MEMORANDUM FOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE FROM JOHN F. BLAKE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP79-00498A000500040001-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 15
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 20, 2001
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: July 30, 1976
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Release 200 1/07/lIL:ICJA- ZV-00498A0005000
LEI`/_ ~~
MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director of Central Intelligence
FROM John F. Blake
Deputy Director for Administration
1. This refers to my memo to you dated
6 July 1976 concerning the Applicant Review Panel..
2. I have asked Mr. Gambino and Dr. Bohrer
for their advice concerning the suggestion to add representa-
tion from the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity to the
Panel. After reviewing their comments along with those made
by Fred Janney, I recommend that such representation not be
added for the following reasons:
a. The Panel was established on
15 July 1953 by the Deputy Director for Support
as the Medical, Security, Personnel (MSP) Panel.
Several decades of experience have clearly indi-
cated that the Applicant Review Panel presents
an extremely valuable forum for the exchange
of suitability information by the screening
arms of the Agency. In my view, the membership
for the last 23 years has rightly been restricted
to the Offices which bring to bear pertinent
input which can be utilized in the deliberations.
All three Offices have the authority to place a
case on the agenda based upon specific informa-
tion which has been developed in the course of
the screening process. The basic concept of
the Panel remains valid today.
b. Mr. Gambino pointed out that his
representative occasionally has access to privi-
leged and/or particularly sensitive information,
sometimes received from another Government agency.
Notwithstanding the need for extreme discretion,
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP79-00498A000500040001-1
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : C LRDPI9-a0'0498A000500040001-1
STATINTL
the Panel members have worked out a mutual
understanding which allows for a free exchange
of views while protecting the privacy of the
applicant. The Office of Security would be
fearful that any inappropriate expansion of
membership would have an adverse effect on
the free flow of information and candid
discussion. Mr. Gambino further commented
that the Office of Security has been an
enthusiastic supporter of the Applicant
Review Panel concept, and their records
reflect that in the first six months of
this year they referred 104 cases out of
the 292 cases considered by the Panel. He
indicated that, in his opinion, there was
an extremely small percentage of cases which
had EEO implications, and he had no reason
to feel that any case had been adjudicated
unfairly in terms of staff standards of
this Agency.
c. has pointed
out that it was OMS policy to protect the
details of medical findings in accordance
with historical medical practices, as well
as the provisions of the Privacy Act. He
added that they were not enjoined, however,
from discussing questions of suitability
with other professionals directly concerned
with applicant review as long as medical
confidentiality was maintained. He indi-
cated that expansion of the ARP to include
individuals not directly responsible for
selection of applicants would violate their
policy and would be inconsistent with existing
law, thereby seriously restricting their
participation in the ARP, He concluded
that the expansion of the Panel would be
a disservice not only to the Agency but to
the applicants as well.
d. Fred Janney pointed out the
fact that he personally reviews every case
in which the Panel has recommended the
rejection of an employment application. He
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RD'79-00498A000500040001-1
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CA-RDP79-00498A000500040001-1
further indicated that in most cases he is
not aware of the race or religion of the
applicant under consideration. As you know,
pictures are no longer included in the
applicant file and there are no Personal
History Statement questions concerning race
or religion. He has assured the Director,
EBO that any case with the slightest FO
potential would be checked with him.
3. The above are, therefore, our considered
reasons for my recommendation that an EEO representative not
be added to the Applicant Review Panel.
Is/ Jahn F. Blake
John F. Blake
Distribution:
Orig DDCI
DDA
1 - D/Sec
1 - D/MS
STATINTL 2 (one w/held)
C/SAS/0P: :bkf (30 Jul 76)
Originator:
STATINTL
*DDA Distribution not shown on original
Director awe sonne
3OU 76
-Y `' F L Y
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP79-00498A000500040001-1
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12: CFAPRDP79=00498A000500040001-1
MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director of Central Intelligence
FROM John F. Blake
Deputy Director for Administration
Hank
1. This refers to my memo to you dated
6 July 1976 concerning the Applicant Review Panel.
2. I have asked Mr. Gambino and Dr. Rohrer
for their advice concerning the suggestion to add representa-
tion from the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity to the
Panel. After reviewing their comments along with those made
by Fred Janney, I recommend that such representation not be
added for the following reasons:
a. The Panel was established on
15 July 1953 by the Deputy Director for Support
as the Medical, Security, Personnel (MSP) Panel.
