Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1505965
label
Board - Minutes
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1505965
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Board - Minutes
citationUrl
collections
Charles E. Goodell Papers
Presidential Clemency Board Subject Files
subjects
President (1974-1977 : Ford). Presidential Clemency Board. 9/16/1974-9/15/1975
Amnesty
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1505965
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-09-30
month
9
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1974-10-01
month
10
year
1974
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
686e07aa75e24531
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 1, folder "Board - Minutes" of the Charles E.
Goodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Charles Goodell donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 1 of the Charles E. Goodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
AGENDA
1. General Discussion
2. Disposition of Cases
GERALD
FORD LIBRARY
THE PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
OLD EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
BOARD MEMBERS
PHONE: (202) 456-6476
Charles E. Goodell, Chairman
Ralph W. Adams
James P. Dougovito
Robert H. Finch
Theodore M. Hesburgh. C.S.C.
MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 30, 1974 MEETING
Vernon E. Jordan
James A. Maye
OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
Aida Casanas O Connor
Lewis W. Walt
Chairman Charles E. Goodell called the meeting to order at
9:00 A.M. Present were Mr. Maye, General Walt, Mrs. O'Connor,
Mr. Dougovito, Rev. Hesburgh, and Dr. Adams. Absent were
Secretary Finch and Mr. Jordan.
Mr. Baskir presented a detailed legal memorandum evaluating the
due process requirement of the Board. A procedure was adopted for
staff presentations and recommendations to the Board.
The Board received a report concerning the number of inquiries
made and the number of applications dispatched and returned.
The Board discussed what information should be included in the
summaries. The Board implicitly agreed to permit the inclusion of
race and I.Q. in the summaries. For the present, records of arrest
will also be included in the summaries. It was agreed that mitigating
factors and aggravating factors are not to be segregated from each other.
While the Board reaffirmed its previous policy of not soliciting ap-
plications, the staff attorneys were instructed to contact each civilian
furloughed by the Bureau of Prisons and seek information concerning
what course of action he will take regarding his application to the
Board for clemency.
The Board considered twenty-one (21) cases heretofore not reviewed.
The Board went into two executive sessions, one in the late morning
and one in the middle afternoon.
The Board agreed to meet again on Thursday, November 7; 1974.
THE PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
OLD EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
BOARD MEMBERS
PHONE: (202) 456-6176
Charles E. Goodell. Chairman
Ralph W. Adams
James P. Dougovito
Robert H. Finch
Theodore M. Hesburgh. C.S.C.
Vernon E. Jordan
James A. Maye
Aida Casanas O Connor
Lewis W. Walt
MEMORANDUM FOR:
CHARLES E. GOODELL
FROM:
ROBERT J. HORN
RHA2
DATE:
NOVEMBER 7, 1974
SUBJECT:
TENTATIVE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE
BOARD ON OCTOBER 30, 1974
The attached listing is designed to officially record the tentative actions
taken with respect to specific cases. These tentative decisions were
reached by the Board on October 30, 1974. when an appropriate quorum
was always present. Only Secretary Finch and Mr. Jordan were absent.
The following decisions reached by the Presidential Clemency Board
on October 29, 1974 are tentative. It is expected that final decisions will
be made by the Board when applicants have the opportunity to review their
files and furnish whatever additional information they deem appropriate:
Case #
Tentative Board
Date
Decision
74-092-TML-C
Clemency
10/30/74
*74-064-MPX-C
Tabled
10/30/74
74-067-MLT-C
Clemency
10/30/74
74-070-MJM-C
Clemency
10/30/74
74-075-PEV-C
Clemency
10/30/74
74-076-PSB-C
Clemency
10/30/74
74-077-PVFL-C
Clemency
10/30/74
74-081-SCI-C
Clemency
10/30/74
74-084 SWC_C
Clemency
10/30/74
74-085-SM-C
Clemency
10/30/74
74-087-SHE-C
Clemency
10/30/74
74-088-SRD-C
Clemency
10/30/74
74-090-TRC-C
Clemency
10/30/74
74-093-WIN-C
Clemency
10/30/74
74-095-WVT-C
Clemency
10/30/74
74-096-WMC-C
Clemency
10/30/74
74-097-WAL-C
Clemency
10/30/74
74-098-WAB-C
Clemency
10/30/74
74-101-WXM-C
Clemency
10/30/74
74-103-WS-C
Tabled
10/30/74
74-104-YFE-C
Clemency
10/30/74
*Staff directed not to initiate any new contacts.
THE PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
OLD EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
BOARD MEMBERS
PHONE: (202) 456-6476
Charles E. Goodell. Chairman
Ralph W. Adams
James P. Dougovito
Robert H. Finch
Theodore M. Hesburgh. C.S.C.
Vernon E. Jordan
James A. Maye
Aida Casanas O'Connor
Lewis W. Walt
October 29, 1974
MEMORANDUM TO:
Presidential Clemency Board
FROM:
Thomas O'Hare
SUBJECT:
Youth Correction Act and
Other Federal Sentencing
Alternatives
Federal Youth Correction Act
The Youth Correction Act provides that the trial judge may
sentence youthful offenders, aged 18 through 21, at time of
conviction to the custody of the Attorney-General. Under
such custody, the offender will receive treatment, corrective
and preventive guidance and training which is designed to
protect the public by correcting their antisocial tendencies.
Offenders, aged 22 through 25 at time of conviction, may be
given similar treatment as Young Adult Offenders.
Under the Act, the court may impose one of the following
sentences:
1. Grant probation by suspending imposition or execution
of the sentence.
2. Impose, in lieu of imprisonment, a six year term of treat-
ment and supervision which is usually carried at a special
correctional facility.
3. Impose, in lieu of imprisonment, a term of treatment and
supervision which exceeds six years but which may equal or
be less than the maximum term which could be given to an
adult offender convicted of the same offense.
4. Impose any other penalty authorized by law.
A youth offender who has been committed for a period of six
years may be conditionally released at any time but he must
- 2 -
be conditionally released four years after conviction and un-
conditionally discharged six years after conviction. If the
offender is sentenced to treatment and supervision for longer
than six years, he may be released at any time and must be
conditionally released two years prior to the expiration of the
maximum sentence. After being conditionally discharged for one
year, the offender may be unconditionally discharged at any time
thereafter until the date of mandatory discharge. Upon uncondi-
tional discharge prior to the expiration of maximum sentence, the
conviction shall be automatically set aside and the offender shall be
issued a certificate stating that fact.
The court may unconditionally discharge youths on probation at any
time prior to the expiration of the probation period. Again, the
conviction is automatically set aside and a certificate is issued.
A conditionally released youth offender may be returned to custody
for further treatment and supervision. The FBI "rap sheet" for the
offender will have a notation showing the conviction set aside.
The Justice Department considers the conviction set aside to be the
same as a pardon since all civil rights are restored and criminal
disabilities disappear.
The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has stated that "The clear
purpose of the automatic setting aside of a youthful offender's con-
viction if he responds satisfactorily to treatment under the Youth
Correction Act is to relieve him not only of the usual disabilities
of a criminal conviction, but also to give him a second chance free
of a record tainted by such conviction."
The United States Court of Appeals for the Circuit of the District of
Columbia has stated in a footnote: "The provision of the Federal Youth
Correction Act, 18 U.S. C. 5021 (1958) appears to provide greater
relief than would a presidential pardon of the same offense. The former
acts to expunge the conviction and the record while the latter releases
the offender from all disabilities imposed by the offense, and restores
to him all his civil rights. 11 (Citation omitted - emphasis added)
Another important difference between setting aside a conviction
and a pardon is that the offender must accept the pardon while the
conviction set aside takes effect automatically.
- 3 -
It would seem that a youth offender whose conviction has been set
aside would receive little, if any, benefit since the disabilities
arising from the offense have already disappeared.
OTHER FEDERAL SENTENCING ALTERNATIVES
If a person, convicted of an offense which does not carry a possible
death or life sentence, may be granted probation under such terms
and conditions which the court deems best. The court may give a
split sentence where the offender will serve a term in prison not to
exceed six months and will then serve the balance of his time on pro-
bation. The total jail and probation time will not exceed five years.
As a procedural matter in split sentence cases the judge will impose
a jail sentence, then suspend imposition of the sentence on condition
that the offender serve the split sentence as described above.
Where an offense is punishable by a fine or imprisonment or both,
probation may be granted. Payment of the fine may be imposed as a
condition of probation. An offender may be placed on probation for
as long as five years, although the maximum sentence for the
committed offense may be less than the period of imposed probation.
Courts may revoke or modify any condition of probation. Probation
may be revoked when the offender violates the conditions. Then the
offender will be jailed for the balance of the originally imposed
sentence or any lesser sentence.
If the court, at time of sentencing, suspends imposition of the sentence
and then imposes probation, then the court at the time of revocation,
could impose any sentence up to maximum allowed for the original
offense.
