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
1505970
label
Clemency Law Reporter (1)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1505970
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Clemency Law Reporter (1)
citationUrl
collections
Charles E. Goodell Papers
Presidential Clemency Board Subject Files
subjects
Amnesty
Legal matters
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1505970
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-07-31
month
7
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-06-01
month
6
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
abb465451a310798
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 2, folder "Clemency Law Reporter (1)" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 2 of the Charles E. Goodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
MEMORANDUM
TO :
Senator Goodell
Larry Baskir
Bob Knisely
Gratchen Handwerger
Bob Horn
Brenda Hamer
Ray Mitchell
John Foote
Assistant General Counsels
FROM:
Bill Strauss
RE :
Comments on Draft on Clemency Law Reporter
Enclosed is a draft of the first issue of the Clemency
Law Reporter. Please make comments and give them to
me by Monday, June 2, 9:00 a.m.
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
CLEMENCY
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
LAW REPORTER
VOL.1 NUMBER ONE - JUNE'2, 1975
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
TO THE PROFESSIONAL STAFF:
Commencing with this issue, we shall be distributing copies
of the Clemency Law Reporter to all professional staff
on a weekly basis, or as new issues compel.
As professionals, we are all concerned about the sub-
stantive aspects of the work we perform. By analyzing
policy precedents developed by the Board and procedures
affecting the disposition of cases, it is hoped that the
Reporter will keep all attorneys abreast of changes that
will be useful in the preparation of case summaries.
Legal questions and professional matters of interest to
all will appear in the Reporter. Your contributions,
suggestions and ideas are welcomed.
Also, let me take this opportunity to express my personal
thanks for the professional quality of your work thus far.
I continue to be impressed by the positive attitude you
have brought to this historic effort.
Charles E Lordell
Charles E. Goodell
Chairman
CLEMENCY
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
LAW REPORTER
VOL. 1 NUMBER ONE - JUNE 2, 1975
HIGHLIGHTS
INTRODUCTION
The Clemency Law Reporter is an unofficial
document, the contents of which neither
MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIRMAN
constitute nor imply the official position
of the Board, but are intended as an in-
formal guide for the exclusive use of the
MESSAGE FROM THE GENERAL COUNSEL
PCB Staff.
The Clemency Law Reporter is prepared
YOUTH CORRECTIONS ACT
by the PCB Planning, Management and
Mike Remington discusses the relationship
Evaluation Staff. For information, please
of the YCA to the PCB. (Legal Notes)
contact Wil Ebel or Bob Terzian.
Room 901, Tel. 634-4823.
MILITARY AWARDS
A partial listing of military awards and
how they are earned. (Legal Notes)
CASES FLAGGED BY PANEL COUNSELS
Handling cases outside the decision norm.
INDEX
(Legal Notes)
Page
NELSON-JAVITS BILL
LEGAL NOTES
5
A Capitol Hill proposal would extend the
life of the PCB. (Policy Notes)
POLICY NOTES
14
AGGRAVATING-MITIGATING FACTORS
A "Kodak-Lohff" analysis of Aggravating-
LIBRARY NOTES.
16
Mitigating Factors. (Policy Precedents)
POLICY PRECEDENTS.
19
-2-
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
TO :
PCB STAFF
I am pleased to introduce the first issue of our pro-
fessional journal, the Clemency Law Reporter. We hope
to make the Reporter available to you weekly.
Wil Ebel and Bob Terzian will comprise the editorial
staff of the Clemency Law Reporter, but I am counting on
the entire staff for articles and suggestions for articles.
A legally trained staff of such professional breadth as
ours offers the opportunity for discussion of common legal
concerns in the areas of administrative law, discretionary
justice, and due prócess. Additionally, your diverse
background and your unique position as participants in
President Ford's program provides each of you the oppor-
tunity to make a contribution in the area of Clemency Law.
You can reach Wil or Bob at 634-4823. The editorial
Offices and the PCB Library will be in Room 901. Wil's
responsibility is to insure that emergent policy, news-
worthy information, and material of historical importance
is summarized in the Reporter. In addition, he will build
and maintain a library of documents, articles and cases
which may be useful to the action attorney's treatment of a
given case.
Bob will insure currency in precedent publication and legal
issues helpful in the preparation of case summaries.
This first issue is primarily devoted to publishing an
excellent work product of two Assistant General Counsels,
John Lohff and Robert Kodak. Their work consists of an
analysis of the aggravating and mitigating factors which
appear on the Aggravating-Mitigating work sheet prepared
with each case. They have included examples of summaries
which the Board has recognized as falling into the parti-
cular aggravating or mitigating categories. This analysis
should help answer any questions you may have. It will
-3-
2
be updated periodically, with notes included in the
"Policy Precedents" section of the Reporter.
The extent to which the Kodak-Lohff materials may be
cited as precedent in case summaries before the Board,
on motions for reconsideration and applicant appeals, is
a matter yet to be decided by the Board. The Board has
the final word as to the value of the precedent and the
proper means of bringing that precedent to the attention
of the Board. Thus, you must exercise caution in the use
of precedents until the Board has clarified its position
on this issue. This analysis is offered now as guidance
for you in deciding which aggravating or mitigating factors
are potentially present in your cases, but it is no substi-
tute for your own informed judgment. In the final analysis,
it is the Board which decides on the applicable factors in
any particular.case.
Lawsome mBaskin
Lawrence M. Baskir,
General Counsel
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
LEGAL NOTES
The Legal Notes Section will be devoted to information of
professional interest to the PCB attorney. It will include
such matters as new procedural developments of common con-
cern, and analysis of legal issues current to the PCB.
Contributions of ideas and work product from the staff are
especially critical to a full understanding of the law
applicable to the PCB.
GERALD P.. FORD
-5-
FEDERAL YOUTH CORRECTIONS ACT AND PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
Due to the importance of the Federal Youth Corrections Act (YCA),
action attorneys should note under the category "Current Sentence"
any sentence imposed pursuant to YCA. In addition, under the head-
ing "Present Status", the setting-aside of a conviction pursuant to
the provisions of the Youth Corrections Act should be noted.
Examples: Current Sentence -- 2 years probation, provided that
applicant perform alternate service
under provisions of YCA.
Present Status
-- Probation completed - Civilian
conviction set-aside under YCA.
PURPOSES
The Federal Youth Corrections Act can be described as the most comprehen-
sive federal statute concerned with sentencing. United States V. Coefield,
n. 2, 476 F. 2d 1152, 1156 (D.C. Cir. 1973, en banc). It is in large part
the outgrowth of recommendations made over 30 years ago by the Judician Con-
ference of the United States. The goals and principles of the Act are des-
cribed in the following statement:
"The underlying theory of the act is to substitute for
retributive punishment methods of training and treatment
designed to correct and prevent criminal tendencies. The
plan of the act departs from the merely punitive idea of
dealing with youthful offenders and looks primarily to
the objective idea of rehabilitation." (Subcommittee
report to the Judician Conference of Senior Court Judges,
1941).
(See also Rowls V. United States, 218 F. Supp. 849 (D.C. Mo. 1963).
Motivation for the theory behind the act was provided by two principal
factors: (1), the period of life between 16 and 22 years of age was con-
sidered to be a time when unique factors operated to produce habitual
criminals; and (2), prior existing methods of treating youths with crimi-
nal tendencies were found to be inadequate to prevent recidivism.
CONSTITUTIONALITY
The constitutionality of the Youth Corrections Act has been upheld by the
courts. Arguments that congressional delegation of its authority to the
federal district courts is unconstitutional, if this delegation fails to
set standards and specify policies amenable to administration by the
&
FORD
GERALD
-6-
federal courts, have failed. United States V. Baker, 429 F. 2d 1344 (7th)
Cir. 1970). It has been consistently recognized that Congress has great
latitude to grant broad discretionary powers to the federal courts. The
very role that the courts play in modern, democratic society necessitates
that they exercise discretion in carrying out their assigned functions.