Several decades of experience have clearly indi-
cated that the Applicant Review Panel presents
an extremely valuable forum for the exchange
of suitability information by the screening
arms of the Agency. In my view, the membership
for the last 23 years has rightly been restricted
to the Offices which bring to bear pertinent
input which can be utilized in the deliberations.
All three Offices have the authority to place a
case on the agenda based upon specific informa-
tion which has been developed in the course of
the screening process. The basic concept of
the Panel remains valid today.
b. Mr. Gambino pointed out that his
representative occasionally has access to privi-
leged and/or particularly sensitive information,
sometimes received from another Government agency.
Notwithstanding the need for extreme discretion,
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP79=00498A000500040001-1
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12tARf7PJ-00498A000500040001-1
STATINTL
the Panel members have worked out a mutual
understanding which allows for a free exchange
of views while protecting the privacy of the
applicant. The Office of Security would be
fearful that any Inappropriate expansion of
membership would have an adverse effect on
the free flow of information and candid
discussion. Mr. Gambino further commented
that the Office of Security has been an
enthusiastic supporter of the Applicant
Review Panel concept, and their records
reflect that in the first six months of
this year they referred 104 cases out of
the 292 cases considered by the Panel. He
indicated that, in his opinion, there was
an extremely small percentage of cases which
had EEO implications, and he had no reason
to feel that any case had been adjudicated
unfairly in terms of staff standards of
this Agency.
C. has pointed
out that it was OHS policy to protect the
details of medical findings in accordance
with historical medical practices, as well
as the provisions of the Privacy Act. He
added that they were not enjoined, however,
from discussing questions of suitability,
with other professionals directly concerned
with applicant review as long as medical.
confidentiality was maintained. He indi-
cated that expansion of the ARP to include
individuals not directly responsible for
selection of applicants would violate their
policy and would be inconsistent with existing
law, thereby seriously restricting their
participation in the ARP. He concluded
that the expansion of the Panel would be
a disservice not only to the Agency but to
the applicants as well.
d. Fred Janney pointed out the
fact that he personally reviews every case
in which the Panel has recommended the
rejection of an employment application. He
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RbP79-00498A000500040001-1
 Approved For Release 2001/07/1? :CIA-f D 00498A000500040001-1
further indicated that in most cases he is
not aware of the race or religion of the
applicant under consideration. As you know,
pictures are no longer included in the
applicant file and there are no Personal
History Statement questions concerning race
or religion. He has assured the Director,
EEO that any case with the slightest EEO
potential would be checked with him.
3. The above are, therefore, our considered
reasons for my recommendation that an EEO representative not
be added to the Applicant Review Panel.
