[104-10194-10019.pdf — page 87]
# SECTION CNARRATIVE COMMENTSIndicate significant strengths or weaknesses demonstrated in current position keeping in proper perspective their relationship to overall performance. State suggestions made for improvement of work performance. Give recommendations for training. Comment on foreign language competence, if required for current position. Amplify or explain ratings given in Section B to provide best basis for determining future personnel action. Manner of performance of managerial or supervisory duties and cost consciousness in the use of personnel, space, equipment and funds, must be commented on, if applicable. If extra space is needed to complete Section C, attach a separate sheet of paper.The comments of the rating officer are limited to the period from October 1969 to March 1970 during which he worked with Subject. The previous rating officer has added his comments to allow coverage of the total indicated period from April 1969 to March 1970. During this period Subject was integrated in a new team assigned to the local SST and Commercial target. Subject's recent activity has been very productive indeed. Subject used the excellent potential given to him by his cover to skillfully spot and assess access agent candidates. As Subject's operational situation in Paris precludes making recruitment, the most promising of these candidates was placed in contact with a Station officer during social events Subject organized. At the same time, Subject continued his efforts to develop personal rela- tionship with several MARSHers. The beginning of personal, as opposed to purely professional, relations with a major MARSH target enabled him to obtain insight into the target's beliefs and personality which was the best the Station had to date. Subject also managed to establish contact with two other MHARSH representatives of interest. This, in one case, required almost six months to accomplish via a combina- tion of patience, skill and determination. Subject is an experienced officer, lie is cost conscious and practices good security. The Station has no other asset with the necessary scientific and editorial know-how, fluent French and local knowledge to replace Subject. In view of this and the recent progress made by Subject la response to very specific requirements and his willingness to try to establish per- sonal and, hopefully, social relations with access prospects and MHARSH targets, the Station recently recommended that he be extended in Paris, At the same tire, Station recommended that Subject's cover be reinforced by full-time employment with Subject's current HOLADY part-time employer.# SECTION D1. CERTIFICATION AND COMMENTSBY EMPLOYEEI CERTIFY THAT I HAVE SEEN SECTIONS A, B, AND C OF THIS REPORTSIGNATURE/s/2. BY SUPERVISORMONTHS EMPLOYEE HAS BEENUNDER MY SUPERVISIONIF THIS REPORT MAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO EMPLOYEE, GIVE EXPLANATIONDATEOFFICIAL TITLE OF SUPERVISORHandling OfficerChief, SR IITYPED OR PRINTED NAME AND SIGNATURE/s/ Francis Sherry/s/ Murat Natirboff3. BY REVIEWING OFFICIALCOMMENTS OF REVIEWING OFFICIALAs previous Station correspondence and fitness reports will reflect, this officer has been the subject of varying evaluations and projections in recent years. In fairness to him, however, it is equally true that an officer under non-official cover reflects, in the level and quality of his performance, the amount and type of guidance, direction and push he receives from the responsible inside case officer. Making allowances for these variables, this officer's past record has not been impressive; however, it is also correct to note that he has improved sub- stantially during the latter part of the period under review, and that is the Station can work out some fiscal arrangement which will reduce the heavy financial inputDATEOFFICIAL TITLE OF REVIEWING OFFICIALTYPED OR PRINTED NAME AND SIGNATURE19 May 1970DCOS/s/ Hugh MontgomerySECRET