It should be recognized, however, that this discretion is not unfettered.
It was clear from the beginning that the Youth Corrections program
attempted to establish among the criteria which judges would consider in
sentencing eligible offenders, one that was paramount -- that of re-
habilitation. Thus, in this sense, the discretion of the sentencing
judge is circumscribed concerning youth offenders. The requirement
contained in § 5010(d) of the Act provides the basis for this policy by
stating that otherwise eligible offenders should be deprived of an
opportunity for rehabilitation if they could not derive benefit from it.
Dorszynski v. United States, - U.S. - (decided June 26, 1974). Consequent-
ly, to sentence an individual under the Youth Corrections Act, the
district court judge has to make an important determination.
Concerning the relationship of the YCA to the policies and decisions of
the PCB, two questions arise. First, what is the relationship between
having a conviction set aside under YCA and receiving a Presidential
Pardon? Secondly, if the applicant has already had his conviction set
aside under the YCA, should the PCB ask the applicant to perform
alternative service in return for a Presidential Pardon?
QUESTIONS
I
The "setting-aside" of a conviction under the YCA occurs by operation of
law. 18 U.S.C. § 5021. Once an offender has been sentenced under the
Youth Corrections Act, he is entitled to have his conviction set aside
"by law", and not as a matter of "discretion". The 8 5021(a) requirement,
that upon unconditional discharge before expiration of the maximum
sentence imposed the conviction shall automatically be set aside, cannot
be over-emphasized. This element gives the Act an operative effect. It
represents an important difference between an ordinary criminal conviction
which can only be relieved by a Presidential Pardon and then only in a
limited fashion. See Tatum V. United States, 310 F. 2d 854 (D.C. Cir.
1962). As the Tatum court stated:
"The provision of the Federal Youth Corrections 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 of-
fender from all disabilities imposed by the offense,
and restores to him all his civil rights.' Knote v.
United States, 95 U.S. 149, 153 (1877)."
-7-
(It is noted that Chief Justice Burger, then a Circuit Judge, participated
in the per curium Tatum decision).
The Ninth Circuit recently developed this theme by finding that an alien
could not be deported on the basis of a narcotics conviction after receipt
of certificate that his conviction had been expunged pursuant to the
Federal Youth Corrections Act, despite the presence of a statute providing
that neither executive pardon nor judicial recommendation of leniency
could prevent deportation of an alien for a narcotics conviction. In
Mestre Morera V. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service,
462 F. 2d 1030 (1972), the court stated:
"The clear purpose for the automatic setting-aside
of a youthful offender's conviction if he responds
satisfactorily to treatment under the Youth Corrections
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 a conviction.
See U.S. Code Congressional Service, 81st Cong., 2d Sess.,
pp. 3391-3392 (1950).
*****
Pardon and leniency at most restore to an offender his
civil rights; neither is as clearly directed as the
Youth Corrections Act toward giving him a second chance,
free from all taint of a conviction."
The conclusion is unavoidable, therefore, that having a sentence set aside
under the YCA is mbre important and restorative than a Presidential Pardon.
This, however, does not resolve the problem for the PCB. There are
hundreds of applications from individuals who have had their convictions
set aside under the YCA. These people evidently feel that an executive
pardon, on top of a "judicial" pardon, will benefit them. They are
probably correct in this contention. First, the public usually perceives
of a Presidential Pardon as being more than a judicial pardon. Prospective
employers, for example, may lend more credence to a pardon conferred by the
President of the United States than the setting-aside of a conviction by
a federal district court. Second, the states have not accorded total
respect to the dictates of the YCA. A recent poll of the attorneys general
in the 50 states indicates that they, for the most part, do not feel bound
to recognize the setting-aside of a conviction as the equivalent of no
conviction. Thus, the YCA insures that federal liabilities are set aside,
but not state. Since the state level is more meaningful in such areas as
education and licensing, it would appear that a Presidential Pardon could
have an extremely important effect here.
In conclusion, the Board is correct in taking jurisdiction of cases in
which the individual has had his sentence set-aside under YCA.
-8-
II
The action attorney should be aware of a second question. Should the
PCB ask an individual to perform alternative service in return for a
Presidential Pardon if that person has already had his conviction set
aside? If answered in the affirmative, the request for alternative
service should be accompanied by written notice to the applicant that
a Presidential Pardon will confer no more legal benefits (especially
at the federal level) than those which he has already received under
the Youth Corrections Act.
-9-
The following list is a brief explanation of the military awards
and decorations that may be encountered by the Presidential Clemency
Board. This list does not purport to be exhaustive, but only illustrative.
National Defense Service Medal (NDSM): Awarded to those personnel on
active duty for periods designated by the President.
Vietnam Service Medal (VSM) A personal decoration awarded to those
personnel who served in, or off the contiguous waters of, or in
the airspace over, the Republic of Vietnam.
Vietnamese Campaign Medal (VCM): A personal award by the Vietnamese
government to personnel on active duty who serve six months or
more in the Republic of Vietnam.
Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry with Palm (VCG): This is a unit or
individual citation awarded by. the Vietnamese government to
American units or soldiers for outstanding combat service.
Presidential Unit Citation (PUC): Awarded to American units designated
by the President for outstanding combat service.
Navy Unit Citation (NUC): Awarded to Navy and Marine Corps units
designated by the Secretary of the Navy for outstanding combat service.
Meritorious Unit Citation (MUC): Awarded to American units designated
by the Secretaries of the Army and Navy for meritorious service in
the Republic of Vietnam.
Valorous Unit Citation (VUC): Awarded to Army units designated by the
Secretary of the Army or designated commanders for valorous service
in the Republic of Vietnam.
Combat Action Ribbon (CAR): Awarded to Navy and Marine Corps
personnel, as a personal decoration, for service in hostile fire
zones in the Republic of Vietnam.
Army Commendation Medal (ACM): Awarded to Army personnel for any
meritorious service. "V" device indicates personal heroism in a
combat zone. It is a personal decoration.
Navy Commendation Medal (NCM): Awarded to Navy and Marize Corps
personnel for meritorious or heroic action. It is a personal
decoration. "V" device indicates awarded for active duty in a
combat zone.
Air Medal (AM): Awarded to personnel for meritorious achievement while
participating in aerial flight in a combat zone. Is a personal
decoration.
Purple Heart Medal (PHM): Awarded as a result of wounds sustained in
action against enemy forces. Is a personal decoration.
-10-
Bronze Star Medal (BCM):
Army - Awarded for outstanding performance of duty in combat
zone. "V" device indicates acts of heroism and bravery in action
against the enemy. Personal decoration.
Navy & Marine Corps - Awarded for outstanding performance of duty or
acts of heroism against the enemy. "V" device indicates awarded for
action/duty in a combat zone. Personal decoration.
Silver Star Medal (SS): Awarded for gallantry in action against enemy forces.
Is the third highest award for gallantry. Personal decoration.
-11-
SOP ON THE FLAGGING OF
CASES FOR THE SPECIAL DOCKET
All cases that come before a panel or the full Board are
being analyzed to insure consistency in the disposition
of cases. The following is a description of the process
designed to implement this analysis.
Following the recommended disposition of a case by a panel,
either the Action Attorney or the Panel Counsel will identify
those cases they believe fall outside the decisional norm.
The Panel Counsel will note the case number and flag the
case for reconsideration by the Planning, Management and
Evaluation Team (PM&E). The Panel Counsel or the Action
Attorney will then complete a Special Docket Disposition
Form specifying the alleged basis for the inconsistency and
the flagging of the case. This form will be sent to the
PM&E staff.
The disposition sheets prepared by the scribes will indicate
that a Special Docket referral has been initiated, and in an
indented line below the case number, the panel decision will
be shown.
The scribe coordinator will prepare a separate list of cases
flagged for the Special Docket and forward it to Bill Strauss,
Associate General Counsel for Planning, Management and
Evaluation.