John F. 3
Distribution:
Orig -- DDC1
* 1 - DDA
1 - f/Sec
1 - D/MS
2 - D/Pers (one w/held)
STATINTL C/SAS/OP:-:bkf (30 Jul 76)
Originator:
*DDA Distribution not shown on original
Director of
i" ers&n-nel
e
4.1 0 ;9 is '171S
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP79-00498A000500040001-1
 Approved For Releas
4IMSIME"fiftomotaff
9 JUL 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy. Director for Administration
FROM Robert W, Gambino
Director of Security
SUBJECT Applicant Review Panel
DD .7 i t ref
o 30 3
1. Reference is made to your request for comments
concerning the proposal that the Applicant Review Panel be
broadened to include representation from the Office of
Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO),
2. This is to advise that the Office of Security feels
that it would be a mistake to increase the membership of the
Applicant Review Panel, whether the new representation would
be from the Office of EEO or some other operating element of
the Agency. While we are not opposed to change or new and
innovative ways of doing business, it is. believed. that the
Applicant Review Panel, in its present form, has been shown
to be an extremely useful mechanism in evaluating significant
suitability information developed by the Offices of Personnel,
Security and Medical Services,
3. By way of background, it is worth noting that the
Panel was established on 15 July 1953 by the Deputy Director
for Support as the Medical-Security-Personnel (MSP) Panel,
and the original Directive is quoted below:
"It is important that marginal administrative infor-
mation which may lead to the decision that an
individual applicant is not suitable for appoint-
ment be pooled and coordinated among these offices
and subjected to systematic evaluation before
decision affecting appointment is made, Marginal
administrative information may be data which is
incidental to the information developed by an office
to. enable it to. supply the employment standards for
which it has responsibility; it may be data which
is of such character that standing alone it .does
not justify a decision to. reject an applicant for
employment, Occasionally information of this kind
acquires greater significance when related to other
marginal information in the possession of other
offices,"'
Approved For ReleA1M1NISTRATJV[-jNTERNAj g001/07/CIA-R 79-00498A000500040001-1
USE Uhf
 Approved For ReleaAWN0
kop 0040 01r-1
4, Several decades of experience have clearly indicated
that the Applicant Review Panel presents an extremely valuable
forum for the "exchange" of suitability information by the
screening arms of the Agency, In our view the membership for
the last 23 years has rightly been restricted to the offices
which bring to bear pertinent "input" which can be utilized
in the deliberations, All three offices have the authority
to place a case on the agenda, based upon specific information
that has been developed in the course of the screening process,
The basic concept of the Panel remains valid today,
5. As with other members of the Panel, our representa-
tive occasionally has access to privileged and/or particularly
sensitive information, sometimes received from another govern-
ment agency, Notwithstanding the need for extreme discretion,
the Panel members have worked out a mutual understanding which
allows for a free exchange of views, while protecting the
privacy of the applicant, We would be fearful that any inappro-
priate. expansion of membership would have an adverse effect on
the free flow of information and candid discussion,
6. The Office of Security has been an enthusiastic
supporter of the Applicant Review Panel concept, and our records
reflect that we referred 197 cases to the Applicant Review
Panel out of a total of 480 in calendar year 1975, In the first
six months of this year we referred 104 cases out of 292, I
would submit that there is an extremely small percentage of
cases which have EEO implications, and I have no reason to feel
that any case has been adjudicated unfairly or subjectively in
terms of Staff standards of this Agency, Most certainly proce-
dures could be worked out to focus on cases which are of interest
from an EEO standpoint, without the Office of EEO becoming
involved in the vast majority of applicants where this has
absolutely no bearing,
7, This Office has made a conscientious effort to con-
tribute-to the deliberations of the Panel, notwithstanding that
it is a burdensome and time-consuming process, Because of
heavy agendas, we. have in the past shared the concern about
undue delays and their. effect on processing time, It may be a
small point, but an enlarged membership or more formalized
procedure will undoubtedly generate. additional delays, to the
overall detriment of the Agency,
Approved For ReleA NIff RA f_ Xt8 ffQQ l01-1
IINI
 Approved For Relea N 1RA21 - A Of ~1-1
8. From the standpoint of precedent, I would also point
out that there are numerous Career Panels within the Agency
which consider promotions, transfers and reassignments, If an
EEO representative becomes a member of the Applicant Review
Panel when there has been no evidence of a problem, logic would
dictate that the practice be made relatively uniform throughout
the organization, Outgrowths of the Applicant Review Panel
concept are the Overseas Candidate Review Panel (overseas
assignments), the Personnel Evaluation Panel (problem cases)
and the Executive Review Panel (summer employees), There is a
common theme of information "input" by the Offices of Security,
Personnel and Medical Services, Once the precedent is firmly
established, the door will be open for EEO involvement in
issues which are not EEO related. .