If the term of probation has ended, a person may be arrested for
violations of probation conditions at any time within five years after
the end of probation. If the probation violation is proved, he will be
required to serve the balance of his sentence.
The Attorney-General may order that the offender serve his sentence
in a non-federal institution.
A prisoner is eligible for parole if he meets the following conditions:
a)
He is serving a definite term longer than 180 days and
b)
he has served at least one-third of his sentence or
- 4 -
c) if serving a sentence of life or exceeding 45 years,
then he has served 15 years.
The courts, in imposing any sentence greater than one year,
may set eligibility for consideration for parole at any
term of less than one-third of the sentence. The court may
sentence the offender to a fixed term of imprisonment, then
order that the offender will be eligible for parole at any
time which the Board of Parole may determine.
An offender may be committed for a period of study and
observation which is deemed to be the maximum sentence.
Upon completion of the study the court may affirm the
maximum sentence, impose a lesser sentence or grant probation.
A person is eligible for the National Addicts Rehabilitation
Act post conviction program if he is a drug addict likely to
be rehabilitated and if he has not been convicted of a crime
of violence, drug trafficking or convicted of felonies on
two separate, prior occasions. Under the program, he shall
serve the lesser of the maximum sentence for the crime of
which he is convicted or ten years.
November 7, 1974
AGENDA
1.
Old business
2.
Cases of 44 furloughed people from whom the Board
has received a written application
3.
Case of remaining furloughed people who have not
sent in an application
4.
Cases of people in prison who did not qualify for
furlough
5.
Other cases
FB
11/13/W
Purple case,
1) 1000 eases, inadeg. info. / 1/2 no info-
2500
1100 8/18
1400 8/25
2) Jelony cases - only ones w/ summaries,
3) Sequoia,
FORD is LIBRARY GREATO
MINUTES OF PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD MEETING
JANUARY 9 & 10, 1975
The Presidential Clemency Board met on January 9, 1975, commencing
at 9:00 a.m., and on January 10, 1975, commencing at 9:05 a.m.
The following Board members were present on both days:
Mr. Charles E. Goodell, Chairman
Dr. Ralph Adams
Mr. James P. Dougovito
Mr. Vernon Jordan
Mrs. Aida C. O'Connor
General Lewis W. Walt
Father Theodore M. Hesburgh, C.S.C., was present on January 10, 1975,
and was absent on January 9, 1975.
Mr. James A Maye and Mr. Robert H. Finch were absent both days.
The following staff attorneys were present both days:
Mr. Lawrence Baskir
Lieutenant Neil Broder
Major Leonard Dancheck
Captain Bruce Heitz
Mr. David Hickman
Mr. William Klein
FORD
Mr. Robert Knisely
Captain John R. Lohff
Mr. Ray Mitchell
Mr. Thomas O'Hare
Lieutenant John Poole
Mr. Lewis Puller
Mr. Fred Scott
Captain Mary Slattery
Mr. Roscoe Starek
Mr. William A. Strauss
Mr. Robert D. Kodak
Mr. Richard Tropp was present January 9, 1975.
- 2 -
The following staff members were present both days:
Colonel O. G. Benson
Mrs. Gretchen Handwerger
Miss Nia Nickolas
Mr. Fred Hansen and Mrs. Patricia Horton were present January 9,
1975.
The designated Federal Officer, Mr. Robert J. Horn, was present at
all times the Board met.
The meeting was not open to public participation, since personal
and sensitive data were being discussed. However, three camera crews, of
not more than three persons each, were allowed to photograph the Board in
session. This photography was silent and no sound equipment was used.
The crews were present during periods of time when recommendations concern-
ing individual cases were not decided upon. The camera crews from NBC
News, BBC News, and Newsweek News Service were present.
Mr. Horn reported upon the Minutes of the last meeting, the number of
applications received and the number of correspondence received. Mr. Horn
noted that a huge increase in the number of requests for applications and other
inquiries in the past three days. He attributed this increase in activity due
to the press interviews of Chairman Goodell and the public service announce-
ments which were made by Father Hesburgh, Mrs. O'Connor, and General Walt.
The following papers were submitted to the Board:
1. Agenda.
2. Docket I: Military Cases.
3. Minutes of the Presidential Clemency Board Meeting for December
13 and 14, 1974.
- 3 -
4. Memorandum on mail flow and number of applications as
January 9, 1975.
5. Docket I: Military Cases as altered.
6. Presidential Clemency Board Work Sheet dated 1/9/75.
Note: Necessarily, the Board has received summaries of the cases
on which it makes recommendations to the President. The members of the
Board individually and collectively have access to all case files and
correspondence. From time to time, correspondence. addressed to individual
Board members are forwarded to them as such correspondence is received by
the Board's staff.
The Executive Secretary of the Board, Robert J. Horn, finds that the
summaries are too bulky to attach to the Minutes and since each summary is
in its respective case file together with all other pertinent material af-
fecting the individual case, it is not necessary to attach said correspon-
dence, summaries and working papers to the Minutes. Such summaries, case
files and correspondence are hereby attached to these Minutes, Minutes of
past meetings, and Minutes of future meetings by reference only and no
physical attachment is neither necessary nor practical.
On January 9, 1975, the Board with five members present discussed the
feasibility of deciding cases with a panel of four members present. It was
agreed that cases could be heard and recommendations made to the President
by a panel of four members.
If the panel of four members agreed concerning the granting or denying
of clemency and unanimously agree to the exact amount of alternate service,
then the case would be sent to the President as a Board recommendation. If
- 4 -
one or more members present disagreed on the clemency/no clemency de-
cision or the exact amount of alternate service to be awarded in an
individual case, then the case will be brought before the full Board of
five or more members. Mr. Baskir stated he wished to check the Advisory
Committee Act concerning the four-man panel idea.
The Board discussed future meeting dates. It was agreed that the
Board will meet on January 23, 24, and 25, which is Thursday, Friday,
and Saturday. The Board will meet every other Thursday, Friday and
Saturday. This agreement is tentative depending upon the potential for
gathering a quorum on those days. Dr. Adams stated he could not be present
for the meeting on February 6, 7, and 8, 1975. Mr. Jordan stated he could
not be present for part of the previously described meeting dates in early
February.
On January 10, 1975, there was another brief discussion concerning
the effect of the spot radio and television announcements.
The Board had a discussion concerning the review of all cases where a
straight pardon was recommended (pardons not conditioned on performance of
alternate service). It was proposed that the review by military review
boards would be automatic but the military board would not be bound to change
the nature of the discharge to honorable conditions. It was agreed that the
Chairman would present this idea to the President.
The Board discussed whether it should ask the President to extend the
part of the Clemency Program administered by the Presidential Clemency
Board. Mr. William Strauss, Mr. Thomas O'Hare, and Mr. Lawrence Baskir
each reported upon his experiences in diverse sections of the country con-
cerning public understanding of the Presidential Clemency Board's part of
the Clemency Program. The consensus is that there is either a lack of
- 5 -
knowledge concerning the Board's part of the Program or there is mis-
understanding of the Board's function or jurisdiction. After extended
discussion, the Board unanimously recommended that the Chairman ask
the President to extend the Clemency Board's part of the Clemency Pro-
gram. The Chairman stated that he will present the pros and cons of
such an extension to the President.
General Walt recommended that if the President extends the Clemency
Program in part or entirely, Chairman Goodell should call a meeting of the
heads of the veteran organizations prior to the announcement by the
President of such extension to explain the reasons for an extension.
The Board had a brief discussion of what baseline figure should be
used in making recommendations to the President concerning those military
cases with undesirable discharges.
Mr. William Strauss reported that his statistical study of baseline
figures for military cases thusfar decided by the Board was between four
and five months. He detailed his study further. The Board, upon motion
of General Walt, recommended that all the military cases involving unde-
sirable discharges will have a baseline of three months. Then the Board
can go up or down as required by the regulations.
The Board agreed not to meet Saturday, January 11, 1975.
This meeting of the Presidential Clemency Board had the advance approval
of the designated Federal officer. All for meetings of the Presidential
Clemency Board had the advance approval of the designated Federal Officer.