The PM&E staff will consider individually each case referred
to it, along with cases which are identified in a separate
statistical analysis known as the Post Audit. The PM&E staff
will recommend to the General Counsel a specified disposition
to include a) grant review, b) deny review, c) indicate the
recommended alteration in the Board disposition, d) state a
justification for the recommendation.
The General Counsel will review the recommendations and Board
dispositions and determine whether the requested reconsidera-
tion is warranted. If he decides the case does not merit
further Board time, he will remove the case from the Special
Docket and order the case referred to the President for
-12-
2
final action. If reconsideration is warranted, the case
will be referred to the Board for further consideration.
In those cases in which the applicant requests reconsi-
deration within the 30 day period after he is notified of
the President's action, the applicant will submit a request
for reconsideration. The Action Attorney will prepare the
Special Docket Disposition Form and place it in channels
described above. However, the General Counsel will only
make a recommendation to the Board; he will not render a
decision that will remove the case from the Special Docket.
When a Board member or a panel requests that the case be
considered by the full Board, the panel member will com-
plete the Special Docket Disposition Form for introduction
into the channels described above. Again, the General
Counsel will make a recommendation on disposition to the
Board, but will not remove the case from the Special Docket.
Finally, the Board will make a final disposition of each
of the Special Docket cases.
Action Attorney or
Post Audit suggests
Applicant requests
Panel Counsel suggests
case is inconsistent
reconsideration
case is inconsistent
Planning, Management and Evaluation
Team (Bill Strauss) for
evaluation
General Counsel for review
No further Board
action warranted:
Presidential Clemency Board for
to President.
final disposition
-13-
SPECIAL DOCKET DISPOSITION FORM
Case Number
Action Attorney
Date of Board Panel Disposition
Panel Counsel
Case referred to special docket by:
Action attorney
Applicant
Panel Counsel
Board Member
Planning, Management and Evaluation staff
Other
Baseline recommended by Board panel:
Aggravating factors cited by Board panel:
Mitigating factors cited by Board panel:
Reason for Special Docketing:
Recommendation:
-14-
POLICY NOTES
The Clemency Law Reporter will include a Policy Notes Section
that will highlight items of current interest. You can help
us by calling our attention to articles dealing with clemency
that appear in newspapers and periodicals and that you find
relevant to the PCB Staff effort.
We would be pleased to consider any staff-submitted manuscript
(not over 1,000 words, please) for possible publication in the
Clemency Law Reporter. Send to Wil Ebel or Bob Terzian.
Room 901, Tel, 634-4823.
-15-
NELSON-JAVITS BILL
Senator Gaylord Nelson (D-WI) and Senator Jacob Javits (R-NY) have
co-sponsored a bill that would extend the life of the PCB and would
give PCB jurisdiction over matters now handled by Defense, Justice,
and Transportation Departments. House hearings have been completed;
Senate Government Operations Committee hearings will be held soon
after the Senate reconvenes. Three major elements of the Nelson-
Javits Bill:
-The clemency application deadline is removed
-The program is reorganized and PCB gains jurisdiction over all
cases
-A 30 day non-immigration visa is available to military deserters
and draft evaders.
While in the US under the 30 day non-immigration visa, an individual
would be immune from arrest or prosecution for draft evader or military
desertion offenses. The purpose of the 30 day visa is two-fold: it
would permit the family to be reunited for a short period and it would
permit the potential applicant to make direct contact with authorities.
The Nelson-Javits Bill contains no provision for alternative service.
-16-
LIBRARY NOTES
The Planning, Management and Evaluation Staff is building a
PCB Library. The library will be housed in Room 901 (turn
left as you leave the elevators). The PCB Library will serve
three purposes:
-Reference library for the Professional Staff
-Research material for PCB's final report to the President
-Historical data to be archived.
All staff is invited to read these materials, but we do ask
that you not remove or borrow any items from the library.
FORDS & DERALD
-17-
RECENT ACQUISITIONS OF THE PCB LIBRARY
POLITICAL PRISONERS IN AMERICA
Hon. Charles E. Goodell
PROPHETS WITHOUT HONOR
Public Policy and the Selective Conscientious Objector
John A. Rohr
PROTEST AND DISCONTENT
Essays on Protest and Discontent
Bernard Crick and William A. Robson, Editors
THE NEW EXILES
American War Resisters in Canada
THE RESISTANCE
The Draft Resistance Movement, 1966-1971
Michael Ferber and Staughton Lynd
THEY CAN'T GO HOME AGAIN
The Story of America's Political Refugees
Richard L. Killmer, Robert S. Lecky, Debrah S. Wiley
WAR RESISTERS - CANADA
The World of the American Military-Political Refugees
Kenneth Fred Emerick
WHEN CAN I COME HOME?
A Debate on Amnesty for Exiles, Anti-war Prisoners
and Others
Murray Polner
-18-
POLICY PRECEDENTS
The Policy Precedents Section of the Clemency Law Reporter
will include periodic updates of the Kodak-Lohff material
analyzing the Board's application of aggravating and miti-
gating factors. This material is prepared for the use of
the PCB Staff and is intended to provide guidance to the
Staff to aid in the preparation of case summaries and other
appropriate actions before the Presidential Clemency Board.
-19-
3
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
June 19, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
BOARD MEMBERS
FROM:
LAWRENCE M. BASKIR
SUBJECT:
CLEMENCY .LAW REPORTER
Beginning a few weeks ago, I felt it was necessary that we prepare
a periodical document for the benefit of the Board's legal staff
which would keep them up to date on Board policy and similar matters.
We have already issued two volumes of this new Clemency Law Reporter.
Among the items we have included have been history of Presidential
clemencies, materials on military justice, legal memos on the problem
of Board jurisdiction over aliens, and explanations of Board policy
on the aggravating and mitigating factors.
Although the Clemency Reporter was initially prepared for the guidance
of the staff, I believe the Board members may find it of interest, and
so we are distributing copies to you as well. I hope if you have any
suggestions, criticisms, or corrections you will let me know about it.
Also, it you have any items which you would like presented to the staff,
please tell me so that they can be included in the future issues of the
Reporter.
One of the more difficult things the Reporter tries to do is to summarize
Board policy with respect to a host of matters. Because of the delay
between Board decision-making and the publication of a new issue of the
Reporter, the Reporter may not always be up to date or reflect Board
policy as accurately as I would like. Then, too, it may be that I may
misinterpret Board positions on some matters which are included in. the
Reporter. I hope you will bear with these interpretations and bring
them to my attention when you notice them, so we can send out better
guidance to the staff.
I hope you will enjoy reading the Reporter.
&
FORD
P.S. I understand you have the last two volumes of the
Reporter; the first volume is attached.
CLEMENCY
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
LAW REPORTER
VOL. 1 NUMBER ONE - JUNE 2, 1975
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
TO THE PROFESSIONAL STAFF:
Commencing with this issue, we shall be distributing copies
of the Clemency Law Reporter to all professional staff
on a weekly basis, or as new issues compel.
As professionals, we are all concerned about the sub-
stantive aspects of the work we perform. By analyzing
policy precedents developed by the Board and procedures
affecting the disposition of cases, it is hoped that the
Reporter will keep all attorneys abreast of changes that
will be useful in the preparation of case summaries.
Legal questions and professional matters of interest to
all will appear in the Reporter. Your contributions,
suggestions and ideas are welcomed.
Also, let me take this opportunity to express my personal
thanks for the professional quality of your work thus far.
I continue to be impressed by the positive attitude you
have brought to this historic effort.
Charles E Foodell
Charles E. Goodell
Chairman
CLEMENCY
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
LAW REPORTER
VOL.1 NUMBER ONE - JUNE 2, 1975
HIGHLIGHTS
INTRODUCTION
The Clemency Law Reporter is an unofficial
document, the contents of which neither
MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIRMAN
constitute nor imply the official position
of the Board, but are intended as an in-
formal guide for the exclusive use of the
MESSAGE FROM THE GENERAL COUNSEL
PCB Staff.
