(UNTITLED)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 43
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 28, 2005
• Sequence Number: 4
• Publication Date: May 8, 2001
• Content Type: MIN

Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
. . . . The 63rd meeting of the CIA RETIREMENT
BOARD convened at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, 20 June 1967, in the OD/Pers
Conference Room, with the following present:
25X1
25X1
25X1
Emmett D. Echols, Chairman
Roger G. Seely,
P Member
DDP Member
DDS Member
Mr. John S. Warner, Legal Adviser
Fi
is going to be leaving this 25X1
Board as our Finance Adviser sometime this fall, and our guest here,
is going to replace him.
spot on the Policy & Plans Staff in the Office of Finance.
I move that the record show that the
Board very much appreciates the great and excellent service furnished by
since the date of the creation of this Board to the present
Let's make it nunc pro tunc.
MR. ECHOLS: Now, can we get rid of the Minutes of
the last meeting very quickly here.
25X1
25X1
Thank you very much -- but I'm not
leaving immediately - not until September.
Mr. Seely, yourself,
Mr. Chairman, is there a quorum present?
I think six is a quorum, isn't it?
Point of order! Point of order! (Laughing)
Yes, if five is a quorum --
and myself.
bet's refer this to our legal adviser.
.... 18!?91 ti
SECRET Exr~ .~ i~ I T tIi
hnical Adviser
nance Adviser
Acting Executive Secretary
Recording Secretary
C/BSD/OP
Office of Finance
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5 _..
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
Regulation doesn't specify how many members, it just says "representatives" --
MR. WARNER: I don't have a copy of the Regulation, but
I don't think there was any mention of the technicalities of a quorum in it.
handed Mr. Warner a copy of the
Regulation . . . .
This is an advisory group.
MR. WARNER: Do we have a copy of the memorandum
appointing the Board?
I'll get it.
MR. WARNER: I don't really think it's that technical a
matter. I think it's the weight of the common sense here of what the group
wants to do. Because I don't think we said there had to be a quorum.
Certainly it's not in this Regulation.
MR. ECHOLS: And I'm sure there is no requirement
whatsoever in the appointing document. As you know, the membership
was set up, in part, on the basis of the preponderance of interest in participation,
but also on the basis of diversity to represent differing elements of the Agency --
for instance, Communications was recognized to have a large voice, and yet
it's different from the rest of the DD/S in many career respects, where we
have the DD/S representative, and so on.
So, if there are no objections, I'd like to proceed with
the meeting today.
All right, but I think that perhaps at the
next meeting of the Board we ought to specify procedures.
MR. ECHOLS: Could we look at the Minutes of the last
meeting?
This is strictly an editorial item, but on
page 2, in paragraph 6. a., in the 4th line from the bottom, that "... made
good use of" should read "... make good use of" etc.
2
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
I'm not clear on your reference to 701.
was a staff employee for
SECRET
This is just a question, not having been
here at the meeting, but do I understand that you are waiting for two things on
th case, an indication of a signed statement by her to the effect
that she wouldn't serve anywhere other than where her husband was in residency,
ases, also?
No, we have not been asked to get any
The simple fact of the matter is that in the
written record there is neither an old Career Staff agreement nor is there a
Form 3101. I presented the case based upon the career history of the individual
as it in fact has been consummated, rather than meeting all the technical
requirements of the regulations and the legislative history. In so doing I
pointed out two other cases - the one of and the one of
we will get to these cases today, I hope, later on. In one case the employee
was hired in a foreign country, spent her entire career in that foreign country,
and we have already designated her to the System and have retired her under
the System. So here is a question of whether a married woman hired in a
foreign country to serve in that foreign country was eligible -- was she indeed
available to serve where, when, and as we needed her, even though she did
sign the Form 3101. The other case - the case of - was an 25X1
employee who married an American businessman in a foreign country, while
on duty -- and in the 701 exercise - unlike was not put on the 25X1
701 list because of her unavailability for career development assignments, etc.,
by reason of her marriage. So we had an incidence of inconsistency in the
application of the very same set of criteria for 701 ranking inclusion. So
the question comes up here, if we eliminated one person from eligible career
status by reason of her marriage, why had we not done so with another? And
these are just doubts that we have been asked to review.
- where similar issues seemed to be involved -- and
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
many, many years, then had an interruption in her service, but was rehired as
a staff employee after her marriage. When the 701 exercise in the
DD/P came up, among the criteria used for including people was their future
usefulness, of course, to the Agency, and immobility, if you will, was a criteria
used at least to rank some individuals on the list. By reason of this she lost her
career status, and, therefore, was never even considered by the Agency as a
possible participant in the Agency Retirement System. Was this right or
wrong? Did we make an error? Was it an oversight as far as this employee?
This is the issue.
Well, this is a digression from the Minutes -- but we
can get to this problem very shortly.
Are there any additions or corrections to the Minutes,
aside from those noted? (No response.) If not, we will accept them as
presented.
In our cases for today there are four categories. In
the first category are six persons who have completed their 15 years and will
acquire a vested right.
I move that we offer them an election,
. . . . This motion was then passed . . . .
MR. ECHOLS: In category "B" are 16 persons who meet
all of the basic criteria and have five or more years of Agency service.
I move that all 16 under category "B"
be designated.
MR. SEELY: I noticed one in this category "B" -
- who has 25 months, but is in 25X1
now. Can it be assumed that she will again be sent overseas?
MR. ECHOLS: Can anyone speak to that, or provide
4
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
additional information?
She has the 18 months for five years -- isn't
that what we're saying?
I can't answer specifically about this girl
because I haven't checked her specific case -- but it doesn't mean that she is
going to be in forever - that's No. 1; and No. Z, the send a limited 25X1
number of people overseas.
MR. ECHOLS: Any further discussion? (No response. )
May I have a motion on this group?
25X1 Second.
. . . . This motion was then passed . . . .
MR. ECHOLS: We have one individual in category "C".
He has applied for voluntary retirement. He meets all of the requirements -
age, Federal service, Agency service, qualifying service.
I move that we pass favorably upon this
request for retirement.
. . . . This motion was then passed . . . .
MR. ECHOLS: In category "D" one participant who has
been recommended for involuntary retirement. I believe this is our first
involuntary retirement case.
I think there was one, wasn't there?
No.
No previous one ?
MR. ECHOLS: No.
MR. SEELY: The monthly report listed one. Maybe it
SECRET r
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
No, that was on the Civil Service
section of the monthly report.
MR. SEELY: Oh, I see.
MR. ECHOLS: Does anyone know whether this individual --
and I don't know that this is truly relevant -- is hostile to this involuntary
retirement?
I had that question, too. . It said, "and his
willingness to accept retirement--
MR. SEELY: It seems to me that this is the only way he
can be retired, since he's not 50. He is willing, but it couldn't be voluntary
because he is not yet 50. But he meets the requirements for involuntary
retirement. So it's like the case of acquiescing, at least, in this procedure.
25X1
25X1 there is one listed here --
-- involuntary - -
But that is listed under retirement
applications in process.
Okay. Yes.