CASES DECIDED ON JANUARY 9, 1975
(The Term Pardon includes a Clemency Discharge)
CASE NUMBER
AGGRAVATING
MITIGATING
DISPOSITION
74-204-GFA-M
1,8
1,2,14,6
6 Months A/S
74-166-BCX-M
1, 8, 9
2,6,14
7 Months A/S
74-241-NJA-M
9,5
2, 6, 14
6 Months A/S
74-215-H-H-BDJ-M
8,9
2, 6, 7, 8
Pardon, No A/S
Recommendation: General
Discharge plus veterans
benefits
74-189-DRO-M
9
1,2,6
3 Months A/S
74-293-ADX-M
1, 8, 9
2,5,6,7,14
Pardon, No A/S
Recommendation: General
Discharge plus veterans
benefits
74-390-JBM-M
1,8,9
2,6,11
6 Months A/S
74-405-LSR-M
1,8,9
1,2,6,7,
Pardon, No A/S
13, 15
74-240-MLO-M
9
1,2, 6, 11, 14
3 Months A/S
74-246-RWL-M
1, 7, 8, 9
1, 2
3 Months' A/S
74-230-LBF-M
1, 8, 9
6, 8
9 Months A/S
74-433-NKL-M
9
6, 8, 10, 11
Tabled
74-446-PRX-M
8, 9
3, 6, 11, 13, 14 Pardon, No A/S
74-226-LGM-M
9
2, 6
6 Months A/S
74-218-JLC-M
9
2,3,6
3 Months A/S
74-349-EJM-M
1, 8, 9
2, 6, 11
3 Months A/S
74-454-RDA-M
8, 9
1,2,6,8
Pardon, No A/S
74-420-MEJ-M
9
6, 11
3 Months A/S
74-475-SRX-M
8, 9
2,5,6,7,11
Pardon, No A/S
13, 14
Recommendation: General
Discharge plus veterans
benefits.
2 -
CASE NUMBER
AGGRAVATING
MITIGATING
DISPOSITION
74-130-MBL-M
8,9
2, 6, 11, 14
Pardon, No A/S
74-410-LMD-M
1,9
2,6,11,4
3 Months A/S
74-451-PRM-M
1,8,9
1,2,6,8,11
Pardon
74-238-MME-M
1,8,9
2,5,6,7,12,
Pardon, No A/S
14, 15
Recommendation: General
Discharge plus veterans
benefits
74-183-CJA-M
9
2, 6, 11, 14
Pardon, No A/S
74-180-CCA-M
Tabled
74-172-BWX-M
1,8,9
1,2,6,8,14
Pardon, No A/S
74-389-KTM-M
9
1, 2, 6, 11
Pardon, No A/S
74-192-DJB-M
1,8,9
1,2,6,11,14
3 Months A/S
74-412-LRM-M
9
2,6,14
3 Months A/S
74-473-PRF-M
9
1, 2, 6, 11
3 Months A/S
74-385-HWM-M
8,9
2,6
Tabled
74-322-CEE-M
1,8,9
2, 6, 8, 14
Pardon, No A/S
74-397-KGA-M
1,8,9
1,2,3,6,8,
Pardon, No A/S
11, 14
74-184-CLW-M
9
1,3,6,8,14
Pardon, No A/S
74-186-CTE-M
8,9
1,2,6
6 Months A/S
CASES DECIDED ON JANUARY 10, 1975
74-383-HWJ-M
9,5
3,6,8
10 Months A/S
74-306-BCE-M
9
1,2,6
3 Months A/S
74-514-JJL-M
9
1,2,6
3 Months A/S
74-417-MEX-M
5,9
2,6,8,9,14
Pardon, No A/S
74-395-KJFR-M
8,9
1, 2, 6, 14
3 Months A/S
3
CASE NUMBER
AGGRAVATING
MITIGATING
DISPOSITION
74-179-CCD-M
9, 9-1/2 yr. AWOL
2,6,8,11,14
3 Months A/S
74-169-BGF-M
1,8,9
1,2,5,6,7,
Pardon, No A/S
11, 12, 14
74-165-BGL-M
8,9
1, 2, 6,8, 11, 14 3 Months A/S
74-456-RML-M
1,9
2,6,8,14
Pardon, No A/S
74-198-FAE-M
8,9
1, 6, 8, 14
3 Months A/S
74-259-WDD-M
9
6, 11, 14
6 Months A/S
74-321-BTX-M
8,9
2,6,11
3 Months A/S
74-305-BCX-M
1, 8, 9
1,2,6,7,8,
Pardon, No A/S
11, 14
Recommendation: General
Discharge plus veterans
benefits.
74-222-JCE-M
1,8,9
1,2,6,8
Pardon, No A/S
74-512-PBW-M
1,8,9
2,6
Tabled
74-208-GFD-M
1,8,9
3,6
Pardon, No A/S
74-442-PRE-M
1,8,9
1,6
3 Months A/S
74-363-CFE-M
1,8,9
2, 6, 11, 14
3 Months A/S
74-406-LDM-M
1,8,9
2,6,14
4 Months A/S
74-163-BRM-M
8,9
1, 2, 6, 11, 14
Pardon, No A/S
74-171-BML-M
9
2, 4, 6, 14
Pardon, No A/S
74-233-MPA-M
1,5,8,9
2,6
6 Months A/S
74-356-FTG-M
1,8,9
2, 6, 8, 14
3 Months A/S
;
74-344-DRI-M
1,5,8,9
6, 11
9 Months A/S
74-353-FAV-M
9
2, 6, 11, 14
Pardon, No A/S
74-299-AJN-M
9
1,2,6,11,14
3 Months A/S
74-229-LLD-M
1,8,9
1,2,6,8,14
Pardon, No A/S
74-332-CJF-M
8,9
2,6,7,13,14
Pardon, No A/S
Recommendation: General
Discharge plus veterans
benefits.
- 4 -
CASE NO.
AGGRAVATING
MITIGATING
DISPOSITION
On for Reconsideration
74-094-WBM-C
5
9, 10
Leave at 3 Months A/S
74-068-MCN-C
None
8, 9
Pardon
74-079-RJL-C
7
1, 2
Pardon
/
74-076-PSB-C
None
2, 10
Pardon
74-015-BJD-C
5
11
6 Months A/S
74-022-CWE-C
None
10
5 Months A/S
74-070-MJM-C
1
1, 2, 8, 10
Pardon, No A/S
74-055-KSM-C
6
None
3 Months A/S
74-006-BJB-C
1,7
2
3 Months A/S
74-790-CFX-C
7
1, 2
Pardon, No A/S
Note: A/S - Alternative Service
Respectfully Roberts Submitted:
Robert J. Horn
Executive Secretary
Full Bd mtg
5/23/F
L/1) Dochet of FB cases,
2) names on packets - storage here,
3) U.D.'s - 3 3-mo increments.
more than 9 mo
+
only if alternative
$ N.C,
4) other crim. convictions,
5.) no mtg Sat. D, E & G - at least 125 cases.
6) Any proba - see Poole,
n) Panels for June 2nd wh.
3 - K
6
3
*
9
12
3
Dongovito
*
walt
O'Connor
maye
M
Riggs
Vinson
Hesburgh
Puller
Jardan
Adams
Wanfman
in
Everhard
Adams Th, F, Sat,
Separate Dodnet.
Oraig
we
marrow
4' 75
\
Lally
1500/wk,
Ford
new Member
100/ panel day,
\
Cer,
15 panel days
4 panelo /4 days
1233 summaries to qual control 5/17 3 Banels/ wh. 5 days
Panels for wk of June 2nd
R Morrow,
Panel So - Orconnose, Chm
walt
300 summeries
more ow
Lally
S o'counor, Ohm
Panel B. - Craig
400 summeries
Vinson /
Riggs
walt 9 Lale
Panel 5 T Ford Ohm
300-400
Dengerts
Dongovito
naw Person Kanfman
U
Panel %- Maye, Chm
\
Puller
400 summaries
Everhard
\
New Person.
H
5/27/95
PCB,
1) Spec. Dochet for PCB- - flagged @RSES,
2) Crim convictions Standards,
3) Heiburgh, Everhard, maye,
4) Cases for FB, summaries in advance + Janel diaposition
5) Interns - 9 on board w/ no slot,
5 told not to come,
78 on board,
125
\
125
6) no Clemeney,
FORD is LIBRARY 070839
65
Sent over to WH - - 373 Signed 145
438
Decided prior to 5/22/92 504 / 150 flagged,
(354) not ripe, 0
Decided 5/22/8h mtgs 749
1187
504
1691
Change CeA status to K employee,
72nd & Central Rk w - -
/ w 7 2nd SK, EN2-1448
5/29/Th, 4:00 P.M. mtg w/ staff.
1) Interns
2) Andrew Davis
3) names on Pres. warrants will be announced publicly,
4) Sat mtgs
5) Bd Law In.
b) Work Sheet to ago plicents. ok to send,
7) ap for 58 support personnel. may 13- Wise 15 men recommended on board, 50,
8) Gretchen
may 23 - wentout. Rec'd by many
may 27,
9) Summaries for Bd. /
400 sent.
300 ready now./ 400 by 5/30/F.
1000 summaries awaiting typing in final #
Kelly girls. 350 40 for days @ 40/day - 3200, Approved
FB
10) straus - panels DEFG, wxyz.
Aggreviting milgoting
up or Down
FORD in VIBRARY GLRALD
F.B,
mtg of 6/4/W
6/2/M
opening fwk,
1.) weak, normal 9 strong
2) Hy novel facture situations for staff C.B. Law In.
3) #8 mitigation.