The Clemency Law Reporter is prepared
YOUTH CORRECTIONS ACT
by the PCB Planning, Management and
Mike Remington discusses the relationship
Evaluation Staff. For information, please
of the YCA to the PCB. (Legal Notes)
contact Wil Ebel or Bob Terzian.
Room 901, Tel! 634-4823.
MILITARY AWARDS
A partial listing of military awards and
how they are earned. (Legal Notes)
CASES FLAGGED BY PANEL COUNSELS
Handling cases outside the decision norm.
INDEX
(Legal Notes)
Page
NELSON-JAVITS BILL
LEGAL NOTES
5
A Capitol Hill proposal would extend the
life of the PCB. (Policy Notes)
POLICY NOTES
14
AGGRAVATING-MITIGATING FACTORS
A "Kodak-Lohff" analysis of Aggravating-
LIBRARY NOTES
16
Mitigating Factors. (Policy Precedents)
POLICY PRECEDENTS.
19
-2-
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
TO :
PCB STAFF
I am pleased to introduce the first issue of our pro-
fessional journal, the Clemency Law Reporter.
We hope
to make the Reporter available to you weekly.
Wil Ebel and Bob Terzian will comprise the editorial
staff of the Clemency Law Reporter, but I am counting on
the entire staff for articles and suggestions for articles.
A legally trained staff of such professional breadth as
ours offers the opportunity for discussion of common legal
concerns in the areas of administrative law, discretionary
justice, and due process. Additionally, your diverse
background and your unique position as participants in
President Ford's program provides each of you the oppor-
tunity to make a contribution in the area of Clemency Law.
You can reach Wil or Bob at 634-4823. The editorial
Offices and the PCB Library will be in Room 901. Wil's
responsibility is to insure that emergent policy, news-
worthy information, and material of historical importance
is summarized in the Reporter. In addition, he will build
and maintain a library of documents, articles and cases
which may be useful to the action attorney's treatment of a
given case.
Bob will insure currency in precedent publication and legal
issues helpful in the preparation of case summaries.
This first issue is primarily devoted to publishing an
excellent work product of two Assistant General Counsels,
John Lohff and Robert Kodak. Their work consists of an
analysis of the aggravating and mitigating factors which
appear on the Aggravating-Mitigating work sheet prepared
with each case. They have included examples of summaries
which the Board has recognized as falling into the parti-
cular aggravating or mitigating categories. This will
L1_
-3-
2
be updated periodically, with notes included in the
"Policy Precedents" section of the Reporter.
The extent to which the Kodak-Lohff materials may be
cited as precedent in case summaries before the Board,
on motions for reconsideration and applicant appeals, is
a matter yet to be decided by the Board. The Board has
the final word as LO the value of the precedent and the
proper means of bringing that precedent to the attention
of the Board. Thus, you must exercise caution in the use
of precedents until the Board has clarified its position
on this issue. This analysis is offered now as guidance
for you in deciding which aggravating or mitigating factors
are potentially present in your cases, but it is no substi-
tute for your own informed judgment. In the final analysis,
it is the Board which decides on the applicable factors in
any particular case.
Lawsune mBaskin
Lawrence M. Baskir,
General Counsel
FORD & LIBRAR 078820
4
FEDERAL YOUTH CORRECTIONS ACT AND PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
Due to the importance of the Federal Youth Corrections Act (YCA),
action attorneys should note under the category "Current Sentence"
any sentence imposed pursuant to YCA. In addition, under the head-
ing "Present Status", the setting-aside of a conviction pursuant to
the provisions of the Youth Corrections Act should be noted.
Examples: Current Sentence -- 2 years probation, provided that
applicant perform alternate service
under provisions of YCA.
Present Status
-- Probation completed - Civilian
conviction set-aside under YCA.
PURPOSES
The Federal Youth Corrections Act can be described as the most comprehen-
sive federal statute. concerned with sentencing. United States V. Coefield,
n. 2, 476 F. 2d 1152, 1156 (D.C. Cir. 1973, en banc). It is in large part
the outgrowth of recommendations made over 30 years ago by the Judician Con-
ference of the United States. The goals and principles of the Act are des-
cribed in the following statement:
"The underlying theory of the act is to substitute for
retributive punishment methods of training and treatment
designed to correct and prevent criminal tendencies. The
plan of the act departs from the merely punitive idea of
dealing with youthful offenders and looks primarily to
the objective idea of rehabilitation." (Subcommittee
report to the Judician Conference of Senior Court Judges,
1941).
(See also Rowls V. United States, 218 F. Supp. 849 (D.C. Mo. 1963).
Motivation for the theory behind the act was provided by two principal
factors: (1), the period of life between 16 and 22 years of age was con-
sidered to be a time when unique factors operated to produce habitual
criminals; and (2), prior existing methods of treating youths with crimi-
nal tendencies were found to be inadequate to prevent recidivism.
CONSTITUTIONALITY
The constitutionality of the Youth Corrections Act has been upheld by the
courts. Arguments that congressional delegation of its authority to the
federal district courts is unconstitutional, if this delegation fails to
set standards and specify policies amenable to administration by the
-6-
federal courts, have failed. United States V. Baker, 429 F. 2d 1344 (7th)
Cir. 1970). It has been consistently recognized that Congress has great
latitude to grant broad discretionary powers to the federal courts. The
very role that the courts play in modern, democratic society necessitates
that they exercise discretion in carrying out their assigned functions.
It should be recognized, however, that this discretion is not unfettered.
It was clear from the beginning that the Youth Corrections program
attempted to establish among the criteria which judges would consider in
sentencing eligible offenders, one that was paramount -- that of re-
habilitation. Thus, in this sense, the discretion of the sentencing
judge is circumscribed concerning youth offenders. The requirement
contained in § 5010(d) of the Act provides the basis for this policy by
stating that otherwise eligible offenders should be deprived of. an
opportunity for rehabilitation if they could not derive benefit from it.
Dorszynski V. United States, - U.S.- (decided June 26, 1974). Consequent-
ly, to sentence an individual under the Youth Corrections Act, the
district court judge has to make an important determination.
Concerning the relationship of the YCA to the policies and decisions of
the PCB, two questions arise. First, what is the relationship between
having a conviction set aside under YCA and receiving a Presidential
Pardon? Secondly, if the applicant has already had his conviction set
aside under the YCA, should the PCB ask the applicant to perform
alternative service in return for a Presidential Pardon?
QUESTIONS
I
The "setting-aside" of a conviction under the YCA occurs by operation of
law. 18 U.S.C. § 5021. Once an offender has been sentenced under the
Youth Corrections Act, he is entitled to have his conviction set aside
"by law", and not as 8 matter of: "discretion". The g 5021(a) requirement,
that upon unconditional discharge before expiration of the maximum
sentence imposed the conviction shall automatically be set aside, cannot
be over-emphasized. This element gives the Act an operative effect. It
represents an important difference between an ordinary criminal conviction
which can only be relieved by a Presidential Pardon and then only in a
limited fashion. See Tatum V. United States, 310 F. 2d 854 (D.C. Cir.
1962). As the Tatum court stated:
"The provision of the Federal Youth Corrections Act,
18 U.S.C. 8 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 of-
fender from all disabilities imposed by the offense,
and restores to him all his civil rights.' Knote V.
United States, 95 U.S. 149, 153 (1877)."
-7-
(It is noted that Chief Justice Burger, then a Circuit Judge, participated
in the per curium Tatum decision).
The Ninth Circuit recently developed this theme by finding that an alien
could not be deported on the basis of a narcotics conviction after receipt
of certificate that his conviction had been expunged pursuant to the
Federal Youth Corrections Act, despite the presence of a statute providing
that neither executive pardon nor judicial recommendation of leniency
could prevent deportation of an alien for a narcotics conviction. In
Mestre Morera V. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service,
462 F. 2d 1030 (1972), the court stated:
"The clear purpose for the automatic setting-aside
of a youthful offender's conviction if he responds
satisfactorily to treatment under the Youth Corrections
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 a conviction.
