly apparent. He sug-
gested a priority emergency program aimed at determining and iden-
tifying the doctrinal material that was being used in training at that
time. He suggested a second emergency program aimed at putting
-15-
CDFT
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
on paper the doctrinal fundamentals of each of the specialized fields
of clandestine activity.
These programs as he saw theii. could be
carried out by small numbers of qualified people working as task
forces in TRD for three or four months.
also recommended a
third, long-range program aimed at the orderly and continuous review
of basic doctrine and of its relevance to operational experience; this
program would require an adequately staffed and supported "doctrine
development" group.
On 23 July 1951, Mr. Rolfe Kingsley (Acting Chief of TRD
after departure) set up a Doctrine Development Staff
The job of the Staff was to
along the lines suggested by
insure that the content of all instruction in TRD would be operationally
sound and consistent with the policies of OSO and OPC. TRD Adminis-
trative Instruction 70-3 set up a procedure for the Doctrine Develop-
ment Staff to follow in reviewing regularly all lesson plans, lecture
outlines, problems, and study material used in all courses.
Actually, the Doctrine Development Staff was an outgrowth
of a committee that
had established in June of 1950 -- the
"Training Review Committee." The members of this group were
Deputy Chief of TRD;
-16-
and
sroDr.:�
LURL/
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
1 L
TRD instructors; William Wheeler of OSO; and
of OPC. Although the task assigned the Committee was a
broad one -- to review the mission, the instruction, and the existing
procedures of TRD and make recommendations for improvement --
the major problem the Committee was concerned with was the develop-
ment of doctrine. The Committee held its last meeting on 19 June
1950, and its final report was commended highly by
*
Although the Committee did not, as we have seen, solve the doctrinal
problems of TRD, it made a major contribution to the rapport of TRD
with both OSO and OPC. In a 30 August 1950 memorandum addressed
to the Chief of TRD, the AD/PC, Mr. Frank Wisner, praised the work
of the Committee and commended the Chief of TRD for his proposals
of action based on the Committee's recommendations; and on 25 Octo-
ber 1950 Col. Schow, AD/SO, addressed a similar memorandum to
the Chief of TRD.
When left the Agency in April of 1951, the prob-
lems of identifying training requirements had not been completely
* A summary of
mittee appears in Appendix C.
remarks to the members of the Corn-
-17-
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
S FC"FT
I�
pproved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
I
solved, but measurable progress had been made. The need for de-
fined operational doctrine as a necessary basis for training objectives
had been clearly established, missions and functions of TRD had
been clarified and specified, and training requirements could be
identified with some assurance that they would be responsive to the
needs of the operating Offices.
D. Overseas Training
I
Closely related to the problem of identifying OSO and OPC train-
ing requirements at Headquarters was the problem of TRD support
for Agency training activities overseas. During World War II, the
OSS Training Unit had had no direct responsibility for the content of
the training given in overseas areas, but it did support those activi-
ties by training instructors and providing training materials. When
CIA was created in 1947, this relationship was easily transferred to
the Training Staff of OSO, along with other OSS practices and pro-
cedures, and no major problem developed until OPC was formed on
1 September of 1948. OPC initiated a number of projects that involved
the training of foreign nationals in overseas areas. In the early
stages, these projects were supported by the Training Branch of OPC;
-18-
S 1E" R
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
and when the OSO and OPC training units were merged in September
of 1949, TRD became responsible for the support of OPC overseas
training activities as well as those of OSO.
As these overseas training programs developed, it became ap-
parent that TRD could not give them adequate support by treating
them as peripheral activities. By August of 1950 the requirement for
sending training materials to overseas activities had grown to the
point where it was necessary for the Joint Training Committee to
establish an Overseas Training Materials Review Committee, a three-
man group with OSO, OPC, and TRD representation. The task of
the Review Committee was to examine all training materials to be
sent overseas and ensure their appropriateness. This function solved
a part of the problem only, and in November of 1950,
established a Special Projects Staff composed of four TRD instructors;
this Staff was charged with the responsibility for preparing complete
plans for all non-Headquarters training projects, both in the United
States and abroad. Such plans included cover and security arrange-
ments, the selection of safe training sites, the provision of special
training aids, and substantive course outlines. The Staff was also
-19-
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
� Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
1
responsible for the coordination of the special programs with the
operating units of OSO and OPC.
The work of the Review Committee and the Special Projects Staff
gave TRD the capability of muddling through the overseas training
problem, but it was obvious that a greater effort was needed. A 4
May 1951 report of the Review Committee, for example, stated that
the bulk of the training materials needed overseas was much too
great for the Committee to handle properly and that some of the opera-
ting units of OSO and OPC were bypassing the Review Committee and
independently preparing training materials for overseas use. The
report concluded with the statement that TRD needed a fully manned,
full-time unit with the responsibility for preparing and adapting train-
ing materials for overseas use. TRD did not at that time have the
personnel to assign to such a unit, and the make-shift treatment of
the overseas training problem continued until the establishment of
the Overseas Training Branch in the Office of Training in 1955.*
See SS Historical Paper No. OTR-5, History of the Office of Train-
ing, 1951-1966. SECRET.
- 20 -
SrePET
pproved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
1
ei:017:
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
E. The Director of Training
On 15 November 1950., the appointment of Col. Matthew Baird as
CIA Director of Training was announced.* The announcement was
transmitted to the Deputy Directors by the CIA Executive, Mr. Murray
McConnel, with an explanatory memorandum stating that Col. Baird's
.staff would be a "division" of the Executive's administrative group,
that as of 1 January 1951 Col. Baird's "division" would begin the
development of a Career Training program, arid that at a "later date"
Col. Baird would coordinate and supervise all Agency training.**
Neither the document appointing Col. Baird nor the Executive's
memorandum transmitting the document clarified the relationship of
Col. Baird's "division" to TRD, and the "later date" reference in the
memorandum was ambiguous, at best. The ambiguity was partly
resolved by a 30 November 1950 memorandum from Col. Baird to
4.4
SECRET
(b)(3)
4,1*
For a detailed discussion of the
circumstances of Col. Baird's
appointment and the organizational status of his "division, " see the
CIA
Historical Staff paper, Organizational History ofithel Central.
Intelligence
ter
Agency, 1950-1953, SECRET,
X, "The Conduct of Agency Business, "
Chap-(b)(3)
p. 11.
-21-
SECRET
pproved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
requesting a report on the functions and long-term per-
sonnel needs of TRD. The requested report was completed and sent
to Col. Baird on 5 December. In considerable detail it described
the organization and functions of TRD and assured the Director of
Training that TRD wanted his cooperation "as regards the continued
implementation of an intimate coordination and compatibility between
it [presumably TRD] and the covert offices. Such a liaison is of
utmost importance for the maintenance of the present caliber of train-
ing for operational personnel." The report also stated that "the train-
ing establishment must have free access to and the closest coordina-
tion and cooperation with the planning, operational, and administrative
elements of the covert offices."
On 6 December 1950, Col. Baird and
of
met in the office
the Executive Officer of OSO, for a general
discussion of problems. According to
memorandum
recording the meeting, Col. Baird stated that as new Chief of Train-
ing for CIA, he had no intentions of taking over the functions of TRD
at that time and, as a matter of fact, he did not know whether he
would ever concern himself with taking over that activity. Col.
Baird also stated that his staff had been established primarily to
-22-
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
(b)(3)
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
plan for career management and the development of personnel; he
wanted to make it clear, however, that if he could be of any assistance
whatever to the TRD program, he would be at the disposal of the
Chief of TRD.
Col. Baird's denial of any intent to take over the functions of
TRD re-cast the shroud of ambiguity over the "later date" reference
in the CIA Executive's memorandum of 15 November, and
was left in confusion and concern. On 13 December
wrote a memorandum to the AD/S0 and the AD/PC on the status of
TRD. He said that he feared that the pending reorganization plan for
the Agency might remove TRD from the direction and control of the
two covert Offices and make it a part of CIA Administrative Services.
He felt that such a step would fail to recognize that training for OSO
and OPC was really operational support. He further felt that the
move would be detrimental to OSO and OPC in that it would reduce
the effectiveness of the training for their operations. He pointed out
that experience had demonstrated that training is more effective when
it is close to operations. He also felt that such a change would lead
to the weakening of operational security and of the overall effective-
ness of TRD because the rotation of instructors would become
-23 -
SECn''T
XL.
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
impracticable and thus the flow of information about current opera-
�tional techniques would be curtailed. He felt that for policy guidance
and operational direction, it was impeltive that TRD continue under
the control of OSO and OPC.
In this paper
taken by his predecessor,
was restating the position that had been
in January of 1949
-when the OSO training unit was faced with the possibility of being
taken over by the Office of Personnel.* The conviction that training
----activity was an-integral part of clandestine operations was deeply
felt by the training officers who had strong ties to OSO, and they
viewed the advent of the new Director of Training with suspicion and
misgivings.
Although CIA REGULATION
it clear that the newly established Training Division had functions
different from those of TRD, and although OSO REGULATION No.
dated 1 December 1950, made
dated 30 December 1950, referred to TRD as part of the OSO structure,
with
as Chief and Rolfe Kingsley as his deputy, there
* See SS Historical Paper No. OTR-2, History of the Office of Train-
ing, 1945-1949, pp. 39-40. SECRET.
-24-
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
SECRET
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
continued to be considerable uneasiness in TRD, OSO, and OPC
about the role of Col. Matthew Baird and its relationship to opera-
tional training. This problem was the subject of frequent discussion
in the meetings of the Joint Training Committee in January and for
some time thereafter.
On 25 January 1951, Murray McConnel, then the Deputy Director
for Administration, addressed a memorandum to the AD/SO asking
him to authorize
to discuss training programs freely
with Col. Baird. McConnel stated that he felt that Baird and
could be of great help to each other and he wanted
to
know that he had the AD/SO's authority to discuss his operations. A
few days later the AD/SO, Col. Schow, authorized the Chief of TRD
to discuss all training programs and operations under his direction
with the Director of Training, Col. Baird.
Although confusion about Col. Baird's position had persisted for
some time, there was none in the mind of the DCI, General Walter B.
Smith. In a characteristic memorandum dated 22 March 1951 and
addressed to Mr. McConnel, the DD/A; Mr. Wisner, the AD/PC;
Gen. W. G. Wyman, the AD/SO; and Col. Baird, the DCI said:
* General Wyman repl rr,1 AD/So on 14 February
1951 by CIA GENERAL ECRET
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
When I established the office of the Director of Training,
it was my intention that he should plan, direct, and super-
vise the basic training for operational personnel of the
Agency. Accordingly, the function of the Assistant Direc-
tors in charge of SO and PC operations would be to establish
minimum specifications for the basic training of their per-
sonnel, to observe, correct, suggest to, and assist Col.
Baird in carrying out this service for the Agency at large.
Thus, as my representative for training, Col. Baird would
proceed to produce basically trained personnel for Agency
operations in accordance with the specifications furnished
him by the Assistant Directors concerned. I do not want the
basic training compartmented, and I see no difficulty in
handling it under centralized direction.