Of course, as you said, Emmett, I assume
we have to act on this case without any particular regard to his willingness--
MR. ECHOLS: True.
He could decide to appeal-
MR. MR. ECHOLS: What was more interesting from my point
of view was whether I was going to have an appeal coming up.
I move we recommend retirement.
Does he have 25 years' Government service?
Yes.
That is the key.
MR. ECHOLS: Do I hear a second on that motion? Or is
there any further discussion--
Support it.
6
C[PUCT
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
. . . . This motion was then passed . . . .
25X1 I'm for it, but I would like to ask a question.
Is this an indication of a possible change in policy? I thought at one point
that we were sort of guided by: Don't submit involuntary retirements. Is
this an unusual case in any sense of the word? - the fact that he is an agent
as opposed to a staff employee?
MR. ECHOLS: Not to my knowledge. I think as a
whole we hope that people will voluntarily retire under our System--
could really question it -- but I wondered if there was any indication of a
change in policy. I guess you're saying that as far as you know there is no
restriction on putting in an involuntary retirement.
MR. ECHOLS: No, not as long as they meet the basic
requirements. I think that the real judgment here is whether the Service
concerned really feels that this is in the best interests of the Agency and the
Government.
This is such an awfully good case nobody
Okay, that takes care of that case.
Now, item 3 on the agenda is a case involving domestic
qualifying duty - partially involving domestic qualifying duty, the case,of
He has three-years-plus of overseas TDY duty, 25X1
and then he has miscellaneous periods of service wherein his duties were
apparently hazardous but clearly oriented toward clandestine operations abroad -
I would just question the one statement
you made about his having over three years of overseas service. I think this
check list shows 21 months and 18 days.
MR. ECHOLS: The check list shows 21 months and 18 days,
but my covering transmittal says: In the first category the record shows TDY
overseas in the amount of three-plus years. Is that a mistake?
What they have listed on the 3100 totals up
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
25X1
25X1
to only 21 months and 18 days.
case -- I just think we should make certain we are looking at domestic service
from the same point--
MR. SEELY: It may not be relevant if we find his domestic
service was in itself qualifying.
MR. ECHOLS: Where did the three-plus years come from?
I don't mean that to detract from this
It's an allegation in the papers submitted
-- it's on the first page, in the second paragraph.
MR. ECHOLS: That is memorandum.
MR. SEELY: Also, it's referred to in his paragraph 1:
"He does not meet the five-year overseas criteria, lacking this by less than
two years ......
bye
MR. ECHOLS: Now, are the periods of alleged qualifying
domestic duty susceptible to an analysis by periods of time?
If you add those up, I think they come
MR. SEELY: But that's the overseas--
MR. ECHOLS: Well, I would like to suggest that we table
this case and go back and reexamine the time data--
MR. SEELY: They say in this memorandum, in paragraph 2,
"The second category, which does not fit neatly as identifying time" -- and that
is the category of domestic service. What they're saying is that it is
impossible to assign specific time periods--
Yes.
because there's an implication that the overseas TDY stands by itself, and then
where they're now going to explain the rest of the service they go into the
overseas service again.
Yes, and that really doesn't hold together,
It's a little hard to separate the overseas
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
from the domestic service.
MR. WARNER: Well, Emmett, I tried to do exactly what
you are doing and I came up with well over three years of this hazardous duty
in here -- but it's awfully hard to do, because you have to guess at some of it.
MR. ECHOLS: It comes through loud and clear to me,
though, that this individual's career - at least during this total span - was truly
related to developmental and hazardous type duties.
MR. WARNER: Absolutely.
MR. ECHOLS: And they weren't staff jobs -- they weren't
routine Headquarters' jobs -- he was in the experimental and hazardous work.
Well, I think this is my reaction, that we
may be quibbling with two or three years, if we all get the same feel, from
sort of reading this thing, that in general he was in rather unusual service that
could be qualifying.
MR. ECHOLS: It might be like the demolitions man, where
the actual days of duty that he spends-
MR. WARNER: Going back here, in '63, '64, '65, '66 he
Well, you have four
years, then, just on those two items alone. I grant you it may be three and
a half, or whatever, but he was assigned to that duty - - and how many flights
he made really is immaterial.
MR. ECHOLS: Actually, all told, you can almost say from
was making periodic
MR. WARNER: If you want to take the broad brush, you
Refresh my memory - have we designated
and his career for a period of over 15 years.
MR. ECHOLS: Is the Board satisfied to act on the strength
of this overall career viewpoint?
This was quite obviously his business
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
participants, prior to retirement, for domestic qualifying service heretofore?
I don't believe so. As a matter of fact,
was about the only one--
MR. WARNER: I don't remember any, Gerry.
announced - "Incidentally, he is retiring. " It didn't seem to be a factor that
he was retiring.
The Board acted onnd then I 25X1
and then he elected not to come into the System.
MR. ECHOLS: Would it make any difference, Gerry, if
we designate this man right now, and by reason of his having more than 15 years
of service he would acquire a vested right, or if we wait until he is ready to
retire and then put him in? It's the same difference, either way, it seems
to me.
There was one man who was approved
I think if we're going to designate him prior
to retirement we ought to limit it, at this point, to hazardous duty cases only.
Just pick that paragraph which does deal
with the hazardous duty -- whether it's "c" or "d", I'm not sure.
any rule but with the understanding that we would not consider domestic
qualifying service unless it was considered at the time of retirement. Now
if we're about to change that -- and I'm not saying we should--
MR. WARNER: Did the Board reach that understanding?
In other words, we have operated not by
MR. WARNER: I know the Board took the position on 11(c),
but not on what Gerry said--
I thought that was just on 11(c).
Well, that was my understanding.
MR. WARNER: Does anybody else remember it?
I don't. It seems to me we would be
10
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
25X1
25X1
forced to do it if somebody came in and said, "I feel my domestic duty is
qualifying and I want you to pass on it. " I don't see how we could avoid--
MR. ECHOLS: I think it's unfair, in a way, to leave a man
with a record such as this in doubt as to under what system he is ultimately
going to be eligible to retire. Perhaps one would want to differentiate between
a person with less than 15 years of service and one who has already had 15 years,
consistent with the expression in the Congress that a man ought to know after
15 years under what system he is going to retire,
in 1969, and, I don't know, but it would be legitimate if he said, "I'd like to know
a couple of years ahead of time, so I could be planning for it, if I will have the
possibility of retiring. it
MR. ECHOLS: There is certainly no question about his
willingness to undertake hazardous activities.
Has he been on any emergency list, Gerry, during this
time, indicating he is ready to and willing to go in and undertake hazardous
missions ?
Not only that but apparently he will be 50
I don't know, frankly.
Paragraph 3 of
memorandum says he was put on a medical hold in 1965--
MR. WARNER: The Form 3100 says, "The effectiveness
of the individual has been greatly reduced because of age, health, cover and
security problems over the years on these extended TDYs. "
MR. ECHOLS: The memorandum says, "In 1964, 1965,
and 1966
proficiency. "
MR. ECHOLS: Oh, I would think vastly more so. Of
course, I could be wrong.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
MR. ECHOLS: Well, from the record here he has
apparently been on a contingency force since 1958 and up until his medical
disqualification -- which does answer that question.
broadside at all possible ways of being qualified -- the one that deals with
security and cover problems, the one that deals with hazardous duty, and
then, finally, skills and experience that are not utilized outside of this field.