See U.S. Code Congressional Service, 81st Cong., 2d Sess.,
pp. 3391-3392 (1950).
*****
Pardon and leniency at most restore to an offender his
civil rights; neither is as clearly directed as the
Youth Corrections Act toward giving him a second chance,
free from all taint of a conviction.
If
The conclusion is unavoidable, therefore, that having a sentence set aside
under the YCA is more important and restorative than a Presidential Pardon.
This, however, does not resolve the problem for the PCB. There are
hundreds of applications from individuals who have had their convictions
set aside under the YCA. These people evidently feel that an executive
pardon, on top of a "judicial" pardon, will benefit them. They are
probably correct in this contention: First, the public usually perceives
of a Presidential Pardon as being more than a judicial pardon. Prospective
employers, for example, may lend more credence to a pardon conferred by the
President of the United States than the setting-aside of a conviction by
a federal district court. Second, the states have not accorded total
respect to the dictates of the YCA. A recent poll of the attorneys general
in the 50 states indicates that they, for the most part, do not feel bound
to recognize the setting-aside of a conviction as the equivalent of no
conviction. Thus, the YCA insures that federal liabilities are set aside,
but not state. Since the state level is more meaningful in such areas as
education and licensing, it would appear that a Presidential Pardon could
have an extremely important effect here.
In conclusion, the Board is correct in taking jurisdiction of cases in
which the individual has had his sentence set-aside under YCA.
-8-
II
The action attorney should be aware of a second question. Should the
PCB ask an individual to perform alternative service in return for a
Presidential Pardon if that person has already had his conviction set
aside? If answered in the affirmative, the request for alternative
service should be accompanied. by written notice to the applicant that
a Presidential Pardon will confer no more legal benefits (especially
at the federal level) than those which he has already received under
the Youth Corrections Act.
Mike Remington
-9-
The following list is a brief explanation of the military awards
and decorations that may be encountered by the Presidential Clemency
Board. This list does not purport to be exhaustive, but only illustrative.
National Defense Service Medal (NDSM): Awarded to those personnel on
active duty for periods designated by the President.
Vietnam Service Medal (VSM): A personal decoration awarded to those
personnel who served in, or off the contiguous waters of, or in
the airspace over, the Republic of Vietnam.
Vietnamese Campaign Medal (VCM): A personal award by the Vietnamese
government to personnel on active duty who serve six months or
more in the Republic of Vietnam.
Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry with Palm (VCG): This is a unit or
individual citation awarded by the Vietnamese government to
American units or soldiers for outstanding combat service.
Presidential Unit Citation (PUC): Awarded to American units designated
by the President for outstanding combat service.
Navy Unit Citation (NUC): Awarded to Navy and Marine Corps units
designated by the Secretary of the Navy for outstanding combat service.
Meritorious Unit Citation (MUC): Awarded to American units designated
by the Secretaries of the Army and Navy for meritorious service in
the Republic of Vietnam.
Valorous Unit Citation (VUC): Awarded to Army units designated by the
Secretary of the Army or designated commanders for valorous service
in the Republic of Vietnam.
Combat Action Ribbon (CAR): Awarded to Navy and Marine Corps
personnel; as a personal decoration, for service in hostile fire
zones in the Republic of Vietnam.
Army Commendation Medal (ACM): Awarded to Army personnel for any
meritorious service. "V" device indicates personal heroism in a
combat zone. It is a personal decoration.
Navy Commendation Medal (NCM): Awarded to Navy and Marize Corps
personnel for meritorious or heroic action. It is a personal
decoration. "V" device indicates awarded for active duty in a
combat zone.
Air Medal (AM): Awarded to personnel for meritorious achievement while
participating in aerial flight in a combat zone. Is a personal
decoration.
Purple Heart Medal (PHM): Awarded as a result of wounds sustained in
action against enemy forces. Is a personal decoration.
-10-
Bronze Star Medal (BCM):
Army - Awarded for outstanding performance of duty in combat
zone. "V" device indicates acts of heroism and bravery in action
against the enemy. Personal decoration.
Navy & Marine Corps - Awarded for outstanding performance of duty or
acts of heroism against the enemy. "V" device indicates awarded for
action/duty in a combat zone. Personal decoration.
Silver Star Medal (SS): Awarded for gallantry in action against enemy forces.
Is the third highest award for gallantry. Personal decoration.
Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM) : A unit citation
awarded for combat or combat support in a foreign
nation, the adjacent waters or airspace thereover. In
most instances it will be for service in the Republic
of Korea.
Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB) : Awarded to Army personnel
as a personal decoration for service in an infantry
unit actively engaged in ground combat.
-- Bob Terzian
-11-
SOP ON THE FLAGGING OF
CASES FOR THE SPECIAL DOCKET
All cases that come before a panel or the full Board are
being analyzed to insure consistency in the disposition
of cases. The fol owing is a description of the process
designed to implement this analysis.
Following the recommended disposition of a case by a panel,
either the Action Attorney or the Panel Counsel will identify
those cases they believe fall outside the decisional norm.
The Panel Counsel will note the case number and flag the
case for reconsideration by the Planning, Management and
Evaluation Team (PM&E). The Panel Counsel or the Action
Attorney will then complete a Special Docket Disposition
Form specifying the alleged basis for the inconsistency and
the flagging of the case. This form will be sent to the
PM&E staff.
The disposition sheets prepared by the scribes will indicate
that a Special Docket referral has been initiated, and in an
indented line below the case number, the panel decision will
be shown.
The scribe coordinator will prepare a separate list of cases
flagged for the Special Docket and forward it to Bill Strauss,
Associate General Counsel for Planning, Management and
Evaluation.
The PM&E staff will consider individually each case referred
to it, along with cases which are identified in a separate
statistical analysis known as the Post Audit. The PM&E staff
will recommend to the General Counsel a specified disposition
to include a) grant review, b) deny review, c) indicate the
recommended alteration in the Board disposition, d) state a
justification for the recommendation.
The General Counsel will review the recommendations and Board
dispositions and determine whether the requested reconsidera-
tion is warranted. If he decides the case does not merit
further Board time, he will remove the case from the Special
Docket and order the case referred to the President for
FORD
RALO
-12-
2
final action. If reconsideration is warranted, the case
will be referred to the Board for further consideration.
In those cases in which the applicant requests reconsi-
deration within the 30 day period after he is notified of
the President's action, the applicant will submit a request
for reconsideration. The Action Attorney will prepare the
Special Docket Disposition Form and place it in channels
described above. However, the General Counsel will only
make a recommendation to the Board; he will not render a
decision that will remove the case from the Special Docket.
When a Board member or a panel requests that the case be
considered by the full Board, the panel member will com-
plete the Special Docket Disposition Form for introduction
into the channels described above. Again, the General
Counsel will make a recommendation on disposition to the
Board, but will not remove the case from the Special Docket.
Finally, the Board will make a final disposition of each
of the Special Docket cases.
Action Attorney or
Post Audit suggests
Applicant requests
Panel Counsel suggests
case is inconsistent
reconsideration
case is inconsistent
Planning, Management and Evaluation
Team (Bill Strauss) for
evaluation
General Counsel for review
No further Board
action warranted:
Presidential Clemency Board for
to President.
final disposition
-- Bob Terzian
-13-
SPECIAL DOCKET DISPOSITION FORM
Case Number
Action Attorney
Telephone
Date of Board Panel Disposition
Board Members Present
Panel Counsel
Case referred to special docket by:
Action attorney
Applicant
Panel Counsel
Board Member
Planning, Management & Evaluation Staff
other
Baseline recommended by Board panel:
Aggravating factors cited by Board panel:
Mitigating factors cited by Board panel;
Reason for Special Docketing:
Recommendation:
-14-
NELSON-JAVITS BILL
Senator Gaylord Nelson (D-WI) and Senator Jacob Javits (R-NY) have
co-sponsored a bill that would extend the life of the PCB and would
give PCB jurisdiction over matters now handled by Defense, Justice,
and Transportation Departments. House hearings have been completed;
Senate Government Operations Committee hearings will be held soon
after the Senate reconvenes. Three major elements of the Nelson-
Javits Bill:
-The clemency application deadline is removed
-The program is reorganized and PCB gains jurisdiction over
all cases
-A 30 day non-immigration visa is available to military deserters
and draft evaders.