If you perceive serious objection, please see me personally.
The DCI's position was further clarified on 18 April 1951 with the
issuance of CIA Regulation
which transferred the Office of
Training from the DDA area to the Office of the DCI and gave Col.
Baird the authority to "Supervise all Agency training programs and
conduct such general training programs as may be required to meet
Agency needs. "
-26-
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
C'rrnrr
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
left the Agency in April of 1951 to return to the
Army, and Mr. Rolfe Kingsley was appointed Acting Chief of TRD.
On 23 April 1951 in a meniorandum addressed to the AD/SO and the
AD/PC, Col. Baird clarified his relationship to TRD and the covert
Offices, as he understood that relationship. He said that he wished
to confirm certain procedures that would enable TRD to continue to
-discharge its responsibilities in an efficient and secure manner.
These procedures were:
a. The Director of Training proposed to furnish to TRD
such staff supervision, guidance, and policy coordination as
might be necessary to insure that the desires of the DC1
were met. The DTR would give all possible assistance in
the maintenance of effective training support.
b. The AD/SO and the AD/PC would continue to pro-
vide to TRD, through the Joint Training Committee, their
training requirements, including the measures necessary
to protect the security of their operations and personnel.
c. The DTR and the Assistant Deputy Director for
Administration (Special) would join the Joint Training
Committee so that the DCI might be fully informed of the
Fr' OFT
-27-
Q
oudi�LE
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Training Division's problems and to insure that TRD
received the Agency support that it would need.
Col. Baird actually initiated these procedures at once. The minutes
of the Joint Training Committee show that he began to attend the
Committee meetings at the end of April.
TRD had always been shown on the organization chart of OSO.
It is obvious that there had always been a strong feeling that "covert"
training should remain under OSO, and the establishment of the office
of the Deputy Director for Plans (DD/P)* did not change the belief
that the Training Division should continue to be under the control of
the covert side of the Agency. On 26 June 1951, the DD/P notified
the AD/S0 and the AD/PC that TRD would be detached from OSO as
of 1 July and established under the DD/P, with Rolfe Kingsley as
Acting Chief. This arrangement was evidently not acceptable to the
DCI, to whom Col. Baird was reporting directly. In early July the
DCI issued a directive (later issued as CIA REGULATION
and dated 1 July 1951) assigning "Training (Covert)" -- as TRD
* By CIA GENERAL ORDER dated 4 January 1951, SECRET
Mr. Allen W. Dulles was the first DD/P.
-28-
SEC
.1
s
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
N.4 �
was re-named -- organizationally to the Director of Training. At
the same time,
Director of Training (Covert), and
USA, was designated Assistant
USN, was
designated Assistant Director of Training (Overt). The organization
chart included in CIA REGULATIO
showed "Covert Training"
as a block in dotted lines under the DD/P. In a memorandum of 28
September 1951, the Executive Officer of DD/P explained this as show-
ing that although the Director of Training was responsible for directing
and coordinating covert training in the United States, the DD/P had
retained responsibility for similar activity overseas. The DTR was
to coordinate with the DD/P on overall policies and programs and was
to provide staff supervision when requested. This information was
published as supplemental to the regulation.
In effect, then, although the covert training unit was nominally
under the DTR it was still being directed by the DD/P; and as ,late as
January of 1952,* the Office of Training, with Col. Baird as Chief,
was still being shown on DD/P organization charts as reporting to
the DD/P. CIA NOTICE
of 13 February
* Although the information given here goes beyond the time-span of
this paper, it is provided to complete the narrative of the transfer
of TRD to the Office of Training.
-29-
� 7- 771-
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
P
1952, however, described the organization of the Office of Training
and stated specifically that the Office was within the office of the
Director of Central Intelligence and that the Director of Training
reported to the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence. A 15 July
1952 memorandum from the DCI described the organization of the
Clandestine Services, to become effective on 1 August 1952, and
stated that a responsibility of the Director of Training was to pro-
vide to the DD/P adequate support for all clandestine activities, and
that continuous liaison between the Director of Training and the Chief
of Administration for the Deputy Director for Plans was to be main-
tained. Thereafter, a training organization did not appear on the
organization chart of the Clandestine Services.
After it was established in July of 1951 that the former TRD was
indeed under the organizational jurisdiction of the Director of Train-
ing, Col. Baird proceeded cautiously in the establishment of a rela-
tionship. Most of the people in the covert training organization did
not know him or understand his function. He was first introduced to
the Training (Covert) [TR(C)] people at a meeting of all TR(C). person-
nel on 31 October 1951, held in the auditorium of the Recreation and
-30 -
S WEI
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
� - --
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Services Building. The meeting was called by
to acquaint (b)(3)
all Office of Training people with the developments and progress of
TR(C).
Col. Baird proceeded at once to study the organization and manage-
ment of the unwieldy component that had been added to the Office of
Training. On 11 July 1951, he addressed a memorandum to the
Deputy Director for Administration (DD/A) requesting a management
survey of what had been TRD and of the whole Office of Training. He
asked that, in view of the organizational change that had transferred
TRD to OTR, the survey be made as soon as possible. He noted that
the transfer had raised certain administrative problems, and he
sought guidance on the organization of OTR, on the allocation of funds,
on space requirements, and on the security protection of covert opera-
tional training. On 21 July 1951, Col. Baird wrote to the Agency
Advisor for Management and stated that his primary consideration in
requesting the survey was the hope that a new plan would ensure the
utmost security protection for covert operational training, protection
that was a part of the Director of Training's responsibility for all
Agency training. He said that he felt that covert operational training
should be compartmented within OTR and be granted the autonomy of
.action necessary in the interests of security.
-31-
SEEET
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
't L.
Chapter II
The Expansion of the Training Division
Chapter I of this paper has discussed the development of TRD
within the framework of its relationships with other components of
the Agency -- primarily with OSO and OPC and finally with the com-
ponent headed by the Director of Training. Chapter II is concerned
with the internal development and expansion of TRD and covers the
component structure of the Division, the staffing and space problems
attendant upon the growth of these components, and the development
of training courses initiated within these components to meet the
ever-increasing requirement levied upon TRD.
A. Organizational Structure
When the training units of OSO and OPC were merged on 17
September 1949 to form TRD, one of the first problems that faced Col.
was that of setting up an organizational structure. It seemed
apparent at the time that the missions of TRD could be classified in
three categories: training in covert operational techniques (trade-
craft); training in covert unconventional warfare activities; and
-32-
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
training of non-staff covert personnel -- mostly foreign nationals.
Consequently, TRD 's first organizational structure was composed of
three units: Staff Training, Paramilitary Training, and Covert Train-
ing. It soon became obvious that the assessment and evaluation func-
tion could not be handled satisfactorily as a peripheral part of the
instructor's job, and an Assessment and Evaluation Unit was created.
When TRD was given the responsibility for the "holding" operation --
the unclassified training of provisionally cleared employees -- a
Branch was established for that activity.* Naturally the support
structure grew along with the instructional units, and by June of 1951
the Support Branch included a Records and Registration Staff, a Doc-
trine Development Staff, a Planning Staff, and a Training Materials
Staff; there were also in the Support Branch an Administrative Officer
and Commanding Officers of the field training installations. In October
of 1949, when
was appointed Chief of TRD, the Table of
Organization (T/) of the Division authorized
1951, when
of
positions.
See below,
ID�
55.
ositions; in April of
left the Agency, TRD had an authorized T/O
-33-
SECRET
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
At the time that TRD officially -- if only nominally -- became a part
of the Office of Training in July of 1951, it was operating with an organi-
zational structure that had been authorized by the Assistant Deputy Director
for Administration on 7 March 1951. The Staff Training Section was
offering three principal courses -- Staff Orientation, Operations, and
Advanced Operations. There was an Advanced Specialized Training
Section that was developing courses in Espionage, Counter-Espionage,
Psychological Warfare, Political Action, Sabotage Operations, Eco-
nomic Warfare, Resistance Operations, Evasion and Escape, and
Communist Party Operations. The Area Training Section* was com-
posed of the Air Training Branch, the Maritime Training Branch,**
and the Paramilitary Training Branch. The Covert Training Section
had three Branches -- one for the training of U.S. citizens in a deep-
cover status, one for the covert training of foreign nationals, and one
* The term "Area Trainingwas at that time used to cover training
conducted in a restricted compound or "area." This training was
related to resistance force activities and other subjects of a para-
military nature; it was not concerned with the study of world areas.
** Maritime training conducted by TRD and the Office of Training is
fully covered in SS Historical Paper No. OTR-3, History of the Office
of Training, Maritime Training, 1949-1954, SECRET May 1969.
-34-
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 002559616
;-. :---r
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
- 1/ � lk 0.4 II
for training related to special projects.* The Assessment and Evalu-
ation Unit had three parts -- Psychological Assessment Branch, a
Research and Validation Branch, and a Training Evaluation Branch.
The Support structure of TRD remained as it is described above.
B. Staffing Problems
During the rapid expansion of TRD, the problem of finding quali-
fied instructors to fill the authorized T/O was a major one. In
February of 1950,
told the Joint Training Committee that
instructors were urgently needed for both the Operations Course and
the Advanced Operations Course and that 40 percent of the authorized
positions in TRD were vacant. The OSO representative on the Com-
mittee said that OSO would screen the lists of returning field person-
nel to see if any qualified instructors could be made available.
In March of 1950
again pointed out the great need
for instructors; at that time there were 26 vacancies. He reported
that the operational branches of OSO and OPC had been approached in
an effort to find personnel to man the Operations Course and the
* See below, p. 83.
-35-
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
i�-;���
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Advanced Operations Course, in both of which the need was particu-
larly critical. In addition, he stated, TRD was trying to locate possi-
ble instructors in other Government Agencies -- GIG and FBI, for
example. The OSO representative said that the rotation policy of OSO
might make a few individuals available to TRD in the near future. In
July of 1950,
issued a memorandum to all TRD instructors
pointing out the pressing need in all Branches and asking them to pre-
pare lists of names of possible candidates whom, they might know
per sonally.
At a meeting of the Joint Training Committee in October of 1950,
showed that the new T/O then awaiting approval would
have a total of 73 vacancies in instructor positions. He did not see
how TRD could meet the training requirements unless operationally
qualified instructors were secured. The OSO and OPC representa-
tives on the Committee stated that it was impossible to release per-
sonnel from OSO or OPC for assignment to TRD at that time. Again,
in November of 1950, the personnel needs of TRD were called to the
attention of the Committee, but it was concluded that nothing more
could be done to recruit instructors, and the hope was expressed
-36-
0"--ON C.
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
r�
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
- � 1 Y.'s* G.
that the new DCI might make changes in the personnel procurement
procedures to improve the situation for the Agency as a whole-.
As of
included
7
December 1950, TRD had an
positions for Staff Training,
authorized
T/O of it
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
for Area Training and
for the so-called
"Mobilization Training.
