Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[104-10195-10002.pdf — page 97]
# SECRETFITNESS REPORTSECTION A1. NAME   CASASIN, Thomas B.2. DATE OF BIRTH 3. SEX   20 Jan 24 N8. OFFICIAL POSITION TITLE   Ops Off9. CHECK (X)-TYPE OF APPOINTMENT   XCAREER11. DATE REPORT OUF IN O.P.    31 May 1971GENERAL6. GRADE   GS-157. OFF/DIV OR OF ASSIONMENT 8. CURRENT STATION   DDP/EUR Paris12. REPORTING PERIOD (From 20-1    1 April 1970 to 31 March 1971SECTION B PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONU-Unsatisfactory Performance is unacceptable. A rating in this category requires immediate and positive remedial action. The nature of the action could range from counseling, to further training, 'to placing on probation, to reassigriment or to separation. Describe action taken or proposed in Sechon C.M-Marginal Performance is deñcient in some aspects. The reasons for assigning this rating should be stated in Section C and remedial actions taken or recommended should be described.P-Proficient Performance is satisfactory. Desired results are being produced in the manner expected.S-Strong Performance is characterized by exceptional proficiency.O-Outstanding Performance is so exceptional in relation to requirements of the work and in compar son to the performance of others doing smudar work as to wariant special recognition.SPECIFIC DUTIESList up to six of the most important specific duties performed during the rating period. "Insert rating letter which best describes the manner in which employee performs EACH specific duty. Consider ONLY offectiveness in performance of that duty. All employees with supervisory responsibilities MUST be rated on their ability to supervise (indicate number of employees supervised)."bathed full-time employment as a senior executive of a foreign scientific publication for the purpose of further developing access to station targets and appreciably lowering the overall cost of the operations in wich ho lo lnvolved.Uses his cover to gain access to NHHARSH personnel and spot leado on eventual access and support-type assete directed against the local MUHARSH and TPFAST targets.Develops and assesses KHHARSH officials with whom he has made contact as well as access prospects to the local MHHARSH and TPFAST targets.Responds to various Stacion requirements including investigative work.Reports on the above activities.OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN CURRENT POSITIONTake into account everything about the employee which influences his effectiveness in is current position such as por- formance of specific duties, productivity, conduct on job, cooperativeness, pertinent personal waits or habits, and particular limitations or talents. Based on your knowledge of employee's overall performance during the rating period, place the letter in the rating box corresponding to the statement which most accurately reflects his level of performance.
[104-10195-10002.pdf — page 99]
SECRETFITNESS REPORTSection C (continued)to the development of human relations. His forte is therefore more in the field of spotting and making oporational contacts than in that of more than short-range operational development. Subject's operational situation makes it impossible for him to attempt recruitments. Thus, his very real achievements are not by essence of the spectacular variety.Subject's reporting has been satisfactory and continue to be copious. He could, however, further improve the selectivity of the leads provided the Station and make more of an effort to "digest" the information contained in his reports.Although Subject has, at present, no supervisory function, he has repeatedly requested such a responsibility. He is careful with operational expenses and has exercised good security.During the period under review, additional efforts have been made to make full use of Subject's potential and integrate him further in the work of the station component with which he works. He is a particularly valuable asset for the Station programs directed against the local MHHARSH and TPFAST targets.Section D (continued)substantial. In a word, is it worth it? We do not yet know, although our initial inpressions are favorable.On the fitness report itself, this rater would have preferred an "8" rating for specific duty number one; Subject may ultimately deserve an "0", but it does not seem warranted at the present time.. Moreover, I believe the overall rating would more properly have been in the higher range of the "P" category, rather than "s", but it is of course a subjective judgment of the rating officer, who is more intimately and directly involved with Subject on a frequent basis.In sum, the cover is superb, and only time will reveal to what extent the cover requirements permit a full measure on be-half of the Organization. We are following this aspect closely and will be commenting upon it subsequently as we gain experience and knowledge.SECRET