Didn't get help when should have,
should never have been in the service,
Didn't get leidership
Racial discrimination
4) "theft by taking"
5) U.D.'s.
6) no explanation for A WOL = W 5
7) Drugs neutral other evid,
8) A/S period ordered by et is irrelevant.
9) A/S - when already serving A/s, specify date forgation,
10) Jurisdiction ruled by G.C. & them.
11) Standards on adult convictions. Class A offerse
12) Panels for wk of 6/8
F.B,
6/7/201 P.M,
1.) next wh's schedule. 200 summeries/member available,
2) 1262 dispositions this week. 360,
3) C.O.'s - #10 170 cases. 5or 6 aferrations.
4) Leave early. Probs. w/ atty,
FORD LIBRARY is GERALD
F.B.
wkf 6/2-8
Second 6/7/F mts.
1) 13+ cases
2) 6/9 & 6/10 - attendance for reading,
3) Panel achedules for 6/10/95 afternoon?
Summaries in hand on 6/6/F and 6/7/Sat ?
4) mixedu. Dis 9 juriadiation.
5) standards for Prior Convictions,
6) notice when have to have early, (Bd mambers)
7) dabled eases data Referred to FB
?
8) Chm instructed Connsel to flag for him,
9) ftrs must be read,
*
10) Agg 9 Mitigating
11) next were Set FB mtg.
12) Adjourning panela early & re- re-scleduling, Jim Pook.
13) Report on panels,
Sat
14) no satisfactory reason for the AWOL
15) @.O.'o min A/S
6/9/m 4:00 PM, - staff mtg,
150 - to docketing
100 - xeroped, not yet to docketing
150 - on way to Keroxing,
( Danedek - 100)
25
200 - awaiting xerox
7
$75
175
6500 - written
350
3000 - Bd disposed of,
Wh ending - Summaries drapted
Bd Dispositions
2900
may 16- - - 1233
23 966
30 - 956
June 6 - 1200
4355
2500 file requests out.
12,000 files here,
17, 800 total ap plicants.
FORD & LIBRARY 07V839
F.B.
6/17/95
1. Bob Horn
Chronology,
2. Panel counsel - precedents.
Knisely
3, Clemency Law Reporter
4. Agg, # 1
5, Agg # 4
6. Agg of #5,
1st Does it apply on the record.
2nd W#5 automatic.
FORD is LIBRARY
Charles Goodell
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
MINUTES OF THE FULL BOARD:
JUNE 17, 1975, MORNING
MORNING SESSION:
MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE:
Charles E. Goodell, Chairman
Timothy Craig
Lewis Walt
Robert Carter
Joan Vinson
Lewis Puller
John Everhard
Antoinette Ford
Fr. Theodore Hesburgh
Harry Riggs
OTHERS OFFICIALLY IN ATTENDANCE:
Robert J. Horn, Designated Federal Employee
Robert Knisley
Jason Marcus
James Poole
William Strauss
Janet Hartle, Recorder
Frank Lane
Nia Nickolas
Arnold Heller
Lee Burstyn
Sigmund Berkman
Leonard Danchek
M. Bernstein
Kathleen Beggs
Charles Goldman
Pedersen
Stuart Kruter
William Klein
Ms. Klein
William Gallo
The Chairman opened the meeting at 9:10 am
1. Summary Distribution: The Chairman discussed logistic problems in the
distribution of summaries to Board members and that the lack of
secretarial help has placed burdens on the staff. It is hoped that
these matters can be resolved soon. He reiterated the need to forewarn
staff of schedule changes by Panels; at least one will meet on Saturday
June 21.
2. Clemency Law Reporter: The Chairman noted that, while the format
and content of the document still needed refinement, the Clemency Law
Reporter will give the Board members an overview of decisions and
also will keep the attorneys fully informed on policy decisions
that will affect their case investigations. Mr. Goodell also pointed
out that the CLR is an internal document and not for circulation outside
of the PCB.
3. Apprehension: Mr. Craig asked for a clarification of Aggravating # 12
since there had been some confusion regarding the use of force in
apprehending at his Panel sessions last week. Only the last qualifying offense
counts and some evidence of apprehension is necessary. If the applicant
did not willingly evade authorities prior to his apprehension, a weak
aggravating # 12 is applied.
panuly
-2-
4. Issues: The Chairman lead a discussion on the following Aggravating
Factors:
a. Aggravating #1 - A felony was defined as a crime for which a
sentence of one year or more could have been imposed and, for purposes of
the PCB, a lower sentence as imposed by a Judge still requires
marking Aggravating Factor # 1. In marking this factor, no distinction
shall be made regarding whether the offense occurred before or after
the qualifying offense for PCB jurisdiction. Non-judicial punishments
and misdemeanors shall not be marked. Mr. Everhard pointed out that
military definitions may vary from civilian.
Mrs. Vinson raised a related question of the marking of cases where
the individual claims to have been given the alternative of prison
sentence or enlisting in the armed forces. The Supreme Court has
ruled such cases as illegal enlistment. Attorneys should get as much
specific information in these cases as possible, checking court
cases as needed and available.
b. Aggravating #3 - The Chairman noted that "use of force" is a stronger
aggravating factor than "missing movement", Aggravating Factor # 10.
C. Aggravating #4 - "Desertion in Combat". A lengthly discussion
involved definition of 'combat zone' and the distinction between AWOL
and desertion. General Walt defined desertion as any time an individual
left his unit (outside of Saigon) since, by definition, the rest of
Viet Nam was a combat zone; the individual was required to return to
his unit on schedule or desertion was implied. The question of when
to use Aggravating Factor #4 (Desertion) and Aggravating Factor #10
(Failure to Report) was resolved by defining AWOL during combat as
desertion. Mr. Everhard supported General Walt by stating that leaving
in the face of the enemy is desertion, otherwise it is AWOL by definition.
After further discussion, Mr. Everhard moved that Aggravating Factor #4
shall be marked when an individual absented himself from the combat
NJP
zone as defined by Executive Order which also includes absenting
(onese from Saigon. This motion was seconded and carried by the
PCB without dissent. If the applicant absented himself without
authorization from somewhere other than Viet Nam Aggravating Factor
#4 would not apply, but Aggravating Factor #10 might apply.
d. Aggravating #5 - "Selfish or Manipulative Reasons". The Chairman
reiterated the decision at the previous Full Board Meeting that a weak
Aggravating #5 should be marked if there is no apparent reason in the
records for the qualifying offense. However this "weak" application of
Aggravating Factor #5 will not arise if any of the Mitigating Factors 1,2,3,
8, 10, and 12 are present, except in unusual circumstances where these
mitigating factors bear no relationship to the qualifying offense.
-3-
This "weak" aggravating #5 is a matter of Board discretion and should
not be marked by action attorneys.
Fr. Hesburgh noted that AFQT Category IV individuals rarely have the
intelligence to be manipulative. Mr. Goodell made the observation that
when Mitigating Factor #8 "evidence of unfairness" is marked, the applicant
usually, but not always, has received a Pardon without alternative
service the grounds that he never should have been accepted in the military aerire
e. Aggravating #6 - The Chairman ruled that, in the case of Jehovah's
Witnesses, this factor should be marked if reasons other than religious
are given, ie. money.
f. Aggravating #7 - "Violation of Probation or Parole". This
factor applies to both military and civilian cases. Also it applies
to any violation of probation or parole subsequent to a felony or military
court-martial conviction, even if the conviction had been for a non-
qualifying offense.
g. Aggravating #8 - Non-qualifying (ie, Pre-1964) and unpunished
AWOL's are to be counted in applying this factor.
h. Aggravating #9 - "Length of AWOL". The Board members were
instructed to mark this factor only for unpunished AWOLs. If earlier
AWOLs occured for which the applicant was puniched but remained in
the military, these are not to be marked. The attorneys will try to
clarify this matter in the summaries.
i. Aggravating #10 - "Failure to Report Overseas". This factor should
not be marked if Hawaii or Alaska are involved; mark weak if Germany
or Korea was the destination; definitely mark if the failure to report
incolced a staging point to Viet Nam, (e.g. Okinawa) or any missing
movement at all relating to Viet Nam.
6. PCB Standards for V.A. Benefits Recommendations to the President:
The Chairman reminded the Board members that the Executive Order
specifically excluded V.A. Benefits to applicants to the PCB. However
General Walt and others felt that some cases were so outstanding that
the President should be requested to take extraordinary action and
upgrade the discharges of these applicants. Therefore, those cases
recommended for upgrade to General Discharge and V.A. Benefits should
be strong and clean; they should have unanimous Panel recommendations
to the Full Board.
For those applicants who are denied this recommendation but who are
clearly in need of medical assistance for injuries while in the service,
the V.A. advisors to the PCB shall make special effort to obtain
medical benefits either through the V.A. or various service organizations.