"*
-
(b)(3)
Of instructors author
ized for Staff
Staff
Training positions were
(b)(3)
Training --of the total
clerical ones
its
(b)(3)
-- only were on duty; Area
Training had all of
instructor positions
filled; Mobilization
Training
(b)(3)
had only
instructor positions
(b)(3)
filled out of the authorized.
Actually, the shortage was not critical as the statistics might
indicate. In May of 1951, the Chief of the Agency's Personnel Divi-
sion pointed out that TRD had a total of 267 vacancies against which
only 126 recruitment requests had been submitted. Fifty six of the
vacancies were slotted for the ZRELOPE project,** not yet actually
launched. More than 100 of the total TRD vacancies on the T/O were
for maintenance and support positions at the proposed field training
site (plumbers, electricians, painters, and. laborers). These
* See below, p. 76.
** See below, p. 84.
. -37-
SFPPr.:-.1"
pproved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
r
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
;
positions could not be filled until the new training area had been pro-
cured, and many of them were low-level jobs for which it would be
preferable to recruit locally. In spite of these facts, TRD was still
hard pressed to find qualified instructors for critical courses.
Clerical personnel also were in short supply during this expand-
ing period. On 27 September 1951, for example, Training (Covert) --
then an element of the Office of Training -- had a T/O that approved
90 clerical positions, and only 36 of them were filled. On 6 Novem-
ber the situation was unchanged.
The really critical problem, however, continued to be the pro-
curement of instructors. The generation of a large requirement for
handling trainees in paramilitary courses at field training sites was
the principal cause of this pressure for additional instructors. In
January of 1951, for example, a large training organization was being
planned to cope with 300 trainees a month,* half of whom would go
into paramilitary courses and half of whom would go into staff train-
ing courses. It was planned that this operation would begin in the
summer of 1951.
* See below, p. 77.
-38-
SECRET
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
("N r
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Writing to the Agency Advisor for Management regarding the
instructor procurement situation, Col. Baird, on 21 July 1951,
noted that the T/O of Training (Covert) was only about 40 percent full
in spite of the high priority given it by Personnel Procurement. He
felt that one of the explanations was the low salary level: good
instructors could not be procured at the GS-09 to GS-11 level. He
pointed out that OSS alumni could not be induced to come back by the
offer of a GS-11 and said that after two months of effort he had been
unable to recruit a single qualified language and linguistics instructor
at the salary level that he could offer. He stressed that if the Office
of Training was to meet the training commitments it had accepted, it
would have to be able to offer instructors a salary they could accept.
He felt that the practice of classifying instructors according to what
they taught was unfortunate in that it put the classification people in a
position of having to judge the relative merits of the subjects taught.
He asked, for example, what are the relative values of an instructor
in the Russian language and an instructor in Advanced Operations?
* Here again the information given goes beyond the time-span of
this paper; it is provided to complete the account of the staffing
problem.
-39-
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Col. Baird said that he would prefer to have an Office of Training
"Faculty" T/0 on an Office-wide basis and be able to use that faculty
where he needed to, depending on the versatility of the individual
and the training needs at a particular time. He pointed out that the
then-current OT.R procedure of unit slotting necessitated a juggling of
slots and grades that was not always honest and often required subject-
matter comparisons that were invidious. He also pointed out the need
for sufficient numbers of GS-14 and GS-15 slots to enable the Office
of Training to recruit and hold the personnel it needed, and he stressed
the point that the reorganized Office of Training would have a T/O in
excess of
persons, would train thousands of people a year, and
would spend millions of dollars a year. To all intents and purposes,
the Office of Training had Office status under the DCI, and such status,
he felt, should be recognized officially by appropriate grade ratings.
'C. The Rotation Problem
During this 1949-51 period, the staffing problem was compounded - -
as it had been for years and would continue to be -- by a policy that
called for the rotation of instructors. In a 1948 planning paper,
Chief of the OSO Training Staff before TRD was
-40-
S Li I
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
formed, had emphatically urged continuation of the policy of regular
rotation of instructors to operational assignments in order to keep the
instruction up-to-date and consistent with recent field experience.
actually prepared a complete rotation plan for each of the 32
people on duty with his Staff in December of 1948, but he could not
carry it out. In April of 1949, he again raised the question of the
orderly rotation of personnel and submitted a plan for an OSO "Per-
sonnel Board." In that planning paper he stated, "I sin-cerely believe
that we should have within OSO a top-level board approach to one of
the most important parts of our period of growth -- the proper selec-
tion, placement, and rotation of personnel." (b)(3)
supported
(b)(3)
views on rotation policy. At a (b)(3)
meeting of the Joint Training Committee on 13 April 1950, the ques-
tion of rotation of TRD personnel was considered, and it was generally
� agreed that those persons who had been in training for a number of
years should be reassigned, even though TRD was short of instructors.
The implementation of the agreement, however, proved to be very
difficult. At another meeting, on 5 September 1950, the Committee
reaffirmed the policy that to the greatest extent possible, TRD people
who had served the allotted time as instructors should be reassigned
-41-
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
�JkL.
to operational divisions. It was recognized., however, that in order
to effect such a policy, TRD would have to have qualified replacements,
and at that time TRD was losing more people than were being replaced.
In October of 1951 -- some months after the departure of
-- the policy on rotation was reaffirmed in a paper submitted
to the Director of Training by
Chief of Training (Covert).
This paper provided a comprehensive plan for the orderly rotation of
TR(C) instructors. In a later supplement to his paper,
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
set (b)(3)
forth the basic premise that the Agency would be best served by con-
tinuing rotation of personnel' from the operating offices to TR(C) and
from TR(C) to the operating offices, and that the length of a tour as
instructor should be two years. He further stated that certain key per-
sonnel in executive and administrative posts should not be subject to
this general policy of rotation.
On 10 December 1951, showed his concern and frustra-
tion by addressing to the Director of Central Intelligence a memoran-
dum on the subject of the staffing of covert training, describing the
instructor situation as extremely critical, with the number of students
rising and the staff overdue for rotation to other assignments. He
believed that the only adequate solution was for OSO and OPC to supply
-42-
(b)(3)
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
TR(C) with personnel in substantial numbers at once. As they were
not doing so, he proposed as an emergency measure the rotation of
the most deserving of the TR(C) staff members no later than 1 April
1952, even though it might mean either a curtailment of the training
program or a lowering of the number of trainees. This proposal was
not acceptable to the DCI, and it was not adopted. In January of
1952,
was transferred to a staff position in OSO. (b)(3)
During the period before July of 1951, TRD was acquiring a repu-
tation as a unit that would not release its people for other assignments.
This reputation, deserved or not, made both the acquisition of new
instructors and the reassignment of TRD instructors more difficult.
On their own initiative, some TRD instructors promoted -- or at least
negotiated -- reassignments for themselves. On 18 June of 1951,
Rolfe Kingsley, Acting Chief of TRD, issued a memorandum to all
TRD personnel regarding changes of assignments. He noted that in
the previous few weeks a number of cases had come up involving trans-
fer of people to the operating offices and that these transferfs had been
made either without his knowledge or without proper clearance and,
consequently, had led to administrative confusion and personal
-43-
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
embarrassment. The response to the memorandum indicated that
there had been misunderstandings about whether or not some people
had gotten proper releases. He then put TRD personnel on notice
that an orderly procedure would be followed in the future.
D. Space
Because of the rapid growth in personnel, courses, and students
in 1950 and 1951, TRD needed additional classroom and office space
to supplement that already in use in Buildings T30, T13, and T14.
Building T31 was remodeled in the summer of 1950, and the Basic
Orientation Course and the new rapid reading course moved into that
building in the fall. In June of the same year, the Basic Orientation
Course had moved from T13 to T30.
The Administrative and Operations Courses were being held in
T30, which had a small auditorium, adequate library space, and a
number of classrooms and offices of various sizes and shapes. Covert
Training had-been set up in L Building, the Basic and Interim Study
course (the "pool")* was in Building 13, and the Assessment Unit was
;lc
See below, p. 55.
-44-
SECRET
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
t K
in Building 14. At this time steps were taken to procure space in the
so-called Recreation and Services (R&S) Building.
origi-
nally wanted to use the large gymnasium in R&S for the physical con-
ditioning of OSO and OPC personnel, but this could not be worked out,
and the gymnasium became a classroom.
The Office of Training continued to occupy T30, T31, and most of
R&S for many years. Pressure for additional classrooms and offices
in these early years led to the gradual occupation of space in a number
of other buildings also -- Central Building, Eye Building, Quarters
Eye, 1016 16th Street, and Alcott Hall. There were also a number of
training sites under cover -- the Covert Training safehouses and the
field training installations.
This scattering of personnel and activities did not make for effi-
ciency. Most of the buildings were old temporary structures that did
not provide satisfactory classroom space. For several years -- until
air conditioning was finally approved -- classes were subject to dis-
missal during very hot weather, when rooms often had temperatures in
the high 90's. Ventilation was poor at best, fans were noisy, and roofs
leaked. It is a considerable tribute to the students and to the staffs of
-45-
SECRET
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Vkl: I
the Office of Training that they put up with the conditions with as much
patience and understanding as they did.
E. New Courses
During the period when
was Chief of TRD, the staff (b)(3)
was hard pressed to keep up with the demand for new courses to meet
the expanding requirements of OSO and OPC. A number of problems
developed, in addition to those of finding instructors with the knowl-
edge and experience to handle sophisticated new subject matter and of
acquiring approved doctrine. There was the matter of obtaining clear-
ance and approval for training materials that were developed. In
August of 1950, the Chief of TRD insisted that although the proposed
Escape and Evasion course outline looked good to him, it was essential
that it be acceptable to all of the foreign Division Chiefs of OPC and be
coordinated with them to make sure that it incorporated techniques that
were applicable to their areas of operation. In September of 1950, the
prospectus for the Escape and Evasion Course and those of three other
new TRD courses were submitted to the Joint Training Committee for
approval. The approval was given quickly, but the coordination with
the OPC Division Chiefs was long in coming.
-46-
HUH
pproved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
;N17.1
At the end of 1950, the Staff Training Branch of TRD was offering
three courses for the staff officers of OSO and OPC. The first was
the Staff Orientation Course (also variously known at the time as the
Basic Orientation Course and the Basic Intelligence Course). It intro-
duced basic tools and techniques, such as reporting and interviewing,
and included a week of study on Communism and the USSR. The
material used in this course was not highly classified. Students then
went into the Operations Course, which for the most part took up the
methods and techniques of clandestine operations (tradecraft). The
third course, the Advanced Operations Course, presented discussions
of the Agency's clandestine missions and of the major operational
tasks of OSO and OPC.
Between 1 December of 1949 and 30 November of 1950, 208 stu-
dents went through the Staff Orientation Course; 276 through the Opera-
tions Course; and 160 through the Advanced Operations Course. By
February of 1950, the training load had become such that the Staff
Orientation Course began to overlap successive runnings. For a while
the instructional staff in T31 was beginning a new four-week Staff Ori-
entation Course every two weeks, with a full classroom at each end of
the building. The Operations Course also tried the overlapping scheme,
-47-
SECRET
pproved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
0UL/hi:I
and other expedients were tried. At one time the Operations Course
was given in the auditorium of T30 and consisted entirely of lectures,
a small group of students -- selected on the basis of projected assign-
ments -- staying on for an additional week of exercises and problems.