While in the US under the 30 day non-immigration visa, an individual
would be immune from arrest or prosecution for draft evader or military
desertion offenses The purpose of the 30 day visa is two-fold: it
would permit the family to be reunited for a short period and it would
permit the potential applicant to make direct contact with authorities.
Other bills offering some broader forms of clemency (or amnesty) have
also been introduced. We shall tell you more about these in subsequent
issues of the Reporter.
-- Wil Ebel
-16-
RECENT ACQUISITIONS OF THE PCB LIBRARY
POLITICAL PRISONERS IN AMERICA
Hon. Charles E. Goodell
PROPHETS WITHOUT HONOR
Public Policy and the Selective Conscientious Objector
John A. Rohr
PROTEST AND DISCONTENT
Essays on Protest and Discontent
Bernard Crick and William A. Robson, Editors
THE NEW EXILES
American War Resisters in Canada
THE RESISTANCE
The Draft Resistance Movement, 1966-1971
Michael Ferber and Staughton Lynd
THEY CAN'T GO HOME AGAIN
The Story of America's Political Refugees
Richard L. Killmer, Robert S. Lecky, Debrah S. Wiley
WAR RESISTERS - CANADA
The World of the American Military-Political Refugees
Kenneth Fred Emerick
WHEN CAN I COME HOME?
A Debate on Amnesty for Exiles, Anti-war Prisoners
and Others
Murray Polner
-18-
POLICY PRECEDENTS
The Policy *Precedents Section of the Clemency Law
Reporter will include periodic updates of the Kodak-Lohff
analysis of the Boards's application of aggravating and
mitigating factors. This initial paper has been prepared
on the basis of Board case dispositions through February
only, SO it does not necessarily reflect current Board
policy. You should keep these materials in a loose-leaf
binder to permit insertion of new or revised textual analy-
sis.
You should be aware that the Kodak-Lohff analysis makes no
attempt to identify which were the controlling facts
directly affecting any particular case disposition; nor
does it note whether the Board marked any factor as "weak"
or "strong." Facts which led to findings of other aggra-
vating or mitigating factors (and which may have had the
greatest effect upon the Board's ultimate disposition)
have not been included in the summary extracts. Therefore,
it is not possible to use the extracts to account for any
particular case disposition by the Board.
-19-
MITIGATING FACTORS
R.FORM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Aggravating Factors:
Page No.
1. Other adult convictions
1
2. False statement by applicant to the Presidential Clemency Board
2
3. Use of force by applicant collaterally to AWOL, desertion, or
missing movement or civilian draft evasion offense
3
4. Desertion during combat or leaving combat zone
4
5. Evidence that applicant committed offense for obviously
manipulative and selfish reasons
5,5a,b,c,d
6. Prior refusal to fulfill alternative service
6
7. Violation of probation or parole
7,7a
8. Multiple AWOL/UA offenses
8
9. AWOL/UA of extended length
9
10. Failure to report for overseas assigment
10
B. Mitigating Factors:
1. Lack of sufficient education or ability to undestand obligations
or remedies available under the law
11,11a,b
2. Personal and immediate family problems
12,12a,b,c,
d,e,f,g
3. Mental or physical condition
13,13a,b,c,
d,e
4. Employment and other activities of service to the public
14,14a,b
5. Service connected disability
15
6. Extended period of creditable military service
16
7. Tours of service in the war zone
17
8. Substantial evidence of personal or procedural unfairness
18,18a,b,c,
d,e,f,g,h,i
9. Denial of conscientious objector status on procedural,
technical or improper grounds
19,19a,b
10. Evidence that an applicant acted for conscientious, not
manipulative or selfish reasons
20,20a,b
11. Voluntary submission to authorities
21
12. Behavior which reflects mental stress caused by combat
22
13. Volunteering for combat or extension of service while in combat
23
14. Above average military conduct and proficiency, or unit citations
24
15. Personal decorations for valor
25
16. Wounds in combat
26
C.
Summary of Decision Sheet (Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
sheet)
27,27a
FORD 11824
1.
Aggravating Factors: 1.
Other Adult Convictions - This factor indicates any felony conviction,
Summary, Special or General Courtmartial conviction for any offense,
either prior to or subsequent to the qualifying offense. Non-judicial
punishments, arrests, acquittals, misdemeanors, convictions, set-
asides, juvenile convictions, or pre-trial confinements, are not
applicable. (A juvenile is aged 16 years or younger unless the record
is otherwise clear that it is a youthful offender conviction. Use a
one year sentence as a measure of a felony conviction.
7
5-13-75
2.
Aggravating Factors: 2.
False Statement by Applicant to the Presidential Clemency Board -
This factor indicates any willful misrepresentation of a material fact by
an applicant in his application form, letters, or other communications to
the Board. A material fact is one which could affect a Board determina-
tion of baseline, aggravating factors, or mitigating factors. Do not
cite mere conflicts unless there is evidence of an intent to mislead.
Example Case #74-388-IJM-M
In his letter the applicant reports serving in Vietnam and
also reports that he was confined one and half years in
the stockade without trial. There is nothing in his
military file to reflect these facts except an apparently
erroneous DD 214 entry. The applicant received a UD on
25 June 1971, after approximately 27 days confinement.
5-13-75
3.
Aggravating Factors: 3.
Use of Force by Applicant Collaterally to AWOL, desertion, on Missing
Movement or Civilian Draft Evasion Offense - This factor indicates the
use of physical force by an applicant to aid in the commencement or
continuation of his offense. The use of force not directly related
to a qualifying AWOL or draft offense is not relevant. The Board has
not set forward an example of this factor.
5-13-75
4.
Aggravating Factors: 4.
Desertion During Combat or Leaving Combat Zone - This factor
indicates that an applicant went AWOL from his unit either during
actual enemy attack or before any reasonably anticipated enemy
attack. Consideration should be given to the stress caused by
combat in evaluating particular cases.
5-13-75
5.
Aggravating Factors: 5.
Evidence that Applicant Committed Offense for Obviously Manipulative
and Selfish Reasons - This factor has been applied in a wide range of
factual situations. Along with Mitigating #10, it is the most
difficult factor to assess and apply. This factor indicates that an
applicant committed his qualifying offense for reasons other than
conscientious opposition to war, family hardship, or some other
reasonable justification. Typically, an applicant to whom this factor
applies committed his offense because of personal convenience or whim.
This factor can also be present if an applicant goes AWOL to solve a
family problem, then fails to return for an unreasonable period of
time after the problem is solved. There must be reliable evidence
demonstrating selfish purposes for the offense; this cannot be inferred
when there is no apparent purpose.
5a.
5.
Evidence that Applicant Committed Offense for Obviously
Manipulative Selfish Reasons.
No. 29.
Applicant's parents adopted the Moorish faith and reared the
children in the faith. The Muslim faith was the basis of the
applicant's refusal to be inducted. Following high school, appli-
cant became associated with a group of other Muslims, known as
Outlaw Muslims, because of their delinquent ways (Presentence
Report). While a part of this group, he participated in the robbery
of the Savings and Loan Office. About that offense, he stated in the
Presentence Report that it was motivated by stupidity and that he
had acted impulsively in an attempt to affirm his manhood.
Circumstances of offense: On 15 Sep 67 applicant refused induction
into the Armed Forces. Applicant states in the progress report that
Military Service would be inconsistent with his Muslim beliefs.
No. 336.