-4-
FULL BOARD: JUNE 17, 1975 AFTERNOON
Members in Attendance:
Charles Goodell, Chairman
Timothy Craig
Lewis Walt
Robert Carter
Lewis Puller
Joan Vinson
John Everhard
Antoinette Ford
Fr. Theodore Hesburgh
Harry Riggs
John Kauffmann
Msgr. Francis Lally
Others Officially in Attendance:
Robert Horn, Designated Federal Employee
Robert Knisely, Counsel
Marie Stack
Marie Jordan, Scribe
William Cassedy
Jackie Hoover
"
Philip Epstein
Kathy King
"
Edward Fitch
Janet Hartle, Recorder
Chauncey Durden
William Gallo
Jeffrey Helewitz
Stuart Kruter
Vita Simon
Xerbert Ross
Daniel Steward
Feldman
The Chairman opened the meeting at 2:10 pm
1. Clemency Discharge for Undesirable Discharges: The Chairman announced
that the President has approved giving Pardon and a Clemency Dishcarge
to applicants who had received an Undesirable Dishcarge. The Presidents
letter to that effect was read into the record. This reaffirmed PCB
policy and UDs with such discharges can now be forwarded to the White
House for approval.
2. Issues (con't from Morning Session)
Aggravating #12 - "Apprehension of Applicant". Discussion of
whether this factor should be marked if the applicant made no attempt
to hide his whereabouts, returned home and did not change his name.
Is it aggravating if the authorities were remiss in apprehending the
applicant? Consencus was that a weak # 12 should be marked if the
applicant just returned home and was not apprehended because of official
failure; it should be marked strong if the applicant made definite
efforts to hide his whereabouts, left his home area, changed his name, etc.
-5-
3. Quorum: Since 10 members constitute a quorum, Mr. Everhard raised
the question of whether the Chairman would have to vote on those
cases presented in the morning when he was absent and only 9 members
were present. This will be discussed by counsel and reported to the
Board.
4. Mr. Finch has resigned from the Presidential Clemency Board, so
the Board now has 18 members.
5. Upgrade Decision Process: Mr. Puller expressed concern that denial
of an upgrade recommendation by one Board member was the governing
factor in case determination and that he had decided to abstain from
voting on upgrades. In the ensuing discussion the consencus was that
if the recommendation was mixed and therefore not recommended for upgrade,
every effort should be made by the action attorney to notify the
applicant of viable alternatives, with particular reference to
medical benefits.
Fr. Hesburgh stated his position of recommending upgrades in meritorious
cases where an individual had been wounded in the line of duty and asked
for a 'principle' of at least medical benefits even if upgrade to
a General Discharge is not recommended by the Full Board. He agreed
with the General that heroim and extraordinary military presence
should be recommended for upgrade and benefits. Fr. Hesburgh further
stated that recommendations for other kinds of actions regarding upgrades
could be included in the Final Report of the PCB.
6. Expediting Full Board Reviews: Mr. Kauffmann suggested that the
case reviews by the Full Board can be speeded up if the Panel members
are identified in the Dockets. Mr. Everhard agreed to bring this to
the attention of the Chairman.
-6-
MINUTES OF THE FULL BOARD June 18, 1975, Morning
MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE:
Charles E. Goodell, Chariman
John A. Everhard
Joan Vinson
Lewis B. Puller
Vernon Jordan
Aida C. O'Connor
Msgr. Francis J. Lally
James Maye
John Kauffmann
Rimothy L. Craig
Harry Riggs
Robert Carter
Lewis Walt
Antoinette Ford
Others Officially in Attendance:
Robert J. Horn, Designated Federal Employee
Lawrence Baskir, General Counsel
Sigmund, Recorder
Judith Aronoff
Diane M. Bratter
Louis D. Coffelt
Thomas Conway
Morton Foelak
James Hastings
? Hunter
James G. Lindquist
William A. Miner
Bertram Weintraub
1. Presentation of Cases: The Chairman opened the meeting at 9:15
am with the presentation of cases on the Board's docket. The Chairman
noted the deficiency on the docket of background information on the
cases being brought before the Full Board. In the future, Mr. Goodell
stated, the docket shall be marked as to the panel, Chairman and the
name of the Board member who referred the case. Also on split decision,
the vote of the panel shall be shown.
2. Notation of Reason for Upgrade - Because of the exceptional nature
of the recommendation to upgrade to a General Discharge and to grant
Veterans Benefits, the Board should state the reasons for the action.
3. Issues Arising from Discussion of Cases - A number of policy issues
surfaced as the Board proceeded through its task of reviewing cases.'
A. Mitigating Factor #3 - Mr. Maye expressed concern about the
use of mitigating factor #3. It was inappropriate, in Mr. Maye's view, to
use mitigating factor #3 because the applicant upon psychiatric examination
exhibited erratic or neurotic behavior. The Board should differentiate be-
tween neuroses and psychoses and should not apply mitigating factor #3
without knowledge of the severity of the neuroses according to Mr. Maye.
(Mr. Goodell had to leave and asked Mr. Maye to act as Chairman)
-7-
B. Issues Raised in Mr. Goodell's Absence - Three policy
questions came to the forefront after Mr. Goodell left, however
it was agreed that the Board wait for Mr. Goodell's return before
reaching a final decision with regart to these issues.
(1) The Need for Unanimity on Upgrade Decisions - Mr. Jordan
questioned the Board's rule requiring a consensus in order to recommend
a discharge upgrade and veterans benefits. He suggested that a simple
majority be sufficient to send upgrade cases to the President, as is
done in other cases. General Walt recounted the origins of the upgrade
portion of the program which lies outside the President's proclamation.
The upgrade recommendation began at his (General Walt's)
suggestion to be used for exceptionally meritorious cases. The unanimous
agreement was part of the Board's decision from the outset in order
to make the strongest possible case for the applicant and also th
dampen the opposition to the upgrade procedure from the Department of
Defense, and veterans organizations.
(2) Aggravating Factor #11 - There was disagreement amoung
Baord members on the guidelines for application of aggravating factor
#11, other discharge offenses.
(3) Aggravating Factor #1 - Mr. Jordan objected to the use
of aggravating factor #1, other felony convictions for offenses committed
after the applicant left the service. Since the Presidential proclamation
pertained to actions from "day certain to day certain". Mr. Fort was
dissatisfied with information available on the circumstances surrounding
the felony convictions and the Board must have the best possible information.
General Counsel stated that there was great difficulty in obtaining
information, because the Board learned about the post-service felonies
through accident either when the applicant mentioned the felonies in a
letter or the applicant wrote to the Board on prison stationery. The
staff has been calling prisons, judges, and other court officials
but the information they obtain is sketchy and the taski is bery
difficult and time consuming. In reply to Mr. Jordan's objection, Mr. Carter
expressed the view that an objective review of a case requires that all
available information must be taken into account; and the Board has the
obligation ot the President to find out what kind of people are applying
for and receiving clemency.
C. Disposition of Policy Issues - Upon Mr. Goodell's return to
the chair the Board acted upon the policy issues.
(1) Aggravating Factor #11 - Mr. Goodell restated the
principles for the application of aggravating factor #11 as follows:
The factor applies only to punished offenses in UD
Unfitness cases. Summary court-martial convictions and NJPs for non-
qualifying offenses are included in its scope. The factor does not
apply to UD - Chapter 10, BCD, or DD cases.
The Board concurred.
-8-
(2) Mr. Goodell restated the circumstances surrounding
the upgrading procedures covering essentially the same facts that
General Walt had reviewed earlier.
Mr. Jordan moved that the Board change its rule of
unanimity in recommending cases to the President for upgrading dishcarges
and granting veteran benefits to one of majority vote, and that two
lists of upgrading cases be sent to the President, one would be of
those cases in which there was consensus amoung Board members and
a second would be of those cases in which a majority of the Board
voted for an upgrade. The second list would show the Board's vote.
Mr. Puller offered an amendment to the motion to
substitute a two-thirds vote for a majority.
The amendment carried by an 8-6 vote.
The amended motion was voted upon and packed by 8-6.
The Chairman pointed out that the vote probably will result
in the loss of the upgrading portion of the clemency program. General
Walt stated that under the new conditions he could not support the
upgrading portion of the program. The Chairman informed the Board
members of the memorandum General Walt and the Messrs. Dougovito and Maye
had written to support the upgrading and which had strongly influenced
DOD and veteran organizations to reluctantly go along with the program.
reconsidered recorded the cast vote by an 8-6 majority.
Recous'te
3 Sget
Mrs. Ford asked for reconsideration and the Board
new
(3) Other Felony Convitions - Mr. Goodell stated a two
part criteria in deciding on cases:
a. Whether a man is deserving of clemency at all and,
b. determining the amount of alternative service the
man is to serve, if any.
The Chairman said that if the man has committed a heinious offense
it is dubious if he should be granted clemency, although he personally
does not automatically go to no clemency, and he views a crime against
property differently than a crime against person.