Each one of those is a potential qualifier. I mean, I don't think I've heard
enough about security and cover to sort of vote on that, but on the hazardous
duty one it comes through pretty well to me -- and, as Gerry said, if we are
going to do it if we restrict ourselves to the hazardous duty part of it, not
whether it's a skill unique to the Agency, or unusual security and cover
considerations.
This memorandum here is sort of a
MR. ECHOLS: What type of precedent would we be setting,
if any, that might be embarrassing if we passed this case? I really don't
see any. It's a matter of degree, duration, span, intended use of the
individual - many factors combined - it seems to me.
wondered about. Is there any particular reason why he has never been
assigned overseas? I mean, despite the fact that he has signed this state-
ment which indicates he is willing to go anywhere, is there some reason
beneath that why he has never been assigned overseas?
I just had one other question I sort of
six mnntha zr- moo ..4.1--- ,
write-up sheet here that this is where he does his work. He has been
training people in this field, and sometimes that took him or 25X1
Well, I just assume by looking at this
in this business, and that took him two months -- I mean, this has been his
career--
To answer your question,
there is no underlying reason that I know of.
12
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
management to keep him in this work that he is doing.
MR. ECHOLS: This type of agent training and developing
facilities for agents has been his career.
MR. WARNER: I wish we had had this case when
presenting the legislation. To me it's a perfect example of what we were
talking about. I don't know why we have problems with this.
MR. ECHOLS: Well, can I have a motion? Or is any
And there's no desire on the part of
further discussion desired?
MR. WARNER: To make him a participant.
MR. ECHOLS: The motion would be to make him a
participant on the basis of his 15 years of career utilization in hazardous--
Are we clear what we are making a motion on?
Are we doing it under 11(a) or 11(b),
whichever one is the hazardous duty--
MR. ECHOLS: I would think it's clearly under 11(b), or
primarily under 11(b).
MR. WARNER: 11(a) - demonstrable hazard to life or health.
Yes, 11(a).
Of course, there's the other one, too,
which says the skills are so clearly unique--
MR. WARNER: I think we could qualify this man under
(a), (b), or (c).
What other business is engaged in
MR. ECHOLS: Well, are there any reservations about
this case that anybody wants to discuss? (No response.) Then I take it
everybody is in favor of this ? (Board members nodded in the affirmative. )
The motion is carried.
The next item is the extension of mandatory retirement
under the Civil Service Retirement System of
13
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
She has previously had a one-year deferment approved by the DD/S.
I might say our Regulation has hit the books - has
been issued, and so I guess henceforth we are operating under the new rules
officially.
I move we extend her for six more
Support it.
. . . . This motion was then passed . . . .
MR. ECHOLS: Item 5 -- again, a similar case -- extension
of mandatory retirement under the Civil Service Retirement System for
25X1
25X1
It says here that she will be eligible for minimum Social Security, $44. 00 per
month, at age 65. Isn't a woman eligible earlier?
May I address a question to
I think the age should be 62 for the Social Security--
At 62. I think that was a mistake.
I mean, in the event it was a key factor in
anyone's decision to extend her until 65--
And I have no objection to
extending her, but I do think she is eligible for Social Security--
Actually, I was quoting her memo--
It's possible that she doesn't know this.
MR. SEELY: She will be eligible upon her retirement.
I move we extend her as requested.
I second the motion.
. . . . This motion was then passed . . . .
I'd like now to take up the cases of
H - and perhaps this
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
is going to be a lot easier task than I thought it might be originally.
If we could look first at the case of
we find that her marriage was reported way back in 1957-1958 -- her Fitness
Reports stressed this fact and that she had family ties and responsibilities.
(Reading) "Her husband, a U. S. citizen, is a prominent local businessman.
It is not felt that Subject would accept an assignment in another area, including
Headquarters, under the circumstances. As long as her husband remains in
Subject will probably continue in her present capacity, but should he
plan a return to the U. S. , it is probable that Subject will resign. "
Now, the question here is should we have put this
individual in the Retirement System? Does she qualify? And I think the
question of should we have permitted her to retire is irrelevant -- it's
secondary to the first issue: Should she have been permitted to join the
System?
This raises, in part, a corollary question as to
whether we should look behind people's certifications in their Form 3101's as
to their matrimonial situation, their family situation, to perhaps challenge the
validity of their certification. Which carries us next to the even more
critical point, which is: What does our Form 3101 in fact mean? And I
think this is germane to each of these cases.
If we look at our Form 3101 Service Agreement, it
says this:
"The Director of Central Intelligence has
determined that in order to qualify for designation as
a participant in the CIA Retirement and Disability
System, an employee must have signed a written
obligation to serve anywhere and at any time according
to the needs of the Agency in addition to meeting other
specified criteria.
I hereby declare my intent to comply with this
requirement as a condition to my being considered for
designation as a participant in the CIA Retirement and
Disability System.
In making this declaration, it is understood that
the Agency will consider my particular capabilities,
interests, and personal circumstances. "
15
SECRLI
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
MR. ECHOLS: Now certainly "personal circumstances"
embraces marriage, embraces children. The question is, if a person is
married - a person is immobile, does this in any way invalidate a Form 3101,
or does it meet the requirements of our Regulation and the legislative history.
We have had meetings on this Form 3101, this certification, and I have brought
with me the transcript of our discussions -- which were not very clear and
very explicit. I might point out, however, that we decided very early in the
game that we would rely upon the previous Career Staff agreements in our
initial review of people for eligibility -- in our initial review of people for
eligibility. And this Career Staff agreement said this:
"I am aware of the many restrictions necessarily
placed upon me by virtue of the security requirements
inherent in my employment by the Central Intelligence
Agency. And I am also aware as a member of the
Career Staff, it would be my obligation to serve any-
where, at any time, and for any kind of duty as
determined by the Agency, and I have been assured
that in order to carry out this policy, full consideration
will be given to my particular capabilities, interests,
and personal circumstances. "
So we find a similar, if not practically identical in thought, statement in both
cases that we will, in calling upon people to serve, take into consideration
their personal circumstances.
Now, in going back to this Career Staff agreement
we find in the record that the CIA Career Council -- which was the primary
body of this organization which developed this Career Staff concept -- at a
meeting held on 7 October 1954, attended by Harrison Reynolds, Chairman,
Matt Baird, Richard Helms, Lyman B. Kirkpatrick
L. K. White,
- (reading) "The Chair-
man then brought to the attention of the Council the urgent problem of
correcting the misunderstanding of persons, particularly married women,
who felt they could not, in good faith, apply for membership in the Career
Staff. The members expressed agreement that such personal circumstances
as marriage should not, per se, bar any person from membership provided
there was intent to make a career with CIA. It was agreed that an Agency
16
SFCRFT
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
notice would be prepared, on a priority basis, to clarify this issue. Mr.