As early as December of 1949, the rush to training was on, and train-
ing requests so far exceeded the student capacities of the courses that
the requests were being sent to the Executive Officer of OSO and the
Chief of Support of OPC for decisions on the priority selection of
trainees. Beginning in December of 1949, new personnel were not
entered in formal training classes but were scheduled for "Basic and
Interim Study" so that they would be under TRD control from the day
of entrance on duty until they had completed all their training.
It was generally felt in OPC that much of the material in the Staff
Orientation, Operations, and Advanced Operations Courses was not
applicable to the work of many of their staff officers; and OPC requested
a concentrated indoctrination course as a single substitute for the three
courses. By the end of November of 1950, .a short "Staff Indoctrination
Course" (SIC) was ready for presentation. It was aimed primarily at
giving the students an introduction to the missions, functions, and organ-
ization of OSO and OPC. During 1951, the class was split for many of
. -48-
S EC
pproved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
n V-
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
the lectures -- OPC people were not exposed to lectures on OSO activi-
ties and vice versa. Until OSO and OPC were actually combined, stu-
dents from each Office were kept in the dark about the activities of the
other. For a time the Staff Orientation Course even ran separate sec-
tions so that OSO people and OPC people would not meet each other.
During 1950 several advanced courses were developed by TRD:
Espionage, Counter-Espionage, USSR Operations, Communist Party
Operations, Evasion and Escape, and Sabotage Operations. Later,
courses in Psychological Warfare, Stay-behind Operations, and War
Planning were added. All of these courses depended to a great degree
on the participation of operational specialists from OSO and OPC, and
there were many course revisions and changes through the years.
In 1950 the Staff Training Section was presenting -- in addition to
the three major courses -- an Investigative Techniques Course and a
Basic Photography Course. Staff Training was also responsible for the
"interim studies, " which was designed to enable students to conduct
independent study and research during periods when they were awaiting
clearances or assignments. In December of 1950, the Rapid Reading
Course began in Building T31. The students spent one hour a day for
six weeks using various machines designed to increase the student's
-49-
SECrE
pproved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
L.URI: I
1
speed in the scanning of reading material. Because of the influx of
new instructors, an Instructor Training Course was also offered by
Staff Training. It met each morning for a week, and all TRD instruc-
tors were enrolled. The course covered the mission and functions of
TRD, methods of instruction, and methods of testing and evaluation.
During 1950 the Administrative Training Course was completely
revised. This course was designed primarily for junior administrative
assistants, clerks, and typists from both OSO and OPC. The primary
purpose of the course was to introduce the students to the pertinent
administrative procedures of the two covert Offices. The course was
concerned with both headquarters and field administrative problems,
and it relied heavily on outside speakers. At this time -- during 1950 --
it was deemed necessary to section the class so that OSO employees
heard only OSO material and OPC employees heard only OPC material.
-50-
SECkg"
pproved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Chapter III
Special Problems in Training
During the 1949-51 period when TRD was developing organiza-
tionally and expanding its activities to meet the many new require-
ments levied upon it, there arose a number of special problems --
problems that were peripheral, perhaps, to the major mission of TRD
but problems that had to be solved to permit the fulfillment of the
major missions. In this chapter a few of these problems are described.
A. Auditors
Because OSO and OPC followed no clear policy on enrollment in
full-time training courses, many new employees who were under pres-
sure to begin their jobs tried to get the required training by "auditing"
courses. This meant that either they attended classes without partici-
pating in exercises, quizzes, and discussions, or that they attended
lectures as time permitted and inclination moved them. For those
who wanted to avoid written evaluation of their performances in train-
ing, auditing provided an easy escape. The instructors were not
opposed to having available space occupied, and they rather welcomed
-51-
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
�
ULU:U:1
the idea of an auditor category because in this way the classes could
be kept small -- the Staging of class problems and the writing of evalu-
ations remained manageable; but when the Agency began to expand
rapidly, the situation became serious.
In January of 1949, the Basic Course had 13 full-time students
and five auditors; in August of 1949,there were 20 students and five
auditors. In January of 1949, the Advanced Course had 19 students
and 19 auditors; by August the class had 11 full-time students and 12
auditors. During the entire period between 1 August of 1948 and 31
July of 1949, OSO had 287 full-time students and 148 auditors; OPC
had 16 students and 31 auditors.
By September of 1950, the situation had become worse. In a
memorandum of 7 September 1950, the Chief of Staff Training pointed
out to the Chief of TRD that the number of people in courses was in-
creasing but those who were enrolled as auditors were attending no
more than two or three lectures. Fie said that some of these auditors
might later claim credit for "completing" the course on the flimsy
basis of having attended a few lectures.
In October of 1950, the problem of auditors was the subject of a
discussion in a meeting of the Joint Training Committee. Both the
-52--
SECHT
pproved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
OSO and the OPC members stated their opposition to the practice, and
the Committee agreed to a policy that the auditing of courses was to be
strongly discouraged. In the future, approval would be granted only
after a very careful review of each case, and the Registrar of TRD
was instructed to consult the OSO or the OPC member of the Committee
when the number of auditors exceeded a "reasonable" number. It was
also agreed that the Committee should look at the problem again after
60 days.
The problem was gradually resolved as the number of students to
be trained became so large that every available seat was occupied by a
full-time student. In both OSO and OPC the realization grew that audit-
ing was no substitute for training; only in the case of high-ranking
officials was the practice really approved (for example, early in Col.
Baird' s career, a program was drawn up to enable him to audit the
essential elements of all the courses then being presented. )*
* See above, p. 26.
-53-
St-ri r
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
ag
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
B. Outside Lectures
The 1949-51 period saw the beginning of a new policy that has
continued to the present time. A memorandum of 26 July 1950 from
the Executive Officer of OSO to the AD/S0 reported a conversation
the OSO member of the Joint Training Committee,
and in which they agreed that responsibility for arranging (b)(3)
be
for Agency personnel to give lectures for various other governmental
activities should be delegated to the Chief of TRD. The AD/S0
approved this delegation because he felt that TRD had more speakers
readily available to meet outside requests than did the operating ele-
ments, and the use of instructors represented a minimum interruption
of operational activities.
TRD then began to provide lecturers for other agencies of the
government and to arrange for speakers from other parts of the
Agency, as well. For example, in December of 1950 Shane McCarthy,
Paul Eckel,
Kenneth Knowles, and
lec-
tured on intelligence subjects to the Strategic Intelligence School of
the Army. In 1951
of TRD was lecturing regularly on
Russian espionage at the Office of Special Investigation Training
School of the Air Force.
-54-
SrC,o-
"
pproved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
(b)(3)
c12),cg),
(b)(3)
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
ckS 1
C. The "Pool"
to
A memorandum of 30 September 1949 from
of OPC
indicates that in OPC a procedure had been in effect
since 26 July 1949, designed to keep "semi-covert" OPC operational
personnel "busy and under control" until such time as they could enter
formal training classes. She pointed out that this procedure, an al-
ternative to assignment to the "uncleared pool" with its attendent
security risks, appeared unduly elaborate and cumbersome; most of
the individuals concerned, after being entered on duty quite covertly,
would eventually lose their covert status by taking courses in Agency
buildings. A simpler procedure was then set up. These students
became a separate section of the TRD Basic and Interim Study Courses
(BISC), and were given prepared research directives which in most
cases were related to area or operational problems of interest to the
staffs and divisions sponsoring the students' training.
In a memorandum to the AD/SO and the AD/PC on 9 February
1950,
explained that the aim of the BISC was to develop in
the students a background for the areas to which they would be assigned
and at the same time to implant a thorough security consciousness.
-55-
1.1 n F-T
t:
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
The research topics were on such subjects as "Strategic Aspects of
China" and "International Politics of Greece;" for the most part, the
research was done at the Library of Congress, using overt sources.
A list of topics being worked on in April of 1950 shows such
subjects as "Refugee Groups in Germany, " "Labor Problems of the
Salonika Area," and "Oil in the Arab World." By October of 1951,
the number of students in this program became so great that the load
was becoming such that the one TRD man assigned to the program
could not handle it, and plans were drawn up for a staff of four, with
appropriate space and accommodations, to handle up to 100 students
a month from both OSO and OPC. In January of 1952, plans had been
made to include lectures, movies, and group discussions on such un-
classified topics as "Understanding Foreign People" and "Formula-
tion of Foreign Policy."
The history Of this OSO-OPC "pool" is a complicated one. It is
made even more confusing by the fact that a separate pool was estab-
lished in April of 1951 for intelligence analysts and other "non-covert"
employees -- this was the unit established by OTR, before TRD became
a part of OTR, and named the "Unclassified Training Group A" (UTG/A).
Efl
pproved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
U.
Qi7nDr-1
D.
-5 7-
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
pproved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
I
b)(1)
b)(3)
-58-
SFCi���
pproved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
OLUri!,,
E. Improvement of Quality
While he was Chief of TRD,
(b
(b
(1)
(3)
pressed vigorously to (b)(3)
improve the quality of the instruction. His Training Review Commit-
tee has already been described.** In 1950 he initiated an Instructor
Training Course. In March of that year, a Training Aids Specialist
4= In May of 1948,
ferred with
had visited Washington and had con-
then Chief of OSO' s Training Staff.
** See above p. 16.
-59-
(b)(3)
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
and a Projectionist were hired; and in expectation of their services,
assigned an Educational Specialist to audit all courses,
to identify areas where training aids could be used, and to hold follow-
up conferences with the instructors and work out the exact nature of
the aids.
. In February of 1950,
issued a comment sheet that was
to be filled out by the trainees at the conclusion of their training; it
solicited student opinion on the quality of instruction and the quality
of course content, and it invited the students' ideas for improvement.
To encourage complete frankness and to ensure that the students'
comments would not adversely affect their grades in the courses, the
completed sheets were forwarded directly to the Chief of TRD in a
sealed envelope without being seen by the instructors.
In July of 1950, Course Chiefs were asked to submit a percentage
breakdown of how each instructor spent an average working day. The
Chief of the Advanced Operations Course was eventually excused from
this task when it turned out that during eight weeks of instruction car-
ried on without a break he could not find the time to perform the
analysis.
-60�
-
CFPCTT 1/4.J
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
On many occasions
clarified his philosophy of train-
ing. On 28 August 1950, for example, he wrote the following on a
routing sheet:
With the varying grade averages coming out of the Admin-
istrative Course, it is essential at this time that some mean
standards be established. There is too great a tendency for
the grades to fluctuate from a very low average to a high aver-
age and vice versa. As I visualize the situation, the instruc-
tion in the Administrative Course, and any course for that
matter, should entail first, presentation of the principle in
form of lectures, conferences, etc.; application of techniques
in the form of exercises, demonstrations and so on; and
finally a test to evaluate the students' knowledge of the princi-
ple and their ability to apply the techniques to a given prob-
lem.