[104-10195-10002.pdf — page 102]
SECRETSection D3 continuedfrom the Organization, his continued presence at this Station definitely appears to be warranted for a sufficient period to reach more definite conclusions concerning the level of sustained performance over a somewhat longer period than that reflected by this report.On balance, we are pleased that this officer has responded so well to greater case officer direction and that he has undertaken somewhat more aggressive efforts to expand his range of contacts in immediate proximity to the primary Station targets. This officer does bring many talents to bear on his operational activity: he has absolutely Quent French, a solid and exploitable cover, and a vast range of contacts in the local community. Nonetheless, it will require additional time to explore these contacts In depth, select those which appear to be operationally viable, and pursue them actively either to the point of recruitment by another officer or elimina- tion from further development, for whatever reason.In sum, in spite of the recognised and commmendable improvement in this officer's performance during the period under review, the reviewer submits that the letter grade for specific duties 2 and 4 would more properly have been a "P", and that the overall rating, at this point, would more accurately be set at a leval between "P" and "S", probably closer to the former than the latter.This reviewing comment has been read by the officers who prepared the Fitness Report.SECRET
[104-10195-10002.pdf — page 103]
# SECRET# FITNESS REPORT## GENERAL**1. NAME**CABASIN, Thomas B**2. DATE OF BIRTH** 3. SEX30 Jan 1924 M**4. GRADE**08-15**5. ID**006102**6. OFFICIAL POSITION TITLE**Opa Officer**7. OFF/DIV/BR OF ASSIGNMENT**EDP/EUR/France**8. CURRENT STATION**Paris**9. CHECK (X) TYPE OF APPOINTMENT**CAREER**10: CHECK (X) TYPE OF REPORT**INITIAL**12. REPORTING PERIOD**October 1968 - 31 March 1969## PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONW- Weak: Performance ranges from wholly inadequate to slightly less than satisfactory. A rating in this category requires positive remedial action. The nature of the action could range from counseling, to further training, to placing on probation, to reassignment or to separation.A- Adequate: Performance meets all requirements. It is entirely satisfactory and is characterized neither by deficiency nor excellence.P- Proficient: Performance is more than satisfactory. Desired results are being produced in a proficient manner.S- Strong: Performance is characterized by exceptional proficiency.O- Outstanding: Performance is so exceptional in relation to requirements of the work and in comparison to the performance of others doing similar work as to warrant special recognition.## SPECIFIC DUTIESList up to six of the most important specific duties performed during the rating period. Insert rating letter which best describes the manner in which employee performs EACH specific duty. Consider ONLY effectiveness in performance of that duty. All employees with supervisory responsibilities MUST be rated on their ability to supervise (indicate number of employees supervised).**SPECIFIC DUTY NO. 1**Establishes and maintains a legitimate S&T publishing representation for the purpose of developing natural access to station targets.RATING LETTERS**SPECIFIC DUTY NO. 2**Develops cover pretexts to meet WOLADY and third national of operational interest in the S&T community.RATING LETTERS**SPECIFIC DUTY NO. 3**Responds to station ad-hoc requirements on the local internal target.RATING LETTERS**SPECIFIC DUTY NO. 4**Develops potential agent prospects in the S&T community to the point where they can be recommended as station agent candidates.RATING LETTERP**SPECIFIC DUTY NO. 5**RATING LETTER**SPECIFIC DUTY NO. 6**RATING LETTER## OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN CURRENT POSITIONTake into account everything about the employee which influences his effectiveness in his current position such as performance of specific duties, productivity, conduct on job, cooperativeness, pertinent personal traits or habits, and particular limitations or talents. Based on your knowledge of employee's overall performance during the rating period, place the letter in the rating box corresponding to the statement which most accurately reflects his level of performance.RATING LETTERBFORM 45 OBSOLETE PREVIOUS EDITIONS.