Kirkpatrick also stated he would discuss this matter in his talk at the Agency
Orientation Course on the following day. "
So at least in terms of the Career Staff document
there was a topside Agency policy formulated that immobility by reason of
marriage would not be a bar to the signing of a pledge of obligation to serve--
MR. WARNER: I don't think it said that.
MR. ECHOLS:
in marriage.
Excuse me, but did that go into immobility?
It said marriage.
I'm referring to the immobility inherent
Well, not necessarily--
MR. ECHOLS: (Reading) "The members expressed
agreement that such personal circumstances as marriage should not, per se,
bar any person from membership provided there was intent to make a career
with CIA."
MR. WARNER: I didn't hear any words like "immobility" - -
MR. ECHOLS: Now, in discussing our new Form 3101,
which was prepared to meet the requirements of the Regulation which required
people to commit themselves in writing, there are two factors that come into
the picture. One, we did agree in the initial go-around to accept the previous
Career Staff pledges, commitments. In so accepting them I presume we
accepted the policy that underlay such a document. Therefore we have
automatically, perhaps incorrectly, accepted marriage as not barring eligibility
to participate in this Retirement System. We also decided, in discussing
our new agreement, to simplify it, to remove many of the words here, but
there was no discussion that I can find in the records on the specific subject
of barring married people or causing us to look into the facts and circumstances
of marriage as possibly negating the signature on the new agreement. I would
hold, therefore, that unless we change the rules existing at the present time,
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
the fact that a married woman, with some small children, perhaps, and who
otherwise is eligible, signs one of our agreements, we have no reason to go
behind this document and examine the fact of her marriage and her true
willingness at the drop of a hat to rotate all around the world at the wish of
the Agency. I presume in a severe crisis of some kind the Agency might call
upon some such women to serve in a TDY capacity, or help out, or in a very
critical situation they might actually ask them to leave their husbands -- but
normal, due regard for personal circumstances would not necessitate this.
So, full career mobility for advancement and development and rotation I don't
think is currently an inherent requirement of our 3101.
Any discussion desired on this point? John?
MR. WARNER: I think there is another view on this,
Emmett. I think we do have to recall the situation that existed at that time,
when becoming a member of the Career Staff meant just that, that you became
a member of the Career Staff -- it didn't mean anything else. But in terms
of our Retirement Act and the words we used about obligation to serve and
willingness to serve, I think one could take a different view, that certainly
from our presentation our Committees were not put on notice of our view that
a woman married to an American businessman in a foreign country could be
in effect an exception to the concept of mobility.
MR. ECHOLS: No, they were not. But she still,
nonetheless, is required to serve the requisite period of qualifying duty, of
course--
MR. WARNER: Yes. That is another point.
this marriage business into it.
I think maybe we muddy it by dragging
I'm certainly willing to look at any case on
its merits. Let's say this girl lived inl ~nd she was single, and
she just said, "I like it
as long as I can work
and I'll be glad to stay on with the Agency
you would want to accept her as truly signing this thing with a fair intent to make
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
25X1
MR. ECHOLS: I would quite agree with you -- she is
almost in the nature of a temporary employee. She is saying: As long as
you have a job for me here I will stay with the Agency.
MR. SEELY: The qualifying statement in her agreement
wouldn't apply- - The Agency doesn't say that personal preference will be
taken into consideration.
Excuse me, I'll have to leave now, but
I can come back in about 20 minutes, if you need any action today by me.
MR. ECHOLS: I wish you would come back, Gerry. I
would like to ask you one question before you go. As our meeting broke up
last time I think you were about to make a motion -- in fact, I think you made
a motion with respect to
any way?
Have you changed your mind in
No, I haven't. I agree with your approach
there, and I do think that all three of these should be designated. On the
other hand, I also feel that the whole question of career status should be
examined by the Director of Personnel, and perhaps there should be different
categories of career status, so that you can just call it "Category A" and
"Category B", and people could move from one to the other, one being what
we call mobile and the other what we call immobile, but without defining it
just in those terms.
withdrew from the meeting
at this point, but returned to the meeting later . . .
MR. ECHOLS: If I could speak on Gerry's last point,
when we did discuss this new agreement the record shows that Jim Critchfield
was very vehement and ardent on the idea of tightening up, if you will, the
meaning of Career Staff and the obligation. He wanted a reaffirmation of
intent, not with regard to those who had already demonstrated it but with regard
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
to future cases. Now, we have not gotten into this as yet. He indicated
at some future date he thought we should take a real hard look at the
Form 3101 and its meaning and significance, and perhaps make some revisions
which would clearly show those who are fully involved and those who are not.
We have not yet taken this up. And I might just say that the cases we are
concerned with here today are all old-timers who either were or perhaps
might have been considered in the initial go-around -- so we are strictly
dealing with that class of person at this time, and not the thing that Gerry
just suggested and that Critchfield advocated many months ago.
she did serve her entire career, and we were happy to have her -- I think
she served some 18 years, or something like that -- and we put her in the
System, she applied for retirement, and we retired her. Is there any
If we can get back to the case of
reason why anyone would like to challenge our judgment on this
case?
MR. WARNER: I would. I think if we had known the facts
as we know them now, we shouldn't have put her in the System. But on the
other hand, having retired her, I would say that is water over the dam.
Yes, I think that is closed. But I
don't think that can be a precedent for the next case.
She was a civil servant working in her
home town -- she worked there from her Junior College days, and never
left -- and I have a feeling that she wouldn't have left. That's why, as I said,
it sounds to me like even before she was married she had no intention of
working anyplace but
I don't see what we can do about the
cases in order to establish some guidelines and perhaps some precedent for
other cases -- and perhaps make some changes in the System.
case at this point.
MR. ECHOLS: No, but they wish our opinions on these
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
mere fact we waived the right to go back, on the first go-around, to receive
or to insist upon getting this, I don't think meant that we were accepting cases
that we might have known about that were completely immobile and didn't
meet the six requirements for designation as a participant in the System.
I think if we had known about this ase we might have at that point 25X1
said, "Let's check this one out. "
MR. ECHOLS: Are we not saying the Career Service
should have been more discerning with regard --
I think we made a mistake. The
Service. I think this is one that got by us, that's all.
MR. ECHOLS: But isn't the Career Service really the
only group that really knows what the circumstances are?
I don't think you can blame the Career
Yes, I think so, but the fact they didn't
go back to take a look to see if she was married or what--
MR. WARNER: I think the Career Service, the Office
of Personnel, and this Board, all have a part in this.
MR. ECHOLS: I know we commented at the time that
this Board when handling ZOO cases at a crack, should have somehow picked
inger - -
it up -- but I don't think it serves any purpose pointing a finger--
MR. WARNER: These Fitness Reports weren't in the
MR.
Office of Personnel files, they were in the Career Service files -- and maybe
she spent her entire career in
I don't either -- but I don't think the
mere fact that we retired her under an error should set a precedent--
MR. WARNER: I think really what Emmett is asking is,
is it the consensus of the Board that we made an error.