He followed the conduct of the training very closely, and he established
a practice of dropping in on classes from time to time and of walking
unannounced into an instructor's office, sitting down, and asking the
instructor about his problems.
When who had been an OSO officer, be-
came
Deputy in October of 1949, he was assigned a num-
ber of responsibilities; among them were the maintenance of training
records, training evaluations, and instructor training. In April of
P950, spent a week at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, where he
had been an instructor during the war. He was briefed on all aspects
-61 -
SECRET
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
� Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
1.::.
,
of instructor training and guidance at the Command and General Staff
College, and he came back to TRD with many ideas about the conduct
of instruction, the maintenance of records, and the preparation of
evaluations. He recommended -- and
approved -- the
TRD adoption of the Leavenworth method of instructor training. Col.
called together all of the instructors to hear
report
and to see a staged demonstration that illustrated conference methods
and techniques.
Perhaps the most far-reaching result of recommenda-
tions was the requirement for lesson plans. A "Training Materials
Officer" was appointed and directed to set up a folder for each presen-
tation given in TRD courses (except covert training courses). This
folder was to contain a presentation directive that had been coordinated
with OSO and OPC; a bibliography, if appropriate; lecture outlines;
and complete transcripts of the lectures. These folders were to be
kept up to date by continual review and revision. Copies of charts
and other handouts were also to be included. The lectures given by
guest speakers were to be recorded, and T-30 was wired to make
this possible.
-62-
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
01-01."'r
C.;; C.
pproved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Although this lesson-plan program accomplished a great deal in
the way of making instructors organize their material and provided a
measure of control over the general content, it did not really work
very well. The instructors resisted because they were carrying
heavy loads of teaching and had difficulty in finding the time to work
their notes into suitable form. More seriously, much of the material
given in lectures was subject to change from one class to the next,
in some cases because of Agency reorganization and in others because
of revised procedures and doctrine. On 8 May 1950, for example, the
Chief Instructor of the Operations Course reported a list of 37 lectures
for which there were either outlines of transcripts, but he made the
point that most of the lectures were preliminary efforts which, although
doing justice to the topic, were not final formats, either in content
or in manner of presentation.
The lesson-plan system really broke down because there was not
enough clerical help to transcribe and type the huge volume of material
and there was not available enough expertise to set up a review pro-
cedure to make real use of the folders after they had been produced.
On 15 June 1950, for example, it was reported that 107 dictaplaone
belts and eight wire recordings were waiting to be transcribed; about
-63-
SH
Approved for Release: 20.19/06/25 CO2559616
r" /1 r"...
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
1../ I
four hours were required for the transcription of each belt and each
recording. After
left TRD in April of 1951, the program
was gradually abandoned under the pressure of more immediate
demands on instructors and clerks.
One of
(b)(3)
greatest concerns was the control of guest lee- (b)(3)
tUrers. TRD had necessarily relied from the beginning on knowledge-
able guest speakers from OSO and OPC. The Advanced Operations
Course in November of 1949, for example, included the. following guest
lecturers: James Angleton, Rolfe Kingsley, W. Lloyd George, Herman
Horton, Franklin Lindsay,
and Richard Helms. More
than two-thirds of the lectures in all courses were given by guests.
Control of the content of their presentations was a continuing problem.
Because of repeated complaints about the low quality of the guest
lectures,
issued orders in April of 1950 that an instructor
had to be present during each lecture presentation, and that he should
analyze the lecture by means of a check sheet that would eventually be
forwarded to
who would then present the results -- with
suggestions for improvement -- to the Joint Training Committee. The
problem was not solved by this device, however, nor by other direc-
tives and procedures brought to bear after
-64-
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
had left TRD. (b)(3)
SFPnrT
pproved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
r.
Chapter IV
Paramilitary Training
The rapid expansion of training activities in 1950 and 1951 was
the result of requirements projected by OPC and, to a lesser extent,
by OSO as well -- requirements that were later to be described as
'"grandiose" by the Inspector General.* These requirements called
for the establishment of large training facilities outside the Washing-
ton area. Such camps had been used by OSS, but they had been given
,up by the end of 1945 and were not considered again until the establish-
ment of OPC. The following narrative is a summary of the activities
of TRD during 1950 and 1951 in response to the requirements for
expanded paramilitary training.
A. Area Training
The term "area training" was used for many years to mean the
training of students in resistance force activities and other paramili-
tary subjects at a restricted area or compound. The terms should not
* The Inspector General's report of the Survey of the Office of Train-
ing conducted late in 1953.
-65-
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
be confused with the term "area studies, " which was being used at
the same time to denote the study of the culture and the life of foreign
areas or countries.
In February of 1949, the Chief of OPC Training,
initiated action to procure an area where covert and semi-
covert training in OPC activities could be carried on. The area in
which he was primarily interested was the so-called Chopawampsic
Camp, a part of the Prince William Forest Park near Quantico. This
area had been used by OSS Training and was known at that time as
.Area A. It consisted of rugged terrain with a number of austere
buildings that had originally been built for a CCC camp during the
depression of the mid-Thirties. OPC did not take over this area,
however, because upon inspection it was judged to be unsuitable. No
other area could be found that was any better. Actually, the acqui-
sition of a site was not urgent; there were no instructors to man it
should one be found. This manpower problem then led to proposals of
working out a joint endeavor with the Army, using military personnel
as instructors. In August of 1949, a schedule of training was drawn
-66-
SECRET'
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
up by
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
office for presentation to Army representatives
as a joint CIA/Army program to be conducted at one or more military
installations.
B. The Area Training Branch
With the arrival of
in August of 1949 and the subsequent
termination of the OPC Training Unit as an independent activity, the
planning for paramilitary training began to move forward.
was experienced in paramilitary work and took great interest in the estab-
lishment of this training. In January of 1950, he organized the Area
Training Branch as a unit within TRD, with
first chief of the Branch. By May of 1950, a staff and a group of
instructors had been assembled. The mission of the Branch was to
train groups of semi-covert students in all phases of resistence force
activities; to train selected military personnel in guerrilla operations;
and to supervise special training of OPC students in courses that
would be conducted primarily by branches of the Armed Forces.
Within this Branch, three sections were set up. A Paramilitary
Training Section had the responsibility for all safehouse training in
the Washington area. This training, which concentrated on tradec raft,
as the
-67-
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for -Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
01.-AML,
was actually conducted at an installation
An Army Area Section was sot up to
conduct all joint CIA/Armed Forces field training in guerrilla warfare
at a military installation not yet identified. This instruction was to be
devoted primarily to paramilitary subjects, which were commonly
referred to at this time as "quasi-military." There would be a heavy
concentration on map work, demolitions and sabotage, weapons, and
parachute jumping. A. Liaison Training Section was established to
arrange for the entrance of OPC employees into courses of instruction
.conducted by the Strategic Air Command (survival, escape and evasion),
the U. S. Navy (maritime operations), and other training courses con-
ducted under military auspices.
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
C. Training Camp No. 1
1. Establishment. After considerable negotiation between CIA
and the Army, Training Camp No. 1, familiarly known as TC-1, was
set up at It was established on 21 June 1950
by official order of the Department of the Army. The order stated
that the Camp would be testing methods of instruction in infantry wea-
pons, in tactics, and in airborne techniques. The Camp was actually
-68-
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
rit
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
a former prisoner-of-war compound that was rehabilitated and fenced
in by a 12-foot barbed-wire fence. . A group of instructors and staff
was gradually assembled under the command of
U.S. Infantry, who had been assigned Unit Commander
by the Commanding General of
2. The Classes. The training plan called for a class to spend
12 weeks at TC-1; this was to be the second phase of a program that
would begin with five weeks at the Washington safehouse; a third phase,
of five weeks, would also be conducted at the safehouse.
In the original planning for the paramilitary classes, the
capacity of the Washington safehouse was set at
students per class. (b)(3)
When these students went to TC-1 they were to be joined by 20 officers
provided by the military services -- 10 from the Army, five from the
Air Force, and five from the Navy. Even before the first class con-
vened, pressures were developing to increase the number of students,
both civilian and military, in the classes. These pressures eventually
led to the establishment of
* See below, p. 81.
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
69-
Orr'DCI
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
%)11-,U
� The first paramilitary class began training at the safehouse
in the Washington area on 21 August 1950. This phase was completed
on 22 September, and the group went to TC-1, where they were joined
in the 12-week program by a number of students from the military
establishment. In January of 1951, the class returned to the Washing-
ton sa,fehouse for the third phase of training, which consisted of addi-
tional work in clandestine subject matter. The second paramilitary
class entered TC-1 on 8 January 1951 and other classes followed in
April, July, and December of 1951.*
3. Problems on the Post. From the beginning, TC-1 posed
many difficult problems. Some of these were the normal problems of
civilians working with a military establishment on a military post;
others were the usual problems of field-headquarters relationships
(communication, control, and division of responsibility); others were
the problems common in any new training program (clarification of
objectives,
procurement of competent instructors, and effective train-
ing materials and aids).
* The final group started in April of 1952, and by July of 1952 the
Agency had withdrawn from participation in the training conducted at
TC-l.
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
The establishment and maintenance of a restricted compound.
on a military post generated a number of supply and housekeeping
problems. Motor transportation continued to be a problem for many
months. At the beginning of the TC-1 program, the Commanding
Officer was not allowed to hire maintenance people directly, and there
was a constant turnove.r in this particular group. The delivery of
trainee mail was extremely slow for a time, and morale sagged when
personal air-mail letters were delivered 30 days after they had been
posted. On 25 November 1950, the water supply failed, and there
was no heat for several days in freezing weather. In December word
was received that there would be no telephone service until the follow-
ing March.
The greatest difficulty, however, lay in the area of security
and the concealment of the Agency's participation in TC-1. As late
as October of 1951, more than a year after the camp was set up, an
investigation showed that there were numerous weaknesses in the
security practices and inadequate control of student identities and
sponsorship. The problem was compounded at Headquarter.s by a lack
Of agreement regarding the need for security. One high-placed visitor
-71-
SECRET
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
r v:1"
%.
from OPC noted, shortly after the Camp had opened, that there was
an exaggerated idea of security requirements and a failure to give the
Commanding Officer authority commensurate with his responsibility.
4. Field-Headquarters Relationships. Although there was much
traveling back and forth between TC-1 and Washington and extensive
correspondence between the officials of TRD and the offiCials in charge
of TC-1, misunderstandings were bound to arise over such matters
as the use of, and proper accounting for, the expenditure of funds and
the exercise of responsibility in the control of the students. The Com-
manding Officer of TC-1 was a believer in discipline and firm control.