[104-10195-10002.pdf — page 104]
SECRET# SECTION CNARRATIVE COMMENTSIndicate significant strengths or weaknesses demonstrated in current position keeping in proper perspective the relationship to overall performance. State suggestions made for improvement of work performance. Give recommendations for warning. 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 must be described, if applicable.During this reporting period subject had very markedly increased the tempo of his activities and contacts. Many agent prospects have been screened and contacts were established with people of interest to several elements of the Station. Subject is particularly thorough and outstanding on specific investigations where he utilized cover in a skillful and imaginative way. He has improved in terms of people development but in this respect he is still best with people in a professionally related context rather than a contrived social context. As mentioned in the previous report subject's cover assignment does not allow him to make recruitments. Subject has a high degree of cost consciousness and does not exercise any supervisory responsibilities.# SECTION D1. | DATE         | CERTIFICATION AND COMMENTS BY EMPLOYEE                         || ------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------- || 11 June 1969 | I CERTIFY THAT I HAVE SEEN SECTIONS A, B, AND C OF THIS REPORT ||              | SIGNATURE OF EMPLOYEE                                          ||              | /s/ Thomas B. CASASIN                                          |2. | MONTHS EMPLOYEE HAS BEEN UNDER MY SUPERVISION | BY SUPERVISOR                                                   || --------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------- ||                                               | IF THIS REPORT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO EMPLOYEE, GIVE EXPLANATION || DATE        | OFFICIAL TITLE OF SUPERVISOR | TYPED OR PRINTED NAME AND SIGNATURE || ----------- | ---------------------------- | ----------------------------------- || 5 June 1969 | Ops Officer                  | /s/ Murat Natirboff                 |3. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING OFFICIALI do not concur in this rating. I would have given the employee STRONG in the performance of his cover responsibilities, that is to say in the manner in which he has created and expanded his cover. I would have restricted myself to PROFICIENT, however, in assessing his exploitation of that cover for operational purposes. For a fuller treatment of this staff agent's performance, suggest that reference be made to the BOC Status Report, submitted 26 May 1969, via OFPA-89925.| DATE         | OFFICIAL TITLE OF REVIEWING OFFICIAL | TYPED OR PRINTED NAME AND SIGNATURE || ------------ | ------------------------------------ | ----------------------------------- || 23 JUNE 1969 | Chief of Station                     | /s/ David KE. Murphy                |SECRET
[104-10195-10002.pdf — page 105]
# SECRET(When Filled In)FITNESS REPORT## SECTION A**GENERAL**1. NAMECASASIN(Last)Thomas B.(First) (Middle)2. DATE OF BIRTH 3. SEX20 Jan 1924 M4. GRADE 5. SOOGC102EMPLOYEE SERIAL NUMBER6. OFFICIAL POSITION TITLEOpe-Officer7. OFF/DIV/BR OF ASSIGNMENT & CURRENT STATIONDDP/EUR/EXOPParisCHECK A TYPE OF APPOINTMENTCAREER RESERVE TEMPORARYCAREER-PROVISIONAL (See instructions Section C)SPECIAL (Specify):8. TYPE OF REPORTINITIAL REASSIGNMENT SUPERVISORANNUAL RASSIGNMENT EMPLOYEESPECIAL (Specify):11. DATE REPORT DUE IN O.P.12. REPORTING PERIOD (From to)1 April 1967 - 31 March 1968## SECTION B**PERFORMANCE EVALUATION**W - Weak Performance ranges from wholly inadequate to slightly less than satisfactory. A rating in this category requires positive remedial action. The nature of the action could range from counseling, to further training, to placing on probation, to reassignment or to separation. Describe action taken or proposed in Section C.A - Adequate Performance meets all requirements. It is entirely satisfactory and is characterized neither by deficiency nor excellence.P - Proficient Performance is more than satisfactory. Desired results are being produced in a proficient manner.S - Strong Performance is characterized by exceptional proficiency.O - Outstanding Performance is so exceptional in relation to requirements of the work and in comparison to the performance of others doing similar work as to warrant special recognition.**SPECIFIC DUTIES**List up to six of the most important specific duties performed during the rating period. Insert rating letter which best describes the manner in which employee performs EACH specific duty. Consider ONLY effectiveness in performance of that duty. All employees with supervisory responsibilities MUST be rated on their ability to supervise (indicate number of employees supervised).SPECIFIC DUTY NO. 1Establishes and maintains a legitimate S&T publishing representation, for the purpose of developing natural access to Station targets.RATINGLETTERSSPECIFIC DUTY NO. 2Develops cover pretexts to meet WOLADY and third national of operational interest in the S&T community.RATINGLETTERSSPECIFIC DUTY NO. 3Responds to Station ad-hoc requirements on the local internal target,RATINGLETTERSSPECIFIC DUTY NO. 4Develops potential agent prospects in the S&T community to the point where they can be recommended as Station agent candidates.RATINGLETTERPSPECIFIC DUTY NO. 5RATINGLETTERSPECIFIC DUTY NO. 6RATINGLETTER**OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN CURRENT POSITION**Take into account everything about the employee which influences his effectiveness in his current position such as performance of specific duties, productivity, conduct on job, cooperativeness, pertinent personal traits or habits, and particular limitations or talents. Based on your knowledge of employee's overall performance during the rating period, place the letter in the rating box corresponding to the statement which most accurately reflects his level of performance.RATINGLETTERSFORM 454-62OBSOLETE PREVIOUS EDITIONS.SECRET
[104-10195-10002.pdf — page 106]
