PROPOSED REVISION OF(Sanitized)MANAGEMENT OF SUPERGRADE PERSONNEL

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82-00357R000600080004-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 5, 2000
• Sequence Number: 4
• Publication Date: May 7, 1976
• Content Type: MF

hLL
7 Ma)r 1976
FOR: Chief, Regulations Control Branch
SUB?ECF
sed Revision of
Supergrade Personnel
of
STATINTL 1. P for coordination and publication is a proposed
revision Of paragraphs a and b. These amendments are
proposed on the bass of a ran&ns from the Secretary, CIA
Mnageux9nt Committee approved by the DDCI on 25 February 1976.
2. 'f draft attached hereto has been informally reviewed
by the DD/A.
Distribution:
Orig + 1 - Adse, w/att
1 - D-DDA, w/att
1 - D/Pegs, w/att
1 - OP/RS, w/att
ITATINTL OP/P&O/ :11 (7 May 76)
Approved For RIay2e .4l'/1~~!
6#M' Y Ail Y ^ -?
m 1^
,
p4-8
W
4
TART $ -OO R
 A IDE1 TIAL -] SE ET
{ ] 1UNLASSIFI pprovedI- r W1111ERNAL (0-
epNbY2002/05/02. CIA-RD
&L LQ35W0Q0fi0WaQ0"8_
ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET
STATINTL
Proposed Revision o Management of Supergrade Personnel
Chief, Review Staff, OP
626 C of C
24 May 1976
COMMENTS (Number each comment to show from whom
to whom. Draw a line across cotumn,,after each comment.)
We have reviewed your revision of
our proposed regulation on super-
grades, and have annotated the copy
being returned with our comments.
We have again revised Para b(2)(a)
to a version of the original. The
Agency Board reviews. OP's findings
on the Agency-wide allocation and
your version fuzzes this aspect.
This is an important feature of the
new approach and we feel it must be
made clear. The annual review is
targeted-to the allocation as it
exists and the position requirement.
which could change. it.'
In para b(4) (c), please reinsert
the phrase "upon receipt of sup-
portiveinformation." This is very
important - many requests'come
without justification with subse-
quent delay of months in providing
the data and without this require-
ment being included in the Regula-
tion, 14 days could come to haunt
Us.
No problem with your other editin
but I do note that page 1 uses 'twit.
...and the responsibilities are
written as "tis." Not sure why this
strikes me, but it does. I can see
it both ways . . and only note to
be sure it conforms to the current
regulatory style (and not an abber-
ation as ours often are...)