The Chairman asked Mr. Baskir to inform the Board of his contacts
with the FBI to obtain information whether an applicant had a record
or arrests.
Mr. Baskir told the Board that the FBI had the authority to
collect"rap sheets" from state and local law inforcement authorities
and to distribute them to authorized agencies.
=9=
The problem with trying to get information from the FBI are:
1) the Board would have to obtain authorization to receive
"rap sheets";
2) questionable accuracy of information on the "rap sheet";
3) FBI will not guarantee accuracy of match without fingerprints;
4) two week period, probably longer without fingerprints,
to get information from the FBI;
5) it is Board's practice to inform the applicant of the facts
being used in his case and it is uncertain whether the
FBI would permit release of information to applicant;
6) if the record is inaccurate the Board may be sued although
there was little likelihood that the Board would be held
accountable.
The Board voted 11-1 to continue its practice of considering
post-military service felonies and marking aggravating factor #1.
4. Use of FBI Information - - The Board took up as a separate
issue whether the Chairman should seek ways of obtaining information
from the FBI. By a vote of 12-0, the Board decided to continue its
present practice and not to go to the FBI.
Respectfully Submitted,
Rabert J. Harm
Robert J. Horn,
Executive Secretary
-10-
ADDENDA
1. Buchen/Goodell letter, 6/12/75
2. Panel S Dockets: for confirmation of cases presented before
Joan Vinson (attached to original copy of these minutes)
BanKini
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 12, 1975
Dear Chairman Goodell:
On the basis of the recommendations contained in your
memorandum dated June 2, 1975, the President has decided
that the Presidential Clemency Board may recommend
pardons to him in meritorious cases for those applicants to
the Board, under the Program for the Return of Vietnam Era
Draft Evaders and Military Deserters, who were discharged
from the Military Departments for their absentee offenses.
The grant of pardons in these cases would be conditioned on
the satisfactory completion of any period of alternate service
recommended by the Board and approved by the President.
In reaching this decision, the President was aware that to
grant pardons to those who received undesirable discharges
for their offenses is an unusual exercise of his power to grant
clemency. However, the President concluded that in meritorious
cases the unique purposes of his Proclamation, to show mercy and
to offer these young Americans the chance to contribute a share
in the rebuilding of peace, required an unusual exercise of clemency.
Sincerely,
PhlyW.Buslan Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
The Honorable Charles E. Goodell
Chairman
Presidential Clemency Board
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
Goodell
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
Washington, D.C. 20500
FULL BOARD MINUTES: June 25, 1975 MORNING
MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE:
Charles E. Goodell, Chairman
Ralph Adams
Lewis Puller
Theodore Hesburgh
Robert Carter
Aida C. O'Connor
Timothy Craig
John Everhard
Antoinette Ford
Harry Riggs
Francis Lally
Joan Vinson
James Maye
Lewis Walt
OTHERS OFFICIALLY IN ATTENDANCE:
Robert J. Horn, Designated Federal Employee
Sigmund Berkman, Recorder
James Poole
Thomas Ainora, Scribe
Kathy Russell
Paul Johnson, Scribe
Gretchen Handwerger
Joseph Asper
Edward Cohen
Robert Bryant
Burton Jaffe
James Lindquist
Wolfgang Neudorfer
Keith McLendon
Veronica O'Keefe
Mark Tessler
Llewellyn Woofford
The meeting was opened by Chairman Goodell at 9:15
1. Administrative Matters - Mr. Horn requested that Board members
submit all vouchers on Friday, June 27, so that they can go in
before the end of the fiscal year. Also, he asked that the with-
holding tax certificates distributed to the Board members be filled
out and returned by June 27.
2. Information on Felonies - Of the first seven cases, the Board
had tabled five, requesting that the action attorney obtain addi-
tional information concerning the felony convictions involving the
applicants. Mr. Horn, Acting General Counsel, asked how long the
attorneys should take before bringing the case back to the Board.
The Chairman's reply was that the attorneys should return the case
to the Board as soon as they have the information or they think
they have exhausted all possibilities and are wasting time.
Mr. Everhard suggested that the attorneys contact the military
JAGs in respect to crimes committed while the applicants were in
the service. Mr. Horn said that the attorneys were already doing
so.
1
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
Page 2
3. Mitigating Factor #10 - Mr. Puller raised the question of under
what círcumstances mitigating factor #10, acting for conscientious
reasons, should be marked. Chairman Goodell stated that the Board
has not been applying a strict interpretation of conscientious
objection (opposition to all wars under all circumstances), but
marking mitigating factor #10 if there was evidence of conscience
objection to a particular war at a particular time.
The Chairman noted after the Board had voted on one case, that the
Board's precedence is to decide pardon without alternative service
if it finds that a man is conscientious and marks mitigating factor
#10.
4. Aggravating Factor #11 - Discussions and questions regarding
jurisdictional questions clarified the use of aggravating factor
#11; the Board has jurisdiction in a frequent involvement case,
Chairman Goodell stated if there are qualifying AWOLs. Aggravating
factor #11 was created to mark the other offenses.
Mr. Poole informed the Board that aggravating factor #11 does not
apply in BCD cases.
5. Aggravating Factor #5 - In response to a question from Mr. Poole
concerning the marking of aggravating factor 5 in conjunction with
mitigating factors #2,3,8,10, 'or 12, Mr. Goodell replied that aggra-
vating factor #5 could be marked along with any combination of miti-
gating factors based on the overall record but that there Would not
normally
be an automatic aggravating #5 under the circumstances based upon no "pplanation
for AWOL, if any of the above instigating factors were marked,
word max up
6. Short Period of Creditable Service Mr. Goodell pointed out
that it has been the practice of the Board to go up an extra three
is 6 mos,
months of alternative service above what the normal decision would
be if there were a very brief period of creditable military service
Add
3
7. Mr. Goodell left at 12 o'clock and Father Hesburgh chaired the
meeting until 12:30 p.m. when the Board adjourned.
Page 3
FULL BOARD MEETING: June 25, 1975 AFTERNOON
MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE:
Charles E. Goodell, Chairman
John Everhard
John Kauffman
Harry Riggs
Timothy Craig
Robert Carter
Lewis Puller
Theodore Hesburgh
Joan Vinson
Ralph Adams
James Maye
Lewis Walt
Aida O'Connor
OTHERS OFFICIALLY IN ATTENDANCE:
Charles Hilbert, General Councel
James Poole, Alternate Designated Employee
Marie Jordan, Scribe
William Minder
Linda Croassmann, Scribe
Diane Bratter
Janet A. Hartle, Recorder
Marie Stack
Warren Young
Edward Fitch
James Spillane
Carroll
Edward Cohen
Mark Evans
The Chairman opened the meeting at 2:15 p.m.
1. Presentation of cases
2. Substantive policy issues were not discussed apart from
reiteration of conscientious reasons for AWOL prior to the Welsh
decision, and the general position of the PBC regarding CO
motivation.
3. The Chairman noted that the schedule for the week of June 30
has not yet been finalized since a sufficient number of summaries
is not yet prepared. Panel meetings will depend upon the number
of prepared summaries; in all likelihood there will be two Full
Board days.
Mustah Respectfully submitted,
Robert J. Horn
Executive Secretary
Page 4
CORRECTIONS TO THE FULL BOARD MINUTES OF JUNE 23, 1975 MORNING
The following changes should be noted for the Full Board minutes
noted above:
Section #2 - Mitigating Factor #2 - The last sentence should be
corrected to read, "The Chairman said that members should mark
Mitigating #2 where there is evidence of a high degree of
immaturity that contributed to the offense."
Section #3 - Aggravating Factor #11 - The last sentence should be
corrected to read, "The Chairman stated that the rule of the Board
has been to mark Aggravating #11 only in cases of Undesirable
Discharges for unfitness."
Section #4 - Mitigating Factor #10 PRO. The last sentence should be
corrected to read, "It would not apply in hardship cases involving
sincere attempts to deal with hardship, personal, or family pro-
blems which would be marked under #2.' "
FB
8/26/95
10:30
1) gabled cases / this week
2) FB referrals,
3) 130 Purple Panel,
4)1750 Panel Cases
5) PCB - nov,
Senator Goodell
1.
September 2, 1975
The meeting convened at 2:15 p.m. at Camp David Conference Room, beginning
with Chapter 7 of the Annual Report.
Present: Chairman Charles Goodell, Aida 0' Connor, James May, Antoinette
Ford, Lewis Puller, Joan Vinson, James Dougovito, Colonel Riggs, Major Adams (?)
(2 or 3 additional Board members to be identified)
Nia Nickolas, Rob Quartel, Wil Ebel, Chuck Hilbert, Bill Strauss, Ed Cohen,
Larry Baskir, Bob Horn, Lenora E. Kimball.
Chairman Goodell took note that a quorum of 10 required to be present.
