DRAFT GUIDANCE ON MOBILITY

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82-00357R000600070007-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 8, 2002
• Sequence Number: 7
• Publication Date: October 10, 1974
• Content Type: MF

t-a
k -0 y~ i.ase
Approved F?elte 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP82-0039*14000600070007-6
10 O CT 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR: Administrative Officer, O/DCI
SUBJECT : Draft Guidance on Mobility
1. The first problem I have with the draft is a fundamental
one. The options are all directorate rather than Agency oriented.
If not stated it is inferred that the Deputy Directors decide who will
be trained, for how long, and where, before they come back to be
better directorate officers. The PASG requirements emphasized
the need to increase the "one Agency" orientation of personnel
operations. If the "one Agency" concept becomes a reality, our
talent will have to be more versatile to serve the Agency rather
than one directorate. With this in mind it would seem to me that
to meet our future leadership needs we must train our best men and
women for our toughest jobs without regard to which directorate these
people started their careers. While some of the options meet this
requirement, the alternative to I. A. - 5, 6, and 7 as stated in para-
graph II, pages 6 and 7, comes closest to meeting Agency rather
than directorate needs.
2. In reviewing the options, I note that the concept of a
Supergrade Review Board would have no part in Option 1 but still
another body, the Senior Personnel Resources Board would. As
I understand it, the Supergrade Board has received some attention;
the Senior Board has not. I doubt that the Senior Board could do its
work unless it is given authority to make assignments which the Deputy
Directors would have to accept. In my judgment this will not happen.
3. I also note that the alternative to Option I (Inter-Directorate
Review - Alternative I. A. - 5, 6, and 7) requires that the Supergrade
Review Board go beyond its charter and handle all grade levels. This
Approved For Rere'a x'2002/0 / 9 : CA-1DP82-~5w0~0357R0 0600070007-6
 9Rt ~ ^ ^ A P^ wb R~ A ~~
,F 1 Y m y =
.
zm:t~ t. \rJ
t.-RDP82S
Approved F'Release 2002/05/09: CIA.
m -0035~000600070007-6
and the introduction of the Senior Personnel Resources Board idea
suggests to me that it is not possible to make really useful comments
on the various proposals unless there is a clear definition of the
responsibilities of two boards and, in particular, their authority vis-
a-vis the Deputy Directors. On one hand, the Deputy Directors are
controlling personnel inter-directorate movement while on the other
hand the Boards, and especially the Supergrade Board, seem to
have control. Is the inter-directorate movement meant to benefit
the directorates or the Agency? I believe that these basic questions
have to be answered before the "how to do it" is decided.
Donald F. Chamberlain
Inspector General
Approved For Rele%sp_2AQ2/05/09 : 6A-RDP82-00357R000600070007-6
STATINTL