# SECRET(Filled In)## SECTION C NARRATIVE 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 basis for determining future personnel action. Manner of performance of managerial or supervisery duties must be described, if applicable.Since the last reporting period Subject's efforts were directed by the station toward the spotting, developing and assessing WOLADY S&T agent candidates in terms of recruitment and inclusion in the Station's S&T spotting network.Subject has done thorough and at times imaginative spade work in this field despite the fact that the mission was not as successful as anticipated. Recent progress however would indicate that the next reporting period would be more productive.Subject continues to respond to ad-hoc specific assignments in an exemplary manner.Because of the nature of his cover assignment Subject is not authorized to make recruitments.Subject has a high degree of cost consciousness. He does not exercise any supervisory responsibilities under his cover assignment.## SECTION D CERTIFICATION AND COMMENTS1. BY EMPLOYEEI CERTIFY THAT I HAVE SEEN SECTIONS A, B, AND C OF THIS REPORT| DATE         | SIGNATURE OF EMPLOYEE || ------------ | --------------------- || 24 Oct. 1968 | /s/ Thomas B. CASASIN |2. BY SUPERVISOR| MONTHS EMPLOYEE HAS BEEN UNDER MY SUPERVISION | IF THIS REPORT NAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO EMPLOYEE, GIVE EXPLANATION || --------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------- || DATE         | OFFICIAL TITLE OF SUPERVISOR | TYPED OR PRINTED NAME AND SIGNATURE || ------------ | ---------------------------- | ----------------------------------- || 22 Oct. 1968 | Opu Officer                  | /s/ Murat Matirbor.                 |1. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING OFFICIALSee attached.| DATE | OFFICIAL TITLE OF REVIEWING OFFICIAL | TYPED OR PRINTED NAME AND SIGNATURE || ---- | ------------------------------------ | ----------------------------------- ||      | Chief ofStation                      | /s/ David E. Murphy                 |SECRET
[104-10195-10002.pdf — page 107]
SECRET3. It is difficult to place in the proper perspective the contribution of this senior staff agent to Paris Station operations. On the one hand, Subject has established superb cover in the scientific and technical field which should have afforded him virtually unlimited access to persons of interest to us, both Soviet and potential access agents. In evaluating the manner in which the employee set up and managed this cover, I would tend to agree with his comments to the fitness report on the demands on him although these comments are somewhat overdrawn.The principal difficulty has been the time it has taken to relate the cover potential to the specific operational requirements of the Station. We have not received from CASASIN as leads and assessment reports to persons of operational interest in the s&f field as we think he could have produced. It may be that the earlier listing of the project (viewed as a regional undertaking) contributed to this.Recently we have noted significant improvement in that we have received responses to requests we have made for assessment and development of potential access agents within a cover context. We hope, therefore, that this last year of CASASIN's stay will be the most productive ever. It is unfortunate that the cover must end because of the cover company's decisions over which we had no control./s/ David E. Murphy
[104-10195-10002.pdf — page 108]
# SECRETADDENDLY, Form 45 (Fitness Report), for period March 67-March 63.## Section DAs the individual being rated, I would like to add some remarks to those prepared by the rating officer.The assignment I have includes managerial responsibilities which (a) are essential to the continued existence and security of the cover mechanism as a vehicle for operational exploitation, and (b) are not necessarily visible to those "on the insido."In the case of (a), I must engage in a constant orchestration of the cover and the facilities it offers. This means maintaining a managerial equilibrium to insure that cover work will not beecme, of itself, so deranding that it negates the cover's utility to the CS. Caerfect, the top officers and riddle managers of the cover corporation (who are not cleared and wisting) have to be satisfied that their demands are met (or cannot be), or else manipulated in order to neutralize or reject their demands. After all, the cover position is to them a legitimate, normal, workaday post in their firm. What work is done at their bidding, it follows, must be accomplished according to the high standards of thoroughness and accuracy which they have set.In the case of (b) -- which derives from (a) -- and can prove to be so demanding that the needs of the CS could no longer be served, the incumbent is required to manage a span of human contacts at several levels in order to preserve his cover position and enhance its value to the CS. This means planning, directing and managing the work of multinational, multicultural teams of technical correspondents, as well as meetings and negotiations to improve the (cover firm's) relations with similarly widespread individuals at the levels of editor-in-chief, publisher, corporate vice-president, president, and chairman of the board. These levels are scattered not only throw industry, bus have their analogs as well in government, higher education, and professional societies.Having previously managed both a CS base and the principal denied-areas operating component of a major field Station, I can report quite honestly that my present managerial responsibilities exceed the former -- despite the apparent lack of "supervisory responsibilities" in my present position.