MR. SEELY: Does this case fit the other two cases?
This lady was hired in Now the other two were not hired--
MR. ECHOLS: On the contrary, due to the interruption,
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
the break in service, was hired in the
married to a local businessman. So there is that similarity.
MR. ECHOLS: Is there any disagreement? I think I for
one agree with that, that we should be more discerning, and people who are
there working for us only so long as we have a job there for them are not
really careerists.
we supposed to look at the others?
Okay, we have looked at
MR. WARNER: Apparently Gerry doesn't -- if I got the
thrust of what he was saying.
No, he doesn't. I don't understand
just why.
MR. ECHOLS: We didn't get a chance to explore his full
views, so I'm not sure.
The case of I think is only important
to us because, as I recall--
MR. WARNER: Is she a participant at this stage--
MR. ECHOLS: She was never made a participant. The
relevancy of this case is that she and were both employed at
the same Station - to wit, and they were both married to local people,
and one was put on the 701 list by reason of her marriage and immobility, and
the other one was not.
was put on the 701 list by reason
of her immobility -- it was not because of performance, in any way -- and
their circumstances were apparently identical. Actually, they were not
by some oversight or something was not put on the 701 list, although
identical, to this extent. We have a dispatch from the Chief ~
in which he says:
"We wish to record that
has not applied
22
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
for membership in the Career Staff because, in view of
her marriage, she does not feel she can fulfill the
'obligation to serve anywhere and at any time and for
any kind of duty as determined by the needs of the
Organization' as stated in paragraph 4, and
in the application for Career Staff.
"As you know, the Station consi ers an exceptional
employee in regards to ability and devotion to duty. We
further submit that onscientious interpre- 25X1
tation of the application for membership in the Career
Staff should be commended and should not in any way
hinder her future progress in the organization as based
upon demonstrated performance of duties. "
MR. WARNER: An excellent employee and a better
And yet the fact that she was an exceptional
employee might be one reason why she never got on the 701 list.
MR. ECHOLS: In July, 1965, says: Because
of increasing personal responsibilities I hereby submit my resignation. So,
she was off the rolls. She did not become, and specifically declined to
become, a member of the Career Staff. So we, very properly, did not
consider her at the time of our initial review -- and she would appear to have
no claim of any kind at the present time.
MR. WARNER: One we handled right, and one we handled
Now, what retirement benefits did she
MR. ECHOLS: She will get a deferred Civil Service
annuity.
Now, as I have indicated, was not asked to
sign a Career Staff agreement, and I can only surmise this was because of
one of two reasons. One, the Career Staff was initiated during the period
of her interrupted service, so she wasn't available or wasn't around at the
time we implemented the Career Staff. And why, when she was picked up
in the field in 1955 she did not sign or was not asked to sign the Career Staff
agreement I do not know and can't find any witnesses who do know. But
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
employment in the field was not a common practice, and Career Staff forms
and procedures were not available at field stations, by and large, at the time,
and I would assume that if she was not asked to sign one it was just an
administrative oversight.
There is in her file some strong evidence that,
t-+lla.j/.7, 0110 uia consider herself a career employee in 25X1
the full sense. Not only had she been an Agency employee for many, many
years, including several staff agent assignments, but we have some comments
on various Fitness Reports. The first document of interest in the record
is the FRQ in which her supervisor says: "Believe it in interest (of) service
for subject to follow contemplated program and return for duty at this station
following home leave in 1958. " And there is the further observation: "Employee's
__ --------- ~r....... L11G '.U.L1L1r1uea assignment in of 25X1
her husband who is with a private American business firm. It is anticipated
that employee's husband will be returned
Following his normal period 25X1
of home leave due in August 1958 (leave duration - six months after three year
assignment) for an additional three year period. It
The next document of interest is a Fitness Report
dated 11 October 1960 which says: "Subject is an imaginative and intelligent
woman, whose long ex
erien o
p
f d
i
r-GJ o
a
ly value to
operations officers. Her sole shortcoming, if it can be termed that, is an
impatience and reluctance to comply with administrative procedures. (This
attitude may stem in part from an understandable identification with the
fortunes of her husband rather than with long-range career expectation. This
is cited only by way of explaining an occasionally casual attitude toward her
employment.) She is an otherwise sincere and enterprising employee. "
I call attention to the fact that took
exception to the above statement, and in an attachment to this Efficiency
RPnnr+ her c,,,.,,- --- ,
-
t
Y=
es
o 11 ake it a matter of
record that she does not consider her approach to Agency employment casual
or that it is affected by identification with her husband's future as a
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
well- established independent businessman. She attributes the impression
of casualness to her resentment of cumbersome and constantly changing
administrative minutiae. She expresses the hope of working for and being
identified with Agency aims in the future both in the United States and
abroad, wherever she may be located. In view of the fact that she has
expressed dissent with respect to the overall evaluation of her performance
here, I believe that her comments should be made part of this record.
There is no disagreement among
whom
Agency.
and
as to the specific weighting of performance levels. I do not
feel sufficiently familiar with the detailed factors of this matter to do other
rating. "
So, here we have an individual who did not sign a
Career Staff agreement. I think it's fair to assume that she was not asked to
or somebody thought it not necessary to ask her to. She certainly identifies
herself as being interested in her career with CIA as long as and whenever
this is possible for her. Maybe it's clear that she intends to move with her
husband, but barring this personal circumstance she intends to make the CIA
her career -- and, on the record, she did in fact serve some 22 years with
CIA either as a staff employee or, in the post-701 exercise, as a reserve
employee, who did in fact serve some 18 years overseas in many assignments
for the Agency, and who now has asked, on the basis of her record, to be
considered as a participant in the CIA Retirement System and then intends
The fact remains that we did hire this person
as a staff employee, having previously hired her under contracts, so we
evidently made a decision to give her status - - and we certainly were
knowledgeable about her personal circumstances and the limitations on her
career, but we nonetheless gave her career status. Later we removed her
from staff employee status and transferred her to reserve status, but keeping
SECRET
works, as to her being an able and useful member of the
There is some disagreement, more especially between
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
her in the same station, in a staff employee job, until her employment was
finally terminated by her return to the United States.
MR. WARNER: Is there any memoranda in her file as
to why she was given a reserve appointment in August 1962 ?
MR. ECHOLS: Not in memorandum form, but I can bring
witnesses in, however, who can tell you that when she was notified that she
would have to give up her staff status she resisted, and some months passed
before any action was cut. She was persuaded to do this by a representative
from the Division - a senior representative who went out there - and to do
so was in the best interest of the Agency, to conserve ceiling. And I might
add that contrary to the prescribed procedures for the 701 exercise she was
retained in the same job, in the same Directorate, in the same component in
the Agency -- which was flatly prohibited by the rules laid down in the 701
exercise. As you may recall, if a person was found surplus to his Career
Service the first effort of the Agency would be to find him a job somewhere
else. If this could not be done, then - and only then - would they be separated.
In her case no attempt was made to find her a job anywhere else in the Agency,
and she retained her status for a year or so. And this conversion to reserve
status was approved by the General Counsel. What he had in mind, I don't
know.