Upon receipt of orders assigning him to Korea, applicant went
home on leave and stayed there.
No. 386. Applicant was reassigned from Ft. Bragg to Germany and was afraid
that the woman he planned to marry would not wait for him. He went
AWOL on 19 Feb 72, married his intended wife and voluntarily re-
turned on 16 Jun 72. He commenced another AWOL on 13 Jun 72 and
remained absent until he surrendered on 14 Jan 73. He reported
that he went home to New York from Ft. Dix on a weekend and had
no way to get back.
No. 241. In Jan 1971, a few days before he was due to report to the Army
Overseas Replacement Station, Ft. Lewis, Washington, applicant's
first wife had locked herself into the bathroom and he could hear
water running and bottles rattling. She had threatened to commit
suicide unless he promised not to report, as she was positive he was
going to Vietnam and would be killed. Applicant subsequently divorced
his first wife in July 1971 but did not then return to military control
because he had debts he wanted to pay before returning. He remarried
his second wife on 2 May 73 and was apprehended by civil authorities
in Scotsbluff, Nebraska, on 18 Jul 74.
No. 612. At the time an applicant's letter which was read in its entirety to the
Board he stated that he departed AWOL for approximately three months
knowing that after that period of time he could come back and request
a discharge.
5b.
(No. 417) Applicant testified at his court that, before being inducted,
he had requested a delay due to his mother's poor mental health and
financial condition. He did receive two induction postponements but
was subsequently inducted on 10 Mar 69. While in basic training
applicant applied for a hardship discharge, however, it was turned
down because of insufficient documentation. Shortly thereafter,
applicant's mother was hospitalized because of a car accident and he
went home on emergency leave. While at home, applicant attempted
to gain further documentation for his hardship discharge. At the end
of his leave, applicant did not return to his base because his mother
was bedridden and there was no one to take care of her and provide for
his younger brothers and sisters. He remained in Philadelphia for
a year and a half and worked under an alias. He then moved to
Virginia because he was afraid that the FBI was going to arrest him.
He stated that he held his obligation to his family higher than his
obligation to his country. Applicant has numerous AWOLs in his
record. Applicant scored 85 on the Armed Forces Qualification
Test, placing him in Category II; his GCT score is 120. He began
basic training on 5 Dec 68 but never completed it, absenting himself
on 28 Dec 68. On 19 Jun 69 applicant was released from a penal re-
training facility (Ft. Riley, Kansas) and was ordered to Ft. Pope,
Louisiana, to complete his disrupted military training. Applicant
never appeared at his new station, choosing to absent himself.
(No. 344) Applicant went UA the first time "just for something to
do" (Record of Trail, 17); he left the second because he "got involved
in Los Angeles with a woman. 11 The third and fourth times he went
UA were to go home and support his family as he was in a no-pay
status with the Marine Corps.
(No. 174) After serving three months in Korea, he was on com-
passionate leave until 8 Feb 67. He has stated that his wife was
having illegitimate children and wanted to talk her into being a wife
or to grant him a divorce. While at home, his wife sliced his wrist
which left him paralyzed. He failed to return at the end of his leave.
(No. 206) Circumstances of offense: Accor ding to testimony of the
applicant he met his wife, a Danish citizen, shortly after arriving
in Germany. She became pregnant and he attempted to obtain per-
mission to marry her. When he was unsuccessful he went AWOL on
14 Oct 66. After spending time in Holland and France, he turned
himself in to the American Embassy in Paris on 10 Oct 67. He was
5c.
returned to Germany and placed in pretrial confinement but on 11
Dec 67 he escaped and went to Sweden where he applied for asylum
on 24 Jan 68. While in Sweden he had numerous arrests on thefts
and narcotic charges and received sentence of imprisonment
totalling 10 months. He was sentenced to deportation on various
dates but was successful in postponing all but the last. As a result
of his deportation he was apprehended by military authorities at
Kennedy Airport on 11 Oct 72. At his trial on 29 Dec 72 he admitted
he had destroyed his ID card and dog tags when he entered Sweden,
and had lived with his common-law wife and two children in an anti-
war commune.
(No. 243) Applicant began his first AWOL on 25 Aug 66 shortly after
his being drafted on 8 Aug 66. Has a history of repeated AWOLs
and one for which he received a Dishonorable Discharge began on 18
Oct 68 and ended on 22 Mar 74 by apprehension. His total military
service after his first AWOL consisted of approximately one month
of creditable service. During the periods of time from Aug 66 until
his discharge in Jul 74, when the applicant was not AWOL he was in
confinement.
(No. 159) The applicant, in receipt of orders for Vietnam, failed to
report to the Overseas Replacement Station, Oakland, California, on
22 Nov 70. He was arrested at his home by FBI agents on 28 Jan 74.
(No. 122) On or about 16 Nov 70 he went UA from Camp Pendleton
and did not return to Marine Corps control until 29 Nov 73, when he was
apprehended by the FBI. He asserted at the trial that he originally
went UA because a man from a rental car agency with whom he had
dealt told him to pay the money he owed or he (the rental agent) would
"make sure I go to the brig. During the more than three years he
was absent he worked several jobs -- one for as long as a year -- and
he got married. He used an alias in all activities.
(No. 161) On 18 Sept 69 he went AWOL for over four and one-half
years. He told the court in an unsworn statement that he did not have
any concrete reason to go WOL.
(No. 162) Applicant went AWOL on 15 Jan 69 and remained absent
until 20 Jun 74 when he was apprehended at home. He said that he went
AWOL because he had injured his arm during a parachute jump, and
that since the Army doctors could do nothing about the pain he turned
to drugs and alcohol. He was home on leave from Germany in Jan 69
5d.
and did not return. At his trial, he claimed that he was picked up
by the Air Police in mid-March 1969 and was given a Government
Transportation Request to go to Ft. Dix to rejoin his unit. He said
that he again went AWOL. He was convicted of being AWOL for
two months.
(No. 173) Applicant escaped from the stockade by fleeing a police
detail on 24 Aug 68. At the time of his escape he was serving a
sentence adjudged by a special court for previous AWOL. He sur-
rendered to the FBI on 28 Feb 74.
(No. 98) On 13 Jan 71, almost four and one-half years after his 18th
birthday, applicant registered with the Selective Service. He was
immediately classified 1-A and ordered to report for military in-
duction. On 26 May 71 he requested postponement claiming hardship
dependency. After several requests for postponement having been
denied, applicant began but failed to complete processing for induction.
He surrendered to the FBI on 29 Jan 73. He insisted throughout his
trial that he did not wilfully evade induction, that he simply failed to
conform with Selective Service procedures. He cited numerous
family problems as distractions, to wit: his father's illness, his
mother's unemployment, his sister's addiction, and his immediate
family.
(No. 80) Applicant never based his draft resistence on religious or
ethical grounds. He attributes his failure to report to a combination
of procrastination and mistaken belief that the impending demise of the
conscription system would immunize him, and a lack of appreciation
for his legal obligation. Note that this applicant left his home at 16
and then drifted into the drug subculture and its characteristic life
styles and values.
No. 126) After serving approximately one and one-half years of a six-
year enlistment, applicant became heavily involved with drugs. He was
serving in Okinawa. Having purchased orders which returned him to
the Continental United States, applicant assumed the status of UA on 28
May 70. At applicant's trial a sanity board was ordered and did find
that at the time of the offense applicant was experiencing an organic
brain syndrome secondary to drug affect manifested by paranoid de-
lusions and visual hallucinations which impaired his judgment to such
a degree that his ability to adhere to the right was impaired. However,
it should be noted that by history, the patient's organic brain syndrome
had apparently cleared about one month not after his return to CONUS in
1970, at which time he still electedAto turn himself in.
5-13-75
6.
Aggravating Factors: 6.