He described the Agency students of class No. 5 as an "undisciplined
rabble," reluctant to conform to regulations and to comport themselves
as mature and responsible gentlemen. He attributed this trouble to
the presence of a few troublemakers, to the failure of the students to
grasp the seriousness of their jobs, and to the natural reluctance of
� civilians to accept the restrictions of military control. At Head-
quarters, TRD took the position that the problem of discipline was
bound to be a thorny one but that the students were civilians and it
was neither possible nor desirable to apply the lowest common denom-
inator of strict military discipline in their handling; they would be
-72-
pproved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
r n r)
L
largely on their own in operational situations and should therefore be
'treated as individuals. The Commanding Officer was instructed to
send students back to Headquarters if disciplinary measures became
really necessary. As a result of this instruction, three civilian
students who refused to take part in the parachute jump training were
returned to Washington.
A serious area of contention between Washington Headquarters
and TC-1 lay in the retionship to
The (b)(1
(b)(3)
Commander of this unit and the Commanding Officer of TC-1 appeared
to believe in full cooperation, including the conduct of joint exercises.
Although there was some feeling in OPC that this was appropriate,
TRD took the position that contact between TC-1 and unauthorized
outsiders should be kept to the minimum possible; security was only
one of a number of reasons for this. At the same time it was recog-
nized that it was necessary to maintain good relations with the Army
officers at
while maintaining security -- a difficult and
a delicate job for the Commanding Officer of TC-1. Correspondence
of this period indicates that TRD in Washington and the field unit at
T C-1 had difficulty in arriving at a common understanding. In April
of 1951, after the arrival of the third class, wrote
-73 --
(b)(1 )
(b)(3)
T. nr.)r.r.
OLLIi1LI
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
31:14i
that he had never received any training objectives or training missions
for the course. Almost at the same time,
letter to
wrote a
saying that it had come to his attention that the
course instructors were referring to the guerrillas with whom the
OPC people would be working as "gooks" or "hoods." He pointed out
the necessity for inculcating in the students an honestly sympathetic
attitude toward the individuals with whom they would be working; in
many cases the OPC officers would not be able .to depend on military
authority to accomplish their ends. A considerable amount of travel
between Headquarters and TC-1 evidenced a desire to arrive at a
common understanding and to reach solutions to the many problems.
Visitors at TC-1 included not only TRD personnel, but also Frank
Wisner, � AD/OPC; Matthew Baird, Director of Training; and even
General Maxwell Taylor, then G-3 of the Army.
5. Problems with Trainees. Thirteen of the students of the
first class at TC-1, when they were debriefed, were critical of much
of the instruction and suggested the need for a greater number of
practical exercises. At least three of these men seemed to be impro-
perly motivated for paramilitary work. An effort was made to cast
the work in more practical terms and to improve the instruction
-74-.
SECRET
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
JLtA-T.
generally. TRD also tried to establish an evaluation system that would
identify students who were not qualified or motivated for the training.
When the members of class No. 3 performed very poorly in training
and did not live Up to the abilities indicated by their background and
their test scores, an investigation was called for. In August of 1951,
the Chief of the Training Evaluations Section of TRD compiled a report
based on interviews with members of the class; he had investigated
the reasons for the abnormally low training records, the low morale,
the apathetic attitude, and the marked resentment and bitterness about
their Agency jobs and the training they had received. He noted that 17
out of 18 students had performed worse in the third phase than they
had in the first. Seven students had resigned from the program during
training, one had been asked to leave, two had resigned upon comple-
tion of training, and one was in the process of resigning. Among the
causes for this state of affairs he identified:
(1) inadequate briefing of the candidates on their pro-
jected assignments at the time of original recruitment;
(2) inadequate, inconsiderate, and poorly planned
administrative handling of students by OPC prior to, during,
and after training;
1
-75-
Sri:131:T
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
01.A.) ikl
(3) inadequate protection of cover during the training;
(4) ineffective training techniques at TC-1;
(5) overemphasis on the importance and the danger of
jump training; and
(6) lack of comprehension by OPC desk officers of the
kind of training the students received (they were commonly
identified in OPC as muscle-men).
Although as a result of this investigation steps were taken to cure the
deficiencies in the program, the handling of the trainees at TC-1 con-
tinued to be a touchy problem to the end; at that stage of the develop-
ment of TRD and of OPC, some of the causes were beyond remedy.
D. Mobilization Training Program
At some time in early 1950, OPC submitted to TRD its training
requirements in the event of mobilization.* This project called for
establishing a program of paramilitary instruction and training at a
There appears to be no documentary record of the actual submittal
of the OPC requirements to TRD. The first record of a �discussion of
the requirements, and of TRD's plan to meet them, appears in the
minutes of a meeting of the Joint Training Committee on 20 July
1950.
-76-
Lk) I
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
F
site with facilities for the simultaneous handling of
people. (b)(3)
.TRD then prepared a mobilization training program that called for a
Mobilization Training Branch with a cadre of
positions. This
created an additional requirement for instructors, and recruiting
began; as of 1 December 1950, however, the Mobilization Training
Branch consisted of one administrative officer and
The search for facilities also went slowly.
It was generally recognized that the TC-1 facility at
would not be suitable for mobilization training, particularly in view
of the possibility that it might be lost in an emergency. The Chopa-
wamsic site was suggested by
instructor s.
Chief of Staff II of OPC,
in August of 1950. He felt that it should be re-investigated even
-though when it had been inspected the year before it had seemed unsuit-
able and it had appeared that rehabilitation would cost about a million
dollars. By early September of 1950, TRD officials had explored the
Chopawamsic possibility, and there seemed to be no reason to expect
difficulty in procuring the area. It appeared at this time that any OSO
mobilization training requirements could be handled in available TRD
facilities. By the end of 1950, the Executive of the Agency had approved
in principle the acquisition of 10,000 acres at Chopawamsic for the
-77-
SECRET
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(1) .-
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
establishment of a training facility for mobilization expansion and had
authorized an engineering survey. As of 24 February 1951, OSO and
OPC had set aside to establish the training site at Prince
William Forest Park.
By February of 1951, the paramilitary portion of the mobilization
training picture appeared to be somewhat as follows. A basic course
- of approximately one month would be established by the Staff Training
Branch to accommodate approximately
students in each class
each from OSO and OPC). It was expected that this training
would be given at Chopawamsic. The
OPC students from the basic
course would then enter regular paramilitary training of three months
at different facilities in the same general area. This training would
be conducted by TRD. The PM training facilities would have to accona-
modate
students at one time; the majority of the instructors would
be moved from TC-1 to this new area. At monthly intervals the
students completing regular paramilitary training would move to TC-1
for a final month of training, including parachute problems and range
firing. TRD expected that a move could be made to Chopawamsic in
-78--
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
QrrT
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
the near future and that the safehouse section of the Area Training
Branch would also be shifted to Chopawamsic. The other 150 trainees,
representing the OSO mobilization requirement, would receive
advanced training at other facilities.
By March of 1951, TRD realized that to meet the new and expanding
requirements, it must reorganize. In a Joint Training Committee meet-
ing on 15 March 1951,
pointed out that TRD must plan to
recruit and train instructors immediately to be ready for the increased
training demands. The revised T/O submitted to the Committee by
was based on providing training to
personnel per month, a total of
SO and OPC staff
annually. Although John O'Gara)
the Assistant DD/P for Administration, pointed out to the Committee
that regardless of training estimates, TRD must base its organization
realistically on the capabilities of Security to clear prospective employ-
ees, it was agreed that in any event TRD must realign its organization
to fit the acquisition and utilization of the Chopawamsic area.
This was a period of somewhat frantic planning of courses, organi-
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
zation, and facilities. On 2 March 1951, submitted a T /0
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
to the ADD/A calling for the approval of F�Positions at once and the
(b)(3)
approval in principle of a planned T/O of On 7 March the
-79-
SEuET
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
ADD/A approved the increase from
Staff Training allocation went from
increased from
to
to
to
TRD positions. The
the A&E Staff was
Chopawamsic would get
positions. Two
new activities -- maritime training and air training -- would get
positions. The revised organization and the key personnel assign-
ments were announced in Administrative Instruction No. 70-2, signed
on 9 March 1951 by Rolfe Kingsley, who became Acting Chief of TRD
at this critical point when
was called back to the Army.
Arrangements for setting up the Chopawamsic training site in
Prince William Forest Park were almost completed in March of 1951
when a Washington newspaper published a story to the effect that a
"hush-hush" Agency was taking over the area for some undisclosed
purpose, and that this would result in closing the summer camp which
had been used for years to give underprivileged children an outing.
The story put an end to the consideration of the Chopawamsic area
and started a search for another training site.
*. This information is based on a statement made by Robert B. Shaffer,
at that time a TRD officer involved in the planning for the Chopawam-
sic site. Intensive search has not located the newspaper story nor
identified the exact date it appeared.
-80-
r T-T
� )1...i,)It C.. I �
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
E.
The AD/S0 took a strong personal interest in the location of a
site.
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
-01-
qrr
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
!...1
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
As soon as the site location was settled, the Acting Chief of TRD,
Mr. Kingsley, set up a number of committees within TRD so that plan-
ning could proceed at once. The remainder of 1951 was a very busy
time for most of the TRD officers and instructors; the site was to be
ready to accept 900 trainees by 1 January 1952,
The planning for the phasing out of TC-1 at
(b)(1)
and the
(b)(3)
gradual shift of paramilitary training to the new site was particularly
complex. In a memorandum of 5 May 1951 to the Chief of TRD,
the Chief of the Area Training Branch, indicated that he
was planning on the assumption that TC-1 would close at the end of
(b)(3)
December of 1951 and that the new training area
--
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
would be in operation by 1 November 1951, with
paramilitary stu-
(b)(3)
dents entering each month until March of 1952, when
would enter
(b)(3)
in
another
memo-
(b)(3)
each month. On 6 August 1951, stated
to continue some
(b)(3)
randum to that it might be necessary
training at TC-1 until June of 1952, the limited number of instructors
being divided between the two sites; it had become obvious that the
-82-
Qrprirr
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
OLU1k1:1
new base would not be ready by the end of 1951. The final class at
TC-1 (No. 6) began on 21 April 1952, and by 1 July TC-1 had been
deactivated and the Agency connection with
had been
severed. By the end of August of 1951, the location and the detailed
architectural requirements of the buildings at
had been
determined, a local labor analysis had been conducted, and tables of
necessary equipment had been drawn up. Actual construction started
in November of 1951, and the troublesome problem of finding an
adequate site for paramilitary training was well on the way toward
solution.
F. Special Projects
Closely related to TRD's problems of providing paramilitary
training and securing the sites in which to give it were a number of
special projects initiated by OPC and assigned to TRD for execution.