MR. ECHOLS:
What does a reserve appointment mean?
Reserve appointment, per se, means a
term employment for up to five years, but this can be renewed for additional
periods.
Was she working for us from 160 through
MR. ECHOLS: Yes -- same job.
MR. WARNER: Its a purely reserve appointment,
as distinguishing from staff employment. An indefinite appointment.
MR. ECHOLS: There was a change in her paper status,
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
her technical status, although she continued in the same duties, same job.
She could get Civil Service Retirement
credit under a reserve appointment?
MR. ECHOLS: Oh yes! During her entire period of
employment she has been under the Civil Service Retirement System. She
will be eligible for a deferred annuity some 10 years from now.
You mentioned she was contract in '55 and then we saw fit to give her status
by hiring her as staff. In a similar vein, in '62 we saw fit to change her
status and, in a sense, to take away some of it from her by the reserve
appointment.
But doesn't this go to the opposite--
MR. ECHOLS: Right.
rejoined the meeting
at this point . . . .
MR. ECHOLS: I think it's within the Director's power
to waive the technical deficiencies of this case and decide in favor of its
merit. Toward this end he desires the advice of the Board, bearing in
mind the errors, if you will, or the complications of these other two cases
we have just reviewed, and he wants our recommendation.
Can I just get a fill-in on the rest of it?
In '65 she resigned?
MR. ECHOLS: I left out one small part of this. She
was converted to a reserve employee in '62 for a three-year appointment.
I am told by that she was assured that this would be 25X1
renewed as long as she wanted to work. In October '65 she was converted
to contract employee for the express purpose of easing the ceiling problem.
And she agreed to do this. She lost no other rights in her contract -- all
rights were preserved that could be preserved for a contract employee,
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
including Civil Service retirement, FEGLI, and so on.
MR. ECHOLS: She is still under contract, because when
she came back she came in to see me on this retirement matter, and I
extended her contract on an LWOP basis just to keep her status in limbo,
if you will, until some decision was made. She is not working now.
Is she still working?
Do you make any Civil Service retirement points under a contract status?
MR. WARNER: She doesn't have any break in service.
What do you get under contract status?
worked since 1965 - had actually worked - she would be making points
under Civil Service--
MR. ECHOLS: Yes. And mind you, she only stopped
working in November of 1966. She was under contract from October 1965
to November or December of 1966.
As a contract employee if she had
And she hasn't worked at all since then?
MR. ECHOLS: No.
Have you read the basic papers
on this case?
No, I haven't seen the basic papers.
MR. ECHOLS: Her husband had a heart attack and
retired under disability.
MR. SEELY: So she is permanently in this country now?
MR. ECHOLS: I think the personal circumstances here
are relevant to the problem that the Director is faced with. This woman
has two young children by her elderly, incapacitated husband. He is very
ill, and she has to do everything -- she even mows the lawn. He cannot work
and is not working, and their income, as best the Agency can determine it,
is quite meager, and they're having a tough time getting along.
MR. WARNER: Well, the Board has a tough problem here,
Emmett, because the Board has said that the ase as a case was
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
handled improperly -- and to vote for this case, it's inconsistent. So the
Board has a problem in voting on this.
MR. SEELY: There is some difference between this case
-- -..sly, ill 1,11q,L -a- woman aid perform a large part of
25X1
her service before she became immobile. And also, was she ever asked
to sign a service agreement? Did she ever in fact refuse to sign it?
MR. ECHOLS: She has never been asked to sign one.
We didn't even know about the case until actually she had ceased working for
the Agency and was going to San Antonio, Texas to retire.
MR. SEELY: The case is open and shut -- I don't
have any trouble with this.
MR. WARNER: But again, it's the same situation, or
one can infer that it's the same situation, because they saw similarities
between the
MR. ECHOLS:
are these. One,
The differences between the two cases
self-disavowed career status and
reaffirmed her career intentions if it was possible -- and it proved to be
possible -- it did prove to be possible. So there is quite a marked difference
between the two cases in this respect.
possible"?
What do you mean by "it proved to be
MR. ECHOLS: She avowed in writing that it was her
intention to make CIA. her career --
Yes, as long as she was with her husband.
Well, the other woman maybe could have said the same thing but didn't think
it honest--
But I don't think this Board can deviate from that--
Now the Director can do whatever he pleases, but I think this Board has got
to be consistent in these cases.
She was honest.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
MR. ECHOLS: "Consistent" in what way,
Well, really, when you narrow it
down to the Regulation, as I see it, I don't see any difference in these cases.
I don't think that they could have served anywhere overseas. If we had
said, "Tomorrow you pack your bag - we need you in - I don't
think any one of these women would have gone. As as pointed out,
in a number of cases at the hearings before the Subcommittee we said that
there are going to be only a limited number of people that will get into this
System, and there is something very special about this limited number of
people: They have to go wherever we ask them to go, whenever we ask them
to go, and they have to work 24 hours a day -- they have to do all these things.
We built all of this up to show them there is a limited number that are going
to get into this System. And I think we would be breaking faith with the
Congress if we said: "Well, in this case the only thing was that she didn't
sign this agreement"-- or'ive made a mistake and we didn't get her to sign
this agreement"-- when we knew darn well that she was immobile and
wouldn't go anyplace.
and the people on the Career Council, as indicated in that paper that you
(indicating Mr. Echols) read, were thinking about this type of person as
being one of the very few eligibles.
Yet the people who were running the CS
Eligibles ? They were just so darn
glad to find somebody
have promised her the world.
defined the parameters of who would be part of our Career Staff and who
wouldn't, they were thinking in terms of this very type of individual as being
part of the Career Staff.
MR. ECHOLS: They said - We will not deny Career
Staff status to people because of marriage.
who would go to work that I think they would
No, the paper Emmett read that
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
25X1
25X1
but that doesn't mean you can retire them under the CIA Retirement Act --
I think there's a big difference there. Career status is one of the
qualifications to be a participant in the System, but that is only one quali-
fication to be a participant in the System -- they have to meet the other five
criteria, and one of them is that the person must be willing to go wherever
he is sent.
That's right, for Career Staff status,
MR. ECHOLS: With due regard to personal circumstances.
Yes.
MR. ECHOLS: And we know what those circumstances were--
stances were in the
I think if we had known what the circum-
]case I think we would have insisted in that
case that we get a service agreement from her--
We got one from
MR. ECHOLS: Now, does it mean any more, having
gotten it?
I don't know. What did we get from
MR. ECHOLS: A Form 3101 at the time of her designation.
Yes, when we put her into the System.
Well, but that was the case in which
we erred in not knowing all the facts in the case.
I do think you can't take the statement
of this pretty impressive Board (referring to the Career Council) out of
context. I can see in the case of a girl who served many tours overseas,
signed one of these statements, comes back here and gets married, and is
going to work at Headquarters -- I think they're saying that you don't
automatically take her out of the System.