Request as to number of members' cases available--57 for Friday. Hope to
narrow number of full Board appearances. The evaluation is that the issues
involved are perfectly appropriate for panel. I hope you will all come and
be available every day. We will need at least two days of full Board
meetings the following week and perhaps more... one panel of 125 cases will
have to meet. We will try to do that panel Saturday if you can come. The
following week we will try to keep one. Our thinking is that we can work
that one in some time during the week, and that will be our final 125 cases.
Roughly this is 15,500 cases--we will have comple ted the job as far as
issuance disposition is concerned. We believe the full Board will go out
on September 15. We have not pushed the matter with the White House or
Justice Department, largely because there is a greater symbolic value in our
going out of business the 15th, and we have finished all but the reconsidera-
tion appeals cases. We have sent a memo to the Attorney General, however,
indicating that the Board has made itself available on a voluntary basis
some time in October to review the reconsideration cases and advise him.
and to take care of whatever reconsideration appeals may come in. So we
will have a continuing staff, the size of which is undetermined, -- it will
be whatever is necessary. All of that should be concluded in the two to six
2.
week period after September 15. It has also been indicated that whatever
the plans are of the advisory committee, jurisdiction exists in the Department
of Justice. It is very likely that after the 16th there will be no further
official action. This makes it more imperative that we finish. Sometimes
we are close on a quorum, and we need you here.
3.
Chairman Goodell, presiding:
The record will show we are meeting Tuesday, September 2, with a quorum of
eleven present at Camp David. Mr. Baskir will now tell us about the report.
Lawrence M. Baskir: The delay in meeting at 2:25 p.m. instead of 2 p.m.
was because of a White House call.
This meeting is called for the presentation of the draft of the report.
Our purpose is to let you know what is in it and let you tell us what you
want in the report. I will start by describing the goals the staff thought
the report should accomplish. Primarily we saw the draft, and the final
report, as an official record of what the Board has done, what happened, so
that this would be a record of the past 12 months. There is no other
record, of course, at the present time, except in our memories. The
major purpose is to describe, as an official record, and to describe, to
the public, what the Board did, also to counter the misunderstanding the
public has. The report shows what the Board has done; the nature of the
people who have applied for clemency, and it can serve as the means of
facilitating research in the future. Before this program was announced
there was very little information in the public domain as to what past
Presidents had done. Conclusions which President Truman had would not
cover more than two or three pages when he testified before the Senate as
to what his committee had done. A number of research programs are now
getting started by professors by University of T
We have
written with the aim of first, to provide a number of the answers people
will ask in research, also conclusions and analysis of what the Board has
learned; also the report will serve as a basis of recommendations to the
President as to what we would like to see in the future. Most of you
4.
saw the memo from the President as to the report. There are two pro-
visions made for the report, in the Executive Order and in the Advisory
Committee Act. This makes it evident to me that we should report in case
the President decides he wants a report.
Member Dougovito: Does he want one now?
Mr. Baskir: That is a hard question to answer. If a Board holds closed
hearings, then the Board must present a final report to the public con-
taining such information as it would make public. This Board has held many
closed hearings. The Advisory Committee at least suggests--the report can
have any content the Board desires to have. This can be a very lengthy
report or merely a statement. A young attorney from the White House wrote
a memo with the President's initials affixed, saying that we would not
release the report ourselves; let the White House determine the parts they
want released. I think at this time it is unerstood that we are to make
a final report, and we have an obligation to state what we did, how we
went about solving problems. I hope we can keep it a non-controversial
and factual report.
I want to show you these charts, which are the foundation of the material
gathered for purposes of writing and reporting our legal research. In
addition, we did make a survey--we identified a large number of characteristics
we thought we should be looking at. The last few pages of the report are
a print-out of characteristic statistics, that became the basis of the
statistical information. We used the Gallup poll in some respects
(Professor Pierson--Clemency); staff members were assigned responsibility
for certain chapters. Most chapters were edited for conformity herein
by Strauss and Baskir over the last weekend. A complete description of
charts is being typed with a discussion as to their use. As to a rundown
5.
of staff responsibilities, they were shared by Remington, Klein, Craig,
Beck, Standard, Terzian, Kobel, Horn, Quartel. The last chapter, the
evaluative part, was done by Bill Strauss, who was in charge overall.
Lohff, Foote, etc., did some of the considerable amount of work that was
to be done.
Your part, the part of the Board, is to tell us what you want in it, what
as
conclusions. There is more we want to put in, such/footnotes, editing--
but at this point we want to find out what you want in this report.
Query: Is there data verification?
Ans.: There are some points we need to revise. The report was written at
the same time that we were sifting through various parts of the data.
Some people writing on the report were making statements without having
statistical data at hand. What the staff tried to do primarily was to
tell what had happened in 12 months. It is largely descriptive. There
are analyses of various types, the nature of applicants that have come to
the Board; some suggested recommendations that have arisen from staff and
other sources; we can give you recommendations from other sources which can
be used as a basis for discussions. In another way what we tried to do
in the first three chapters is to describe what the Board did, what the
Board apparently learned, the nature of the applicants, the nature of
running an operation like this, all of which puts the President's program
in a nice perspective. At this point I will give the responsibility to
Bill Strauss who will go more into detail as to what the report contains.
Within a few minutes we should have copies of the Table of Contents for you
that will give you a better idea as we go along with the explanation.
6.
Bill Strauss: This was a program of moderation and one that would not be
a one-way need. First, there was a need for the program; second, the
President offered clemency, not amnesty; he offered other benefits, but not
quite amnesty; third, it was a limited, not a universal program. Jurisdictional
limits were set; he did confine the program to specific types of people. In
order to put the program behind us as quickly as possible, it had only a six-
month period, and by the time it ends will have had only 12 months. What
happens next will be decided in the future. It was to be a case-by-case
analysis and not a blanket approach. It was approached case-by-case, each
case was considered on its individual merits. Finally, it was conditional,
not unconditional--clemency. Six principles taken as a group provided a
basis for commenting on what we might have learned from the process.
In Chapter I we explain that it was a compromise program, it would have a
moderate approach to be compared with the President's Justice program
which was announced six weeks after. At the close of the chapters there
is a brief discussion explaining just what the relationships are, and it
really sets the tone of the report. Chapter 2 for a few pages focuses on
the need of binding the wounds of the Vietnam era. There were some wounds
and the President saw this program as a means of binding those wounds. By
having this program the President came up with a final answer to the
clemency program. Its creation by Presidential Proclamation decentralized
the program, responsibilities going to four agencies, three of whom,
including our Board, are charged with the responsibility of deciding cases.
The greatest focus, of course, is on the Board. Discussion of the Board
focuses on the diversity of the Board, of the backgrounds of the group,
a representative Board which is charged with the responsibilities.
Chapter 2D, Clemency, Not Amnesty.
Attention is given to what the Presidential Clemency Board actually offers
7.
people; in the Department of Defense and Department of Justice programs
the major benefit is the end of a person's fugitive status, and is upon
completion of alternative service. We had approximately 270 people re-
leased from jail as a result of the clemency program. This chapter focuses
on what military applicants received, etc. It discusses the impact of the
Presidential Pardon, how it applies to individuals who have not been con-
victed of crimes, what a pardon actually does for someone--lives are re-
organized by pardon. Brief attention is given to applicants such as draft
resisters, but who did not appear on the Department of Justice list of
4500 names, and who are now free of any further prosecution. If not done
by our program, it was done by another one of the three. The Department
of Justice did not issue a report, and there is always the question of how
their program affected applicants. A small number were reinstated, some
ineligibly discharged. There is some discussion as to whether the President
should have granted amnesty. Amnesty does not mean much more than clemency.
We cannot tell the courts to ignore the existence of past offenses; all he
could do was to offer clemency.
Chapter on limits in the universal focus on the jurisdictional program
what kinds of people, it spells out jurisdictional criteria, and other
important issues to be faced. When the President established the program
he did not require a test of conscience. He did not say you had to leave
the country, that you had to demonstrate you were conscientiously objecting
to war.
Ms. Ford: Really, for a period of time at least one person in seven refused
to apply because he wanted unconditional pardon. No military people applied;
there were 40 military eligible but did not apply, it was thought they did
not know of their eligibility. My recollection was that we did look into this.
8.
Chairman Goodell: Military followed the procedure that in order to be re-
leased you had to sign an application if you were in Federal prison, or had a draft
conviction, or a military conviction, or were court-martialed. We had 270
total military cases; 102 civilians that were in Federal prison; 40 of the 270
did not apply. We asked the question "why"? They were fearful, did not dare
had
to apply, they/but one month to go and did not want to bother. I don't know
that we ever got the 40 pinned down, but we did have a report that all had
been explained; that some who were permitted to did not apply. They thought
you
that in order to be eligible for the program you had to demonstrate that/had
conscientious objection, to acknowledge continued allegiance to the United
States Government, and were careful to say they were not taking an oath.