9. In summary, it is our considered opinion that the
Applicant Review Panel is an effective unit which has contributed
to the high degree of selection enjoyed by the Agency, It has
been a smooth working operation, and we would be somewhat fear-
ful that ?a well intended effort to improve procedures might just
have the opposite effect, It remains our position that the
deliberations of the Applicant Review Panel should be informa-
tion based and should continue to render objective determina-
tions based upon positive inputs from the three Directorate
offices involved in the screening process,
STATINTL
Distribution:
Orig, & 1 - Addressee
1 - Director of Personnel
001-1
Approved For R aIf,TIVL'~11~9 0
olff
 Approved For Release~~01/07/12: CIA-RDP79-00498A0005OOQ pOO1-1 2
6 July 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR: DDCI Designate
FROM John F: Blake
Deputy Director for Administration
1. If you will permit me, I would like to register
a minor bleat.
2. 1 address myself to your memorandum of 28 June
to the Director of Personnel on "Consideration of Job
Applicants.." I do believe that from two different points
of view the correspondence should have been directed to
me, but I was not even on distribution for it. The first
reason I believe it should have been sent to me, personally,
was-one part of. the memorandum addresses itself to the
composition of the Applicant Review Panel, such -Panel now
being staffed by personnel from three Offices of this
Directorate". Secondly, as it pertains to the other part
of the memorandum, the handling of the applicant case of
STATINT it would appear from my understanding
of the ease that the Office of. Security maybe could have
handled it in a little different fashion.
3. 1 propose to make a copy of your memorandum
available to both the !)f=rice of Security and the Office of
Medical Services as I. wish to solicit the advice of both
Mr. Gambino and Dr.. Bohrer concerning the suggestion to
add representation from the Office of Equal Employment
Opportunity to. the Applicant Review Panel. Because of the
sensitive nature of some of the security information on
applicants and because of the privileged nature of some
medical information on some applicants, I wish to proceed
very cautiously before taking a position on adding
representation to the Applicant Review Panel.
isf John
John F. Blake
Distribution:
OrL 4e UD `I Des a i A3 t
Apprd For elease /O ef12 :xCI RaP79 00498,~04{450094Q00.1 1M
DDA Subject No DDA Chrono
DDA:-TFBlake._dc r 1 JFB Eyes Only C.hr,,,,
 Approved For ReleaseQD01/07/12 : CIA-RDP79-00498A000500Q$0001-1
28 June 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR: Director of Personnel
SUBJECT: Consideration of Job Applicants
1. Thank you for your information concerning the case of
STATINTL In looking into the background, there are
several things that concern me and I would like your consideration
f th
f
o
e
ollowing. Let me know your reactions.
2. The Office of Security in this case apparently provided the
Offi
f
ce o
Weapons Intelligence with certain background information
which seems to have had the effect of changing OWIls' consideration
STATINTLOf hiring
3. It seems to me preferable, in matters of this kind, that
information available to the Office of Security, the Office of Medical
Services or the Office of Personnel, which relates to the advisability
of hiring, should be considered by the Applicant Review Panel in order
to get the full benefit of exchange of information among members of
the panel. One of my problems here is that the direct supply of
unevaluated information from any one of those three offices to an office
consid
i
er
ng hiring is to decentralize the process to too great an extent.
There may well be good reason for the hiring office to chan
e its
i
g
v
ew
upon receipt of such information., but the applicant may have such overall
strength that his services should not be lost to other components within
the Agency.
4. I think, too, that we would be well-advised to broaden the
Applicant Review Panel to include represe'>5.tation-from the Office of
EEO. This will insure not only a due regard for minority rights and
privileges but for the rights and privileges of all regardless of race,
creed or color.