For the most part, these projects were developed and completed --
or abandoned -- after July of 1951, when TRD nominally became a part
of the Office of Training; but because they were initiated when TRD was
still a component of the clandestine services, their early stages are
-83-
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
described here. These projects were designated ZRELOPE,
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
KMKIMONO, and
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
1. ZRELOPE. In
the spring of 1950, an OPC committee called
Task Group Boulder (TGBOULDER)
to the United States or
over a three-year period
to some
about
began to work on a plan to bring
area close to the United States
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
and give them intensive training in political war-
fare and resistance techniques. The plan was called Project ZRE-
LOPE. TGBOULDER was to coordinate the project with all Agency
components concerned and was to manage the selection and recruit-
ing of the foreign nationals. The actual training was to be done by TRD.
told
In October of 1950,
Chief of Staff II of OPC,
that the project was about to be initiated and suggested
that TRD begin to make plans to handle the training. ZRELOPE was
not finally approved until 20 December 1950, but in November
organized a TRD Special Projects Staff to begin the necessary
planning and preparation. The first task that the staff faced was the
For complete coverage of these projects, see SS Historical Paper
No. OTR-5, History of the Office of Training, 1951-1966. SECRET.
-84-
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
01:UM: 6
procurement of a suitable site. More than seventy possible sites
were investigated, most of them surplus Defense Department installa-
tions but a few of them commercial or industrial properties. While
the search for the site went on, the Special Projects Staff attacked the
problem of manning the project, and at a meeting on 13 January 1951
the staff submitted to the Joint Training Committee a detailed plan
for the T/O to handle the training. This 13 January meeting of the
Committee generated some heat about the propriety of TRD's involve-
ment in ZRELOPE. According to the minutes of the meeting, the OSO
representative on the Committee felt strongly that because the project
was an OPC operation, such a large part of the TRD assets should not
be used to carry it out. The OPC representative countered with the
statement that TRD would be expected to provide only broad general
guidance, and the details would be handled by people recruited for the
purpose. He also said that the T/O proposed by the TRD Special
Projects Staff represented an. accurate estimate of the requirements.
Apparently the OPC point of view prevailed, for within a few days
after the 13 January meeting the AD/SO approved TRD' s participation.
2.
-85-
S C L
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
3. KMKIMONO.
-86-
(b)(
(b)(
1)
3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
r ('N
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
LUNtI
b)(1)
b)(3)
-87-
�
pproved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
4.
b)(1)
b)(3)
-88--
SET,T;:FJ
pproved for Release: 201.9/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
I
1
-89-
(b)(
(b)(
1)
3)
SrCP,d
pproved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
r_r7f"
(b
(b
-90 -
Qrrir)n-
of
pproved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
1 U..
b)(1)
b)(3)
SFCREI
pproved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
(b)(1
(b)(3
-92-
pproved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
LURL
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
* See SS Historical Paper No. OTR-5, History of the Office of Train-
ing, 1951-1966. SECRET.
-93-
SECRET
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
SECRET
Chapter V
Summary and Conclusion
The preceding chapters have recorded the problems and major
activities of TRD during the 1949-51 period when the Division went
through a transitional development from a relatively small staff,
_functioning in consonance with the, traditions and practices inherited
from OSS, to a large, complex training organization capable of meet
--ing the ever-growing requirements for training in the clandestine activi�
ties that became distinctly those of the Central Intelligence Agency.
This chapter places the 1949-51 period within the context of the time,
summarizes significant problems and accomplishments, and capsul-
izes in chronological order the major developments of the period.
A. The Temper of the Times
The 1949-51 period when
was Chief of TRD was a time
when there was widespread belief that the cold war was about to turn
ha and that general mobilization was more than a possibility. Indeed,
the advent of the Korean War in 1950 not only gave credence to this
belief but also brought to bear upon the Agency tremendous pressure
-.94-
SECRET'
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
or:UM:A
to meet the intelligence support requirements of the Korean War and
to prepare for whatever wider conflagration might next be generated.
It was within this climate of tension and urgency that TRD --
without a solid administrative structure, without firm gui.dance in
operational doctrine, and without enough manpower to do the basic
jobs that had to be don.e -- was asked to train thousands of people in
'hundreds of operations skills. The fact that these thousands of people
never materialized is irrelevant to the tensions of the time. When
projects ZRELOPE, KMKIM01\10, and the Mobilization Training
Program were launched, for example, there was every reason to be-
lieve that they we-re e-ssential to the security of the nation. The pres-
sures were real and present, and the fact that TRD responded to them
with practicable programs is in itself a high tribute to
and
the men and women who worked with him in TRD.
B. Summary
1. Development of TRD. Even if the 1949-51 period had not
been one with a climate of threatening hot war and the consequent
tensions and pressures, the task of developing the newly created Train-
ing Division to the point where it was fully capable of meeting the
-95-
S ECR
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Agency's training requirements was a formidable one. To begin with,
there were for TRD no clearly defined channels of command, no sys-
tematic budget and finance procedures, no proper method of handling
personnel, and no system of liaison between TRD and the operating
Offices. All of :these problems had to be attacked, and solutions
or partial solutions -- of them had to be found.
Equally troublesome was the problem of determining training
requirements and designing courses to meet them -- particularly in
the absence of clearly defined training objectives and agreed opera-
tional doctrine upon which objectives had to be based. Although the
requirements-objectives-doctrine problem was not solved during the
1949-51 period, a start was made and the solving machinery was set
in motion.
At the same time that TRD was plagued by problems of admin-
istration and trai.ning requirements, it was confronted with questions
of jurisdictional responsibility -- first in the matter of support of
overseas training, and later in the relationship of TRD to the newly
created Director of Training. By the time
left the Agency
in April of 1951, TRD had assumed major responsibility for the support
-96-
SECRET
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
i
of overseas training.
Z. Expansion of TRD. The developmental problems of TRD
1
could not, of course, claim the undivided efforts of
and (b)(3)
his staff. At the same time that these problems were pressing for
solution, TRD was being forced to expand its services to the operating
Offices, to provide more training for more people and to develop the
capability of offering new courses in virtually every phase of opera-
tional activity. To meet these demands it was necessary to develop
a workable internal organizational structure so that responsibilities
could be assigned and authority delegated. The basic pattern first
established by
was a three-unit organization -- a Staff
Training Unit, a Paramilitary Training Unit, and a Covert Training
Unit. As requirements expanded, additional units were created to
meet them -- an Assessment and Evaluation Unit and a Support Branch,
for example -- and additional people were required to man the units.
In October of 1949, when
the Division TO authorized
(b)(3)
unit was officially designated TRD,
positions; in April of 1951, when Col.
left the Agency, TRD had an authorized TO of
-97-
positions.
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
pproved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
v�r
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
The rapid expansion of TRD activities and personnel strength
naturally created staffing problems. It was almost impossible to fill
all of the authorized slots with qualified people. Field operational
activities got first priority, and there were not enough operationally
qualified people available for assignment to instructor slots. Compli-
cating the staffing problem was the policy of rotational assignment of
personnel -- both out of TRD to operational jobs and from operational
jobs into TRD. This phase of the staffing problem was. a critical one
throughout tenure, and it has continued, in some degree,
up to the present time.
Along with the expansion of TRD's activities there came pres-
sing requirements for additional course offerings and for additional
space for training programs. New courses were developed and coor-
dinated with the operating Offices, and additional space -- often make-
shift and inadequate -- was found.
3. Special Problems. Concurrent with the problems inherent
in the development and expansion of TRD, there arose a number of
related special problems. For example, the number of OSO and OPC
officers who preferred to "audit" courses instead of "take" them be-
came so great that a system of limiting auditors had to be devised.
-98-
Si?ri
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
0.)
Also, the responsibility of providing Agency speakers for other govern-
ment activities fell to TRD and required manpower and time that were
needed in Agency training activities. TRD was given the responsibility
of maintaining a "pool" for provisionally cleared personnel, an activity
designed to keep people profitably employed while awaiting final clear-
ance. Still another special problem arose with TRD's effort to
(b)(1)
Perhaps the most (b)(3)
important of the special problems was the need for systematic improve-
ment of the quality of training, a problem to which devoted
a considerable part of his total time and effort.
4. Paramilitary Training. A major reason for the rapid expan-
sion of TRD during the 1949-51 period was the urgent requirement for
large-scale paramilitary training, primarily for OPC personnel. In
response to this, TRD created an Area Training Branch to work with
OPC in the procurement of sites -- "areas" as they were called -- and
the design of training programs. The first of these paramilitary pro-
grams was conducted at Training Camp No. 1, a secure area within
the confines of At about the same time that
Training Camp No. 1 was being developed, there arose a requirement
for a Mobilization Training Program -- a major effort initiated by
-99-
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
STCP'-"T
i
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
S [C El
OPC to prepare large numbers of men for "mobilization
at that time seemed to be approaching. TRD and
day, " which
OPC inspected sev-
eral possible sites, and it was finally decided that
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
was the most practicable. This decision marks the beginning
of
Although the Mobilization Training Program never
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
really began,
has continued and has served other - - perhap((bb))((31))
'better -- purposes.
A large part of the total effort to provide paramilitary and
other types of covert training was expended in a series of special
projects. In the spring of 1950, OPC initiated Project ZRELOPE, a
program designed to train
resistance techniques.
in political warfare and
This was given the designation Project
KMKIMONO. Of these special projects only KMKIMONO actually got
off the ground, and after a year of operation that was abandoned be-
cause there were not enough students to justify its continuation.
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
-100-
.
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
SECRET
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
C. Chronology
5 August 1949
USA,
appointed Chief, Training Staff, OSO.
By OSO
5 August 1949.
14 September 1949 OSO and OPC training units formally
17 October 1949
16 December 1949
merged into single Staff under
Staff attached to OSO for organization
but Chief responsible to both AD/SO
and AD/PC. OPC Regulatio
14 September 1949.
First official reference to conversion
of Training Staff to Training Division (TRD).
Memorandum from CIA Executive Offi-
cer to CIA Management Officer; TRD to
continue under "committee-type" control --
i. e. Joint (OSO and OPC) Training Com-
mittee; remained so until 1 July 1951.
(b)(3)
--101-1T
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
,
9 February 1950
21 June 1950
20 July 1950
TRD assumed responsibility for
maintaining "pool" of uncleared
personnel; pool became a section
of the Basic and Interim Study
Course (BISC).
Training Camp No. 1, for paramili-
tary training of OPC personnel, es-
tablished at
(b)(1) .
(b)(3)
TRD given responsibility for develop-
ing Mobilization Training Program.
25 July 1950 submitted to AD/SO and
AD/PC a statement of "The Mission
of the Training Division," the first
systematic recording of TRD's
training responsibilities.
26 July 1950 AD/SO assigned to TRD responsi-
bility for providing Agency speakers
for non-Agency government activi-
ties.
-102-
(b)(3)
Frpr-T
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Ltik [
9 November 1950
TRD
for
assigned the responsibility
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
15 November 1950
USAF, appointed
Col. Matthew Baird,
CIA Director of Training
20 December 1950
Project ZRELOPE approved.
'3 January 1951
CIA Office of Training created, Col.
Baird in charge as Director of
Training.
4 January 1951
Office of Deputy-Director for Plans
(DD/P) created.
13 January 1951
TRD assigned to provide training
14 February 1951
program for ZRELOPE.
appointed OSO
� Training Officer -- the first appoint-
ment of a full-time training liaison
officer in a major Agency component.
22 March 1951 Memorandum from the DCI, General
Smith, to the DD/A, the AD/SO,
the AD/PC, and the Director of
-103-
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Training clarifying the function of the
Director of Training.