In both cases it was not a question of eligibility; the test was not whether
had
or not you/conscientious feelings. The test is described in terms of the
offense committed, not the reason for the offense. You can see how generous
the Presidential-drawn line was, only about 25% of our applicants committed
offenses because of their opposition to war. This program was mainly for
people other than those for whom the program was drawn. How do you describe
that 25%?
Mr. Strauss: There are two interesting figures, one Mitigating Factor
No. 10, definitive reasons (reading from Report page 9, Chapter 3). There
are tables that say "Mitigating and Aggravating Factors"; look for the page
that has these headings in capital letters and a two to three word
description. These tables show the percentage of cases the Board had
identified as having Aggravating and Mitigating Factors being present.
The first line on the page begins the tables, based on Board dispositions
through the 11th of August. Look at Mitigating Factor No. 10--66% of
military and less than 5% of civilian. The other statistic is at the very
back of the report, Appendix C, three pages from the last page. The table
9.
at the very back of the report shows the primary reasons for offenses. If
you add the following categories together (the first three) will show
472 civilian, 979 military. (Further discussion, questions and answers).
Ways in which statistics were procured, discussion of how decisions were
secondary reasons,
made--primary reasons for the offense/ etc.etc. cross-talk, more than one
person speaking at once
Question: Are the primary reasons based on the fact or applicant's word?
Answer: Based on the summary. Made qualitative analysis and still tried
to do it objectively; as it appeared in the summary, not whether the Board
accepted it. As it so happened the figures happened to be the same--4.6.
In the first sample taken on Tuesday we had only 12% Vietnam veterans; in
this sample we have 27%. Forty-five percent of the military applicants had
served less than 180 days. The early sample is really not as good a sample as the
later ones. Not all cases had been prepared when we did the first sample;
we constructed a sample.
Question: Does this mean only 219 people had personal decorations?
Answer: Correction. Discussion of that happened after the sample was made.
Twenty-two applicants of our sample, or 2.2%, had bronze stars. The statistics
came out after the report was made up, we will go back over it and clear it up.
Query: What is the difference of 7--8%?
Answer: It means that 9 times out of 10 the Board did believe the applicant;
out of every 10 times applicant claimed conscientious objection in nine of
those cases the Board accepted it.
Chairman Goodell: Military cases get more mixed, civilian cases are usually
much more clear cut.
Mr. Strauss: This is not the final form of our data; many of these should
be collated, combined; it is raw data and needs to be collated as to what
belongs together, what issues are not important. We have only raw data,
10.
depending on how we coded it.
Question: How about Project 100,000 by McNamara? Those 100,000 that
fell into that category to be drafted? Did it concern itself only with
the inductees?
Chairman Goodell: My impression was that it was both--AFQT Category 4
as the reason for the offense. The law, of course, was in the kind
of case in which the only explanation for somebody's offense was that
he was so ill-equipped in terms of intelligence to deal with the service
that he went AWOL. We could only find a couple of cases in which there
was clear evidence that the applicant had been a 100,000 soldier.
The military did not keep very close records, all we know is that he
was Category 4. The commanders did not know the identity of Category 4
people so that they would not be treated any differently.
Comments by Bob Horn, Jim Poole, Larry Baskir
Bill Strauss: We took a tally of those who were in 100,000, but only
those who were in Project 4.
Chairman Goodell: I think you should eliminate reference to Project 100,000,
leave in only Project 4.
Member Puller: I have a question about bronze stars--how many applicants
had bronze stars--were they really bronze star recipients?
Bill Strauss: Twenty-seven percent of the Vietnam veterans had the bronze
star. They were not called bronze stars in the summaries, they were
not really bronze stars--they were campaign stars. The best we can do
is focus on the summaries, and this is why it is so important for you
to check these.
Chairman Goodell: I think we should delete all reference to bronze stars.
11.
Mr. Baskir: We could footnote it, in the summary.
Chairman Goodell: I object to that as no one would read the summary.
Colonel Riggs: They are named bronze stars when they are really campaign
stars.
Question: What is the source of the other figures?
Strauss: Bob Terzian will be here tomorrow; he worked on that and will
give us the source.
Question: Are they from other statistics or are they our own?
Strauss: Some our own, some from outside statistics.
James Dougovito: I believe these should be footnoted.
General discussion of this, some cross-talk, several people at once.
Bill Strauss: We have all the data, if the Board lets us know what it
wants.
Member Dougovito: I would like to see the description of a typical
military applicant and typical civilian applicant.
Larry Baskir: There is a description of that in Chapter
.
Member Ford: I have been asking about the number of femal applicants
and am wondering if we did break it down statistically.
Bill Strauss: We were talking about that today. There were 6 or 7 women
who applied to us; the first one was ineligible.
Member Ford: I think it would be well to mention that some women applied.
Board Member (seated next to Chairman): In terms of Mitigating
Factors 15 and 16, how many applicants were there?
Bill Strauss: 4.3% had Mitigating Factor 15, 4.8% had Mitigating Factor 16,
3.8% wounded in combat, i.e., 1/8 of 27; 4 C 12; one in eight wounded
in action. If you think it misleading we can change the wording.
12.
Actually, it is fairly close to the actual percentage. Of 26.4%
Vietnam veterans, 3.8% were wounded, one in seven, one in eight.
Three percent of all applicants were wounded. These are samples; they
are on cases through August 11. The Board found 26 1/2% of the cases
through August 11; after all cases are back we will be able to get a
print-out of all. On page 9 we have the same factors broken down to
show the patterns. That is from our total samples through August 11.
We will be able to update all of our dispositions later this month.
Veterans benefits cases were by panel only.
[at?]
Part B of Chapter 2 describes the program of definite, not indefinite
length. Applications to the program, how many we got, when we got
them, how we tried to spread the word about the eligibility criteria,
clemency applications. The Department of Defense applications also
picked up at the time of our publicity campaign. The Board was
fighting misconception.
Chairman Goodell: We have been imprisoned by the original estimates
of the Justice Department of our eligible applicants. The Department
of Defense gave us an estimate of 250,000 eligible; the following week
they reduced it to 110,000 presented as the most reliable figure, and
it was given to us as a joke. My feeling is that our eligibles could
be anywhere from 80,000 to 150,000.
Bill Strauss: I think I can explain how Department of Defense arrived
at these figures; our figure of 111,500 came through the same kinds
of calculations. The Department of Defense based it upon the percentage
of people with undesirable discharges. Since there was so much uncertainty
13.
about the question both with the Presidential Clemency Board and the
Department of Defense, and since it could be 70,000 or 120,000, we
used a nice round figure.
Senator Goodell: I would prefer that it be made clear that these are
the best estimates the Department of Defense could make. I think we
should say that, and should also say that our eligibles could range
anywhere from 80,000 to 120,000.
Bill Strauss: There were reported 600,000 people that went AWOL,
reported that 123,000 court-martial charges were filed; of that number
68,000 were court-martialed, 25,000 received discharges with convictions
for AWOL
The figure is based upon 21,000 punitive discharges for
AWOL. Everything you look at seems to point at about 20% attrition;
also we excluded people who committed felonies. Also, 55,000 of the
discharges were in lieu of court-martial.
Turn to page 6, Chapter 12, Section D, in the last paragraph of that
page the figure "90,000" is a little more accurate.
Question: Were any closed panels held?
Bill Strauss: The only closed panel was the supplemental.
[at this point so much cross-talk and several talking at once
notes are haphazard]
9% of each six months. Half of those were ineligible. Two
reasons that it can keep going many are just realizing that they
were eligible, and many others have been turned down because they
did not apply within the restricted time limit.
Question: Without the cut-off date does it mean that we would continue
to receive applications?
14.
Mr. Baskir: It is difficult to say
15% of the whole country
a lot of applicants figured it did not apply to them. The initial
impression was a misconception that the clemency program was directed
to deserters and those who went AWOL. 95 to 96% said they realized
they were eligible within the last week applications were accepted--
all the way through March they did not find out about their eligibility.
We could almost tell when a television station was carrying our program
because of the telephone calls we received.
There was a rash of phone calls received within a matter of hours
after the TV spots. Some of these points are also discussed under
Chapter 7. I feel we should be quite explicit about the American
Civil Liberties Union advising their inquirers not to apply. We
should make a point of stating this in the program report. Historically
that fact should be in there, not to re-hash, but because of our
difficulties at that time because of ACLU misrepresenting our program.
Word went out not to play Presidential Clemency Board spots, especially
to ABC and NBC.
Case by case consideration of Board's 16,000 cases.
Chairman Goodell: I believe we should take a break here.
Generally agreed, and at approximately 4:45 p.m. there was a break
of 1/2 hour.
Steno was scheduled to remain for one day; so arrangements were
made to return to Washington at approx. 5:30 p.m.
Hopefully the tape recorder was in operation for the remainder of
the meetings.
Respectfully submitted, October 2, 1975
Lenora E. Kimball
Transcription delayed because of an illness of 11 days' duration.