Aft~echrnent:
6/28 Janney Note t~
STATINTLE6 / ~t "7 Memo fo.r
Eroin Ware
STATINTL
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP79-00498A000500040001-1
CIA INTERNAL USE ONLY
 ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET
SUBJECT: na) for Release - - ~_ --_ !-
( li
FROM F. W. M. Janney
EXTENSION
NO. - - -
Director of Personnel
SE 58, Headquarters
6825
DATE
28 June 1976
TO: 1O1`19cer designation, room number, and
DATE
building)
OFFICER'S
COMMENTS (Number each comment to show from whom
RECEIVED
FORWARDED
INITIALS
I whom. Draw a line across column after each comment44
DDC,I-Designate -r
STATINTL
7E12--H S
2.
The attached memorandum
from Mfr. Ware to Chief, Staff
Personnel Division, Office of
3.
Personnel pretty much summar-
izes the situation_- The
Office of Personnel has not--
4.
been directly involved in
this case so we can add noth-
ing of substance..
5.
The Applicant Review Panel
is made up of representatives
fro 1 the Office of Security,
the Office of Medical Service
and the Office of Personnel.-
Cases arebrought before the.
Panel by any one of its ntem.
hers. The Panel looks at the
8.
entire file and normally make
a recommendation to the
Director of Personnel as_ to
the overall. suitability of are
applicant-applicant.: - Tn this case, the
did not, but apparently went
10,
back to the office of immedia
interest, i.e., OWL. OWl
then withdrew their interest
11.
in the applicant.
-
As you know
before a
12
,
.
minority applicant is rejecte
by the Agency, the file goes
----_
through D/EEO. That is how
13.
Mr. Ware got involved.
1 .5,
ppro~ ed o}-
?01-1
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP79-00498A000500040001-1
STATINTDLE~,1ORZ ND\J 1 FOR:
SUBJECT Owl Rejection of Applicant for Employment
` 31. . I have, talked to the Chairman of the Applicant Panel
and',-`as you said, thew Panel did not reject this applicant,
The information which` the Panel turned over to MIT apparently
included information which, while cause for concern, was not
necessarily adequate for rejection. According to the Panel
the information included some evidence of marital problems
and the fact that he was evicted in 1971 by a landlady over
some issue of dishes and pans. Other information concerned
matters of more direct interest to Owl. It had to do with his
performance on previous jobs. Apparently his previous employers
provided Security with information that at some point his
performance was lacking; also that he was not responsive
to supervision. The other information indicated that he
had taken One of his employers or the company by which he
was employed to court on a complaint, I believe, of racial
discrimination. I also believe that he won the case. We
would never want to be in the position of urging OBI to accept
an employee that would be inadequate to their purpose.
Nevertheless, I feel that prior to rejecting this applicant
the information which OWl considers to be derogatory should
at least be clarified. If necessary, it would not seem
unrgasonable if the applicant were asked by Owl or the Office
of Personnel to come in for an interview or to correspond
with Owl or with the Office of Personnel to explain the factors -
in his background with which Owland/or the Agency could be
justifiably concerned.
2. 1 have not seen the security report on this applicant;
ho ever, the information critical of the applicant` job
performance may possibly have been gained only from one
er1ployer - the same employer that the applicant tool to court.
In any event, the Agency should never appear Lo be J _n the
position o having rejected an applicant because he either
~iCt7u :t a .i.: 'U C Omplaint through administrative channels or
l ''.'. ed ` ??c- court sys teo to adjudicate such an a l ? egat.ion.
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP79-00498A000500040001-1
 ? Approved For Release- 01/07/12: CIA-RDP79-00498A00050GQ 0001-1
I expect to bring my concerns to the attention of the Director
of a,,di and urge that you pursue the clarification of this
-
matter 'by
`whatever means - 'you consider --ppropriate.
Equal Employment Opportunity
nego J. "'(,. 'Mare's Jr.~.'
Direb-tor)
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP79-00498A000500040001-1
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP79-00498A000500040001-1
STATINTL
Mr. Blake,
Background material for your 2:30 meeting
today, 14 July, w/Messrs. Malanick, Gambino,
Janney and
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP79-00498A000500040001-1