MR. WARNER: That has nothing to do with this System --
it related only to Career Staff status. One of the types of cases considered
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
was this. Say somebody has a secretary who has worked for the Agency
for 10 years, and she has a husband who works downtown. Can she be in
the Career Service? The answer was yes. So that was the context.
as we try to move them somewhere. You have to look at each case. To
me these cases are a little different -- these people have been working at
their own convenience, and you can dress it up any way you want but their
employment is limited to that overseas post at which their husband is
located, and therefore this gives us, as management, no flexibility. They
can sign the statement or not sign the statement, I don't think it changes very
much.
And I'm saying that is true until such time
MR. ECHOLS: Aren't you over-stressing one of the
criteria for. eligibility, and that is availability and willingness to go anywhere
at anytime? The more important one of the criteria, in my opinion, is
the one that they must in fact serve a requisite period in this type of duty.
She not only served this requisite period but she served three times as much
such duty as the minimal requirement. Now are you going to deny the
factual record on the basis of this one criterion of availability?
A second point on this is that the law itself and our
Regulations clearly differentiate between the initial review of people and
a subsequent entrance of people into the System. The Board itself clearly
recognized the need to be more lenient in its initial review than in subsequent
years with new employees. Now, doesn't she fit perfectly into the case
of the initial review warranting more lenient standards? - the same standards
we have extended to other people we have put into the System, including
The only place where I think we were
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
lenient on the initial review was with those people who had done their 60
months -- but we never waived the mobility thing--
MR. ECHOLS: In practice we did. We approved people
who had since transferred out of the Clandestine Services and are working
elsewhere, and have no intention of going overseas again, and there is no
intent on the Agency's part to ever ask them to - - but if they signed the
Form 3101 we permitted them to get the benefits of their previous overseas
service -- which they had demonstrated - they had served overseas as we
asked them to.
Now, if this woman had had a Career Staff agreement
in her file, and if she had not as a result of that 701 exercise been converted
from career staff to reserve she would have routinely been put in and we
Do you support that,
I think so.
MR. ECHOLS: She would be just one of many who were
staff employees who already had 15 years' service, who already had more
than the 60 months overseas, and there was a Career Staff agreement in
her file -- she would have been in. But now you're saying "no" because
she is married and couldn't have served where we wanted her to serve. She
did serve where we wanted her to serve. She wasn't mobile, though.
never would have batted an eye.
How do you propose to distinguish this
case, then, from the cases that Roger is going to have coming up with his
MR. SEELY: I think one difference there is that these
people will be hired to work at home and all of their service will be there.
MR. ECHOLS: I think we have already agreed that there
will be differences with respect to our reviewing the old employees in the
initial designations and the new people in the future. And this is part of
the problem, as I said, we haven't spoken to yet. In our discussion of this
3101 the Board generally agreed that we might want to tighten up the
33
employees at this new location
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
examination of people with respect to their career intentions and get a
reaffirmation of their today's intentions at the time you're looking at them.
Now we haven't done that as yet. But I do think we have to look at new
designations differently than with this initial group.
what happened? -- she had 15 years, didn't she, when we did our initial
review?
I may be a little confused here, but
MR. ECHOLS: Yes, but she was not a staff employee so
an application wasn't even submitted.
But we did consider others who were
not staff employees.
MR. ECHOLS: No.
MR. WARNER: Emmett, do you have in the file there
the memorandum that Larry Houston prepared for the Director on this
case?
Not initially.
MR. ECHOLS: On this I would point out immediately
that even our present 3101, which was designed to meet this requirement,
does have that provision about personal circumstances. Does this mean
that that would have to come out of the agreement, that we would have to
delete that, or change it so that there is an unequivocal commitment on
the part of the individuals?
MR. WARNER: It means everything humanly
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
sick now, or your mother is ill, so we won't call upon you to go today" --
we think only in terms of this one person -- "but six months from now we
will ask you to go overseas if your mother is feeling better. " That does
not take her out of a Career Service that is normally requiring the
performance of qualifying service.
MR. ECHOLS: Then do we want to say "personal
circumstances excluding marriage to a local businessman"?
It's like saying, "We know you are
You don't waive it forever -
e have people who say, "I have asthma,
25X1
so don't send me to a damp climate. "
MR. ECHOLS: said she would serve
anywhere in the world--
MR. ECHOLS: Well, it was prior to that, I believe,
if it fit in with her personal situation.
In 1965.
whether she signed the statement or didn't sign the statement, but, rather,
that she could not in good faith sign the statement -- because I do think that
is the point.
I'm glad we are not quibbling with
thing is based on that assumption that she could not in good conscience
have signed it. I say I don't know whether she would or wouldn't. I
think that is the correct assumption.
Who said this?
I'm saying this.
That is an assumption. That whole
that she would serve anywhere her husband --
Isn't there a statement in her file
(Reading) "If you will accept appointment
35
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
in certain locations only, specify locations. " Her answer was: "Where
That is pretty definite.
I think when you are asked to take into consideration
the personal circumstances of an individual, it doesn't mean that you do it
forever -- I mean, you just don't waive a Regulation forever - as you
would be doing in this case of this woman. If she were here and she was
ill, or her mother was ill, I can see where for the time being you would
waive it -- you're taking into consideration the personal circumstances --
or I can think of a dozen other reasons why for a time you would waive it,
for a time, but you don't waive it forever, and that, I think, is what you are
doing in this case.
MR. ECHOLS: what is the purpose of our
Retirement System? I think one purpose is to reward people for having
served for the Agency in these parts of the world and in these fields of
work. Another purpose is to have an inducement to get people to serve
as the Agency needs them to serve. There is no question but that this
individual did serve in all kinds of fields of work, including behind the
Iron Curtain, in her total career. She did, in terms of her service to the
U. S. Government, did do exactly what our System was designed to do, and
there's no question but that she "earned", in this sense, the benefits of
this System -- and there is no question but that she served where we
wanted her to serve--
MR. ECHOLS: Now, would you deny the record of
service in this specific case because of a technicality, or because of the
future administration of this System?
As long as she was able to.
I don't think that is a technicality
that you can waive forever.
MR. ECHOLS: We are only asked to rule on this
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
particular case. This doesn't set a precedent for all future cases.
pretty considerably when you say her husband is ill and isn't working and
that they have two small children-
MR. MR. ECHOLS: That should be irrelevant--
No, but you change the facts
MR. ECHOLS: She is a full-time housewife,
nursemaid, mother, lawn mower--
She is not now working?
that if her husband was a $50, 000 a year businessman today, I don't think
we would be upset about this -- but it's bound to affect all of us--
And, Emmett, I think we would all agree
Her age is 51?
She will be 51 in October.
Total years of service?
MR. ECHOLS: Twenty two.
then she has the option of retirement--
MR. ECHOLS: Yes, immediate option--
If you approve her under our System
if she is not admitted to this System then she has the deferred Civil Service
annuity.
She has some benefit, then -- whereas
MR. ECHOLS: Yes, some 10 or 12 years hence.
We know it's very critical to her --
which hurts, in this case.