1 April 1951 Mr. Rolfe Kingsley appointed Acting
Chief of TRD to replace
18 April 1951
'who was recalled to military duty.
Office of Training transferred from
DD/A to 0/DCI. CIA Regulation No.
18 April 1951.
June 1951 TRD assigned to develop Political Ac-
tion training for KMKIMONO project
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
26 June 1951 DD/P notified AD/S0 and AD/PC that
TRD would be detached from OSO as of
1 July 1951 and would become a com-
ponent of the DD/P.
1..July 1951 CIA REGULATION assigned TRD,
renamed Training (Covert), to the Office
of Training under the nominal command
of the Director of Training.
-104-
(b)(3:
R ET
Approved for Release: 2619/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Appendix A
Identification of Positions
Following are identifications of the positions held by the major
OSO, OPC, and DDP personnel mentioned. The positions identified
are those held during the approximate time-span of this paper. Mili-
tary ranks then held are given for military officers assigned to duty
with the Agency.
Angleton, James Appointed Chief of Staff A, OSO, by OSO
17
October 1949. Appointed Chief, Special Projects Staff, OSO, by
Amendment No. 2 to OSO REGULATION
July 1951.
Dulles, Allen W. CIA
TION
effective 16
and CIA REGULA-
1 December 1950, established the position of Deputy
'Director for Operations. The Executive Registry and AD/SO files
show that in December of 1950 one piece of correspondence was
addressed to Mr. Dulles as Deputy Director (Operations), but
there appears to be no official document naming him as Deputy
-105-
Approved for Release: 2- 019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Jlail�L 1
Director for Operations. He was appointed Deputy Director for
Plans by CIA
4 January 1951, and
Deputy Director of Central Intelligence by CIA NOTICE
23 August 1951.
George, W. Lloyd As of 17 October 1949 was Chief, Foreign Divi-
sion Z, OSO: see OSO
(Revised), 17 October 1949. Appointed Chief, Far East
8 January 1952.
Division, OSO, by OSO REGULATION
Appointed Acting Executive Officer, OPC by OPC
Administrative Memorandum No. 3.001, 9 March 1949. Appointed
Chief of Staff II, OPC, by AD/PC Memorandum of 15 May 1950
supplementing OPC REGULATION
20 March 1950.
Helms, Richard As of 17 October 1949 was Chief, Foreign Division
M, OSO: see OSO
(Revised), 17 October 1949. Appointed Chief of Operations Staff,
effective
OSO, by Amendment No. 2 to OSO REGULATION
16 July 1951. Appointed Deputy Assistant Director for Special
Operations by CIA NOTICE
-106-
29 November 1951.
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Horton, Herman As of 17 October 1949 was Chief, Foreign Division
P, OSO; see OSO
(Revised), 17 October 1949.
Appointed Chief, Southeastern Europe
Division, OSO, by OSO REGULATION
8 January 1952.
Kingsley, Rolfe Appointed Deputy Chief, Training Division (050/
OPC) by OSO REGULATION
(Attachment C), 30 Decem-
ber 1950. Became Acting Chief of TRD in April of 1951 and was
appointed Deputy Director of Training (Special) by CIA NOTICE
8 January 1952.
USA Appointed by the Director of Training to
fill a new position of Assistant Director (Covert) resulting from the
reassignment of training for covert operations from the DDP to the
nominal command of the Director of Training. Appointed Chief of
Requirements, OSO, by OSO REGULATIO
8 January 1952.
Lindsay, Franklin A. Appointed Chief of Operations, OPC, by
OPC Administrative Memorandum No. 3.011, 11 July 1949.
Appointed Chief, Eastern Europe Division, OPC, by AD/PC
Memorandum of 15 May 1950. Appointed Deputy for Plans and
-107-
I
(b)(3)
I
(b)(3)
I
(b)(3)
1 1:
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
Approved for R;l*el;s-e72019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2619/06/25 CO2559616
Administration, OPC, by OPC BULLETIN
January 1952.
McConnel, Murray
18
Appointed CIA Executive Officer by CIA
16 October 1950. Appointed Deputy
Director for Administration by CIA
CIA REGULATION
GIG, by OSO
1 December 1950.
Appointed Acting Chief, Training Branch, OSO/
16 December 1946.
Appointed Chief of the Training Staff, OSO, by OSO
5 August 1949.)
1 July 1947. (Remained in that position until
Appointed Deputy Chief of the Training Divi-
sion, OSO/OPC, by OSO
(Revised), 17 October 1949.
USA Appointed Chief of the Training
Staff, OSO, by OSC
5 August 1949.
Also formally named Chief of Training, OPC, by agreement of OSO
and OPC, 14 September 1949 by OPC REGULATION
-108-
SF_CRET
14
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
cET
September 1949. By 17 October 1949 the Training Staff had
become the Training Division, as indicated by a memorandum
to Chief, TRD, from DAD/SO of that date. Remained Chief of
TRD/OSO/OPC until 1 April 1951 when he left the Agency to re-
turn to the Army.
Schow, Robert G., Col. USA Appointed Assistant Director for
Special Operations by CIA NOTICE
1 January 1949.
(Remained in that position until 15 February 1951.)
Appointed Executive Officer of OSO by SO
1 July 1947. Appointed Special Assistant
(AD/SA) by OSO
1951.
12 February
Wheeler, William As of 17 October 1949 was Chief, Foreign Divi-
sion T, OSO; see OSO
(Revised), 17 October 1949. Appointed Acting Chief, Western
Hemisphere Division, OSO, by OSO REGULATIO
January 1952.
-109-
8
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
(b)(3)
USA Appointed Acting Chief of Training,
OPC, by OPC Administrative Memorandum No. 3. 0 01, 9 March
1949. Appointed Chief Training Officer, OPC, by OPC Adminis-
trative Memorandum No. 3.0011, 11 July 1949. Appointed Chief
of the Material Branch, Staff II, OPC, by OPC REGULATION
6 September 1950.
Wisner, Frank Appointed Assistant Deputy Director for Policy
Coordination by
27 August 1948.
Appointed Deputy Director for Plans by CIA NOTICE
23 August 1951.
Wyman, W. G., Maj. Gen. USA
Special Operations by CIA
Appointed Assistant Director for
14 February
1951. (Remained in that position until replaced by Lyman B.
Kirkpatrick by CIA NOTICE
-110-
29 November 1951.)
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Appendix B
Missions and Functions of TRD
Following is the statement of the mission and functions of TRD
given in a memorandum of 25 July 1950, "The Mission of the Training
Division,
from
and the AD/PC:
Mission
Chief of TRD, to the AD/SO
Providing instruction in the several activities charged to OSO
and OPC in order to qualify staff personnel in the planning, organiza-
tion, conduct, and administration of these activities both in the field
and in headquarters and in order to properly train agent personnel
for their specific assignments.
Functions
(1) To ascertain the training requirements of OSO and OPC;
(2) to organize, supervise, and administer adequate training
programs, staffs, and facilities within the U.S. , to fulfill the train-
ing requirements of OSO and OPC, including staff personnel, agent
-111-
(b)(3)
SE.C1-F.T
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
i7.1,0
personnel, and foreign national agent personnel in the U.S. ;
(3) to provide assistance and technical staff supervision to
training conducted in overseas areas;
(4) to insure that the training of each individual is consistent
with the cover and security of his proposed assignment;
(5) to arrange and schedule with outside government and pri-
vate agencies such other training as may be required;
(6) to provide training evaluations of student personnel for
assistance to their sponsoring branches in determining assignments;
(7) to conduct such liaison within OSO, OPC, and the remainder
of CIA and other outside agencies as may be required to provide a
fully coordinated training program;
(8)
to conduct applied research on training content and method;
(9) to prepare budgetary estimates for all training activity;
(10) to administer overall TRD personnel, funds, supplies, and
facilities;
(11) to assist in the preparation of mobilization plans to fulfill
"training requirements of OSO and OPC in the event of an emergency;
(12) to provide policy guidance and administrative support to
the Assessment Staff.
-112-
pproved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
0 F.:. r p
Appendix C
Remarks to Training Review Committee
Following is a condensation of the remarks of
to the members of the Training Review Committee at the final
meeting of the Committee on 19 June 1950; the condensation is based
on the minutes of that meeting, and
own phraseology has
been retained to the extent that the minutes recorded it:
told the Committee that when training had first started,,
it pretty much had to accept the ideas that were lodged in the heads
of the various instructors because hardly anything had been put down
in black and white. Within the last year, he felt, tremendous strides
had been made, but the only thing that was vitally important was
whether the instruction was according to the requirements of OSO
and OPC. "Are we teaching espionage the way OSO is actually con-
ducting it?" "Are we teaching counterespionage the way the opera-
tional and planning staffs feel that we should teach it? " "Is the
doctrine which we are developing identical to the doctrine which is
being developed in OPC?"
-113-
pproved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
went on to say that TRD was vitally interested in
making certain that what was being said in class was according to the
doctrine and the principles which the operational people were apply-
ing. He hoped that through this committee TRD would be able to
bring the training effort into line with operations. He wanted to be
shown where TRD was out of line and what could be done to improve
the instruction, to make it realistic, and to keep it up to date. He
furthermore hoped that out of this committee would come a procedure
whereby TRD could coordinate instruction on doctrine, principles,
techniques, and tactics with the operating Divisions. He went on to
say that basically he felt that the relationship between Training and
OSO and OPC was vitally important and he wanted to get down to a
complete working arrangement. He stated that doctrine and coordina-
tion were his main concerns. He said that he welcomed criticism as
long as it was constructive and not picayunish. He wanted to know
what was being done wrong in Training because Training had to keep
up to date and realistic.
(b)(3)
-114-
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
jt.Un I
Index to Persons Mentioned
Page
Angleton, James 64
Baird, Matthew 21 through 33, 40, 53, 74
1,?�)3)/
(b)a),)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
Dulles, Allen W
27
Eckel, Paul 54
George, W.
Lloyd
64
(b)(3)
(b)(3))(3)
(b)((b)(3)
Helms, Richard
-115-
64
SECRET
pproved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
SECRET
Page
Horton, Herman
64
((b)(3)
((b)(3)
Kingsley, Rolfe
Knowles, Kenneth
............
16, 24, 26, 28, 43,
A
64, 80, 82, 92
54
c'?) c))
Lindsay, Franklin
64
(b)(3)
(b)(.3)
McCarthy, Shane
54
McConnel, Murray
25
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
O'Gara, John
(b)(3)
ID)p)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
Schow, Robert G
-116-
SECRET
17 25 31
pproved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
- Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
SEutE.I
Page
Shaffer, Robert B
80
Smith, Walter B
25
Wheeler, William
17
17, 25,
Wisner, Frank
74
Wyman, W. G 25 ;
-117-
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
A'r
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616
SECRET
CIA Internal Use Only
-
Access Controlled by
the Directorate of
Support
SECRET
Approved for Release: 2019/06/25 CO2559616