MR. ECHOLS: Well, I don't know that I can really
add anything more to this case. Apparently it's within the power of
the Director to say yes or no. If we were to say "yes", is it going to
do damage to the administration of the System? is it going to jeopardize
our relationships with Congress, if Congress ever found out about it?
The more important point, really, if we put this woman in might we have
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
to put 50 or more others in? The only cases we could turn up were
The case conveniently 25X1
resolved itself by her refusal to accept Career status and by her
subsequent resignation.
and I'm speaking only for myself - I don't know if anybody buys this --
in a sense saying that technically we can't see that she meets the require-
ments for designation but that we would urge the utilization of any other
channels available to the Director to give her this benefit. Sort of
saying guilty but recommend leniency to the Judge.
MR. ECHOLS: How many would endorse such a
I would like to be party to a vote - -
recommendation?
MR. SEELY: I'd make it simpler than that -- just a
simple expression of whether or not we favor her admittance to the
System.
MR. ECHOLS: How many would favor her admittance
to the System?
. . . Messrs. Seely,
and Echols indicated
they favored the designation of s a 25X1
participant in the CIA Retirement System . . .
MR. ECHOLS: How many oppose this designation?
indicated they
opposed the designation of as a 25X1
participant in the CIA Retirement System . . .
MR. WARNER: I'll ride with Mr. Houston's
opinion.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECKEI
MR. ECHOLS: Our legal adviser rides with Mr.
Houston's opinion, which makes it permissible to the Director, but not,
in his best judgment, advisable.
Well, I guess that is where it stands -- and I'll go
forward accordingly.
I would just like to make a statement
as to my reason for voting for admission to the System, and that is
because in the initial considerations I feel assumptions in terms of human
motivation run in favor of the applicant, not against the applicant, as the
General Counsel there has indicated.
I'm not sure that I follow you there.
Not guilty until proven guilty -- is
that what you were indicating, Gerry?
proof here that indicates--
go beneath the facts.
Yes.
Well, you know, we do have a little
Well, I'm sorry, but I would have to
This doesn't relate, in any shape or
manner, to any retirement question -- and I don't know whether this
would even be admissible evidence--
Yes, but one of the things I did mention
was that, to me, if she signed the statement I wouldn't consider it a
valid statement.
MR. ECHOLS: I think if we asked her today, "Would
you please sign the Form 3101 in order to qualify for this retirement" -
she would sign it, and I think she could do it in good faith, knowing that
she had indeed served during this period.
I think what as speaking to was this
statement by Mr. Houston: "She was probably never asked to sign the
written obligation referred to above, and probably never refused to sign
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
such an obligation." And then he says, "In
ever, the record is clear that she could not in good conscience have signed
such an agreement. "
That is the assumption that runs
against her interests.
though -- there is some evidence to hang his hat on.
He's pointing out some evidence,
I don't know but what there is just as
much reason to believe, from what
has said -- and he talked
to the supervisors of this girl -- in every way, shape, and manner she
conducted herself as a staff employee - - in working overtime and in
every other way she was part of the team, part of the staff.
Now, you say she never would have gone else-
where. How do you know? And what are the assumptions under which
you would have asked her to go somewhere?
her to leave her husband and family.
You couldn't -- nobody would even ask
tour in Saigon, if the present situation in Saigon had existed then, maybe
she would have taken it. That is why I say the assumptions run in her
favor.
Maybe if you had asked her to take a
MR. ECHOLS: (Reading) "She expresses the hope
of working for and being identified with KUBARK aims in the future both
,__ TT___t_ , r.
t
Okay, I guess that winds it up.
Now, if I can have just one more minute of your
time to say something about legislation. Bills, proposals, and so on,
pop up for amending or improving the Civil Service Retirement System,
and these things come up awfully fast, and the Agency might be called
upon to very quickly express its interest or disinterest in the legislation --
__ ... ~~~~ allay uC lvcazea. , ,
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
and, more specifically, if it's the Civil Service Retirement System and
it involves some interrelationships between it and the other retirement
systems, we might have to speak very fast as to whether we want this
to apply to the CIA Retirement System or not.
I know we have previously said we wanted to confer
with the Board on the future of our System, where we go, and where we
think improvements are necessary -- and, indeed, I think that is the major
part of our responsibility, to keep our System up to date and improve it
as required. But in this particular field where the initiative for
improvements or changes is generated elsewhere, John Warner and I
find that we might have to move so fast that we can't sit down with the
Board and explain all of the ramifications of some proposal that may be
up and have all of us think it all out before we decide to move. And
because, after all, legislation is sort of a protracted procedure, we
wanted to know whether in this case where there was a need to move fast
would it be agreeable to the Board if we collectively used our own
judgment on specific measures and began to take steps which would
keep us up to date, and give you periodic reports on any such things
which might come up.
MR. WARNER: I'd like to give you a specific example
of this -- because since the last time you and I talked, Emmett, we did
have to move. There has been, long standing, a proposal to give
Social Security benefits to those people that have less than five years of
service, and some other benefits; in other words, it's an improvement
that will give Civil Service people benefits that they don't have today - -
because if a guy has less than five years' service under Civil Service,
our system doesn't give him anything. So the proposal takes the form
of amendments to the Social Security Act -- there's to be a general
overhauling of the Social Security Act. The Bill is 169 pages long.
The first draft of it did provide for Civil Service people and for Foreign
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
SECRET
Service people. We have talked to the staff up there -- and this is in
House Ways and Means -- and they have discussed it with Chairman Mills,
and Mills is all in favor of including the Agency Retirement System in
this same sort of an up-dating -- because the principles are absolutely
the same. Well, they're going to mark up next week, so we have had
to move right in on this. I have talked to the Director about it and
indicated what we are doing. So we're going ahead -- and the staffs up
there are in fact working out the amendments. So here is a good example
of this. It costs us nothing but gives us something.
MR. WARNER: With less than five years there is,
in effect, a transfer of credit to Social Security.
How would this apply to our System?
CIA or to the CIA. Retirement System--
MR. WARNER: Less than five years' Government
With reference specifically to the
System they have already had five years with the Agency -- this is, for
practical purposes, our rule.
Before we take them into the CIA
MR. WARNER: But under the law we can bring them
in earlier -- and if we change our regulations on career we could bring
them in, really, in a year, if we wanted to.
That is our practice.
MR. WARNER: We might want to. I'm not saying
we should. But this is additional protection.
You're changing the rules then.
a person had less than five years and quit the Government he would have
to take out his retirement deductions. Now if he is in the Government
for three years he can leave it in until what age? 62?
Under the Civil Service System if
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5
;SECRET
He transfers to Social Security and
gets 12 quarters of coverage.
MR. ECHOLS: Does he get a partial refund?
MR. WARNER: Yes. In effect his refund has
subtracted from it the equivalent amount he would have paid in, plus
the Government's contribution.
MR. ECHOLS: The point in bringing this up is that
John and I felt if we needed to move fast we wouldn't have to call an
emergency session of the Board. But we will keep you informed.
MR. WARNER: I think this takes 20 amendments to
this 169 page Bill to do it.
. . . The meeting adjourned at 4:00 o'clock . . .
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP78-03092A000400050004-5