Prior Refusal to fulfill Alternative Service - This factor indicates
that an applicant has been granted Conscientious Objector status and
thereafter failed to perform assigned alternative service. However,
this factor does not apply to members of Jehovah's Witness, Muslim,
or other religious sects who cannot abide by Selective Service
orders to perform alternate service (They are perfectly willing to
perform court-ordered alternative service, however, a continued refusal
to perform alternative service subsequent to a judicial order without
further explanation makes this factor apply to those religious sects
too). Extenuating circumstances should be noted, but this factor
would still be likely to apply.
5-13-75
7.
Aggravating Factors: 7.
Violation of Probation or Parole - This factor indicates whether
an applicant violated the provation or parole to which he was
sentenced for his qualifying offense to be reported. The violation
would have had to be serious enough to have caused the revocation of
that probation or parole. Other probation or parole violations are
not relevant.
7a.
7.
Violation of Probation or Parole
(No. 82) On November 9, 1971, applicant reported for induction but
departed prematurely, apparently in possession of his records.
Applicant states one of the induction officials informed him he would
be leaving for an Army base at 5:00 PM that day. Applicant states
he panicked and left the induction center. Applicant states if given
another chance he would serve. Applicant was sentenced to two years,
to serve six months with 18 months probation. Probation was revoked
for failure to report and for joy-riding offenses and tor escape and
applicant was given a two-year adult sentence.
(No. 10) On 22 December 1970 pleaded guilty to the Selective Service
violation, and was placed on three years probation on 30 December 1970.
This probation was revoked on 25 January 1974 and the applicant was sen-
tenced as indicated above. Applicant's probation was revoked for,
among other items, failure to comply with the specific terms of his
probation "to make a bona fide effort to enlist, and if that failed, to
perform alternate service under supervision for three years. 11
(No. 528) The applicant served 19 months and 11 days under the Youth
Corrections Act and was paroled on 10 Nov 1972. He was recommited
on 4 Oct 1974 as a parole violator due to charges of assault and battery,
failure to report arrest, failure to report change of address, leaving
the district without permission, robbery, theft, burglary and threats.
8.
Aggravating Factors: 8.
Multiple AWOL/UA Offenses - This factor indicates
that an applicant went AWOL more than once. Allegations
are not sufficient. There must have been an Art. 15
or court-martial determination.
9.
Aggravating Factors: 9.
AWOL/UA of Extended Length - This factor indicates
the combined length of qualifying AWOL offenses.
It does not apply if an applicant had been AWOL
for a total of 30 days or less.
10.
Aggravating Factors: 10.
Failure to Report for Overseas Assignment - This factor
is applied where the applicant has been ordered to report
for military duty outside the United States (Viet Nam or
elsewhere) and goes AWOL before reporting to the overseas
assignment.
Mitigating Factors
11.
1.
Lack of Sufficient Education or Ability to Understand Obligations -
or Remedies Available under the Law -
The basic data for this factor are scores reported by IQ tests and
military tests that approximate IQ tests. Usually, an IQ score of
80 or below is sufficient to qualify for this factor. (Note: the
Navy GCT score is roughly half the equivalent IQ score. The Marine
Corps GCT and Army provide a rough IQ equivalent.)
The Armed Forces Qualification Test Score (AFQT) under 30 (Category
IV and V) make this factor apply automatically. If there is a conflict
of high and low scores, mark the factor.
Ocasionally data other than test scores are used to establish the
factor, including reading ability at grade school levels or, for example,
a statement of a psychiatrist that an applicant is retarded. At times,
the Board has marked this factor despite high educational achievement
of satisfactory military proficiency scores.
11a.
Mitigating Factors
1.
Lack of Sufficient Education or Ability to Understand Obligations
or Remedies available under the Law.
No. 202) Applicant left school after completing the 11th grade and
attended trade school for carpentry. He has a GT score of 91 and
his AFQT score is 21 (Category IV).
(No. 216) (a strong No. 1) He completed the 10th grade and quit
school because he lost interest. His GT score measures 68 and
his AFQT score is 12 (Category IV).
(No. 214) Applicant has a tenth grade education. His GT score
measures 88 and his AFQT is 21 (Category IV).
(No. 220) Applicant withdrew from school in the 11th grade for
economic reasons. Applicant scored 79 on the Army's GT test.
His AFQT score is 13, classified him as a Category IV.
(No. 83) Applicant has a sixth grade education and a Beta IQ of
49. (This is a strong No. 1)
(No. 583) The applicant completed the 10th grade in public school,
but at Morrison Training School he was placed in the eighth grade.
His IQ was tested on the Wechsler Intelligence Test for Children at
62. During the present classi fication his Beta IQ was reported at 84.
(No. 439) This applicant is a high school graduate with three years
of college. His GT score is 95, however, his AFQT score is 7,
Category V.
(No. 194) Applicant completed a tenth grade education. His GT score
initially measured 68 but on a retest it rose to 76. His AFQT score
is 10 (Category IV).
(No. 335) Applicant terminated his schooling in the seventh grade
at the age of 16 to support the family. His GT and AFQT scores 95 and
20 respectively.
(No. 397) He withdrew from school during the 11th grade. His AFQT
score is 18 (Category IV), considered low, and his GT score is 93,
considered average.
11b.
(No. 306) The applicant has 12 years of schooling but did not
graduate from high school. His AFQT score is 42 (Category III).
(No. 395) Applicant withdrew from school after completing the
eighth grade. His AFQT score is 38 (Category III), a nd his GT
score is 61, the latter considered below average.
(No. 79) Applicant dropped out of high school at either the ninth
or the eleventh grade (record unclear) to help mother with finances.
School record indicates recurrent history of class failure and non-
attendance. Revised Beta score was 76 and GATB was not admin-
istered due to poor reading level. However, it is noted that appli-
cant has a tested "border-line intelligence. 11
(No. 70) The applicant's mother is approximately 58 years old and
reportedly is somewhat primitive, illiterate and slightly retarded.
The applicant completed the third grade by 14 and had a Beta score
of 69.
(No. 97) Although a high school graduate, his scholastic achieve-
ment was considered "very low" and he has a Beta IQ of 78.
(No. 45) The applicant lived in British Honduras until they immi-
grated to New York City with his mother in 1969. During the two
years following he worked in a dental laboratory training program
and attended a night high school. In 1970 the applicant attended
Brooklyn Community College on a New York City social services grant.
There is no information on academic achievements or IQ tests.
12.
Mitigating Factors
2. Personal and Immediate Family Problems -
This factor reflects significant emotional, financial, marital, or
other personal difficulties faced by the applicant or his immediate
family prior to, or at the time of, or after his qualifying offense.
His immediate family includes guardians (e.g., grandparents) and
intended spouses (especially if pregnant). This tactor is marked only
if these problems explain the offense, or contributed to it or its
continuation, or if they would impair an applicant's ability to perform
alternate service. On at least one occasion the Board considered
a subsequent family tragedy in reducing alternate service.
GERALD SIT R. FORD
12a.
2. Personal and Immediate Family Problems.
(No. 67) He states that the reason he went AWOL was to go home and
help his wife.
(No. 220) The family subsisted on public assistance after the dis-
ablement of the father. The mother is now a cancer patient and is
undergoing two operations. She is receiving cobalt treatments.
Applicant's first absence was precipitated by concern for the well-being
of his mother who had been stricken by cancer. His concern was
heightened by the disablement of his father who was unable to work.
Each remaining absence was apparently precipitated by the continuing
welfare of his parents.
(No. 710) His father had a bad criminal record and was awaiting trial
for murder at last word. Shortly after leaving school, he moved to
New York City. During his two years there, he never had a regular
job or permanent address. For about 18 months he had an expensive
heroin habit but there is no evidence as to how he supported it.
(No. 528) The applicant is the fifth born of nine children in a black
family. The family apparently lived on a meager existence because
of the large number of children and a low income level. Applicant
stated that he was in juvenile training school when he turned 18 and
failed to register when he was released. There is no record of
applicant being in the training school at age 18 but rather at the age 16.
(No. 474) Applicant states that while at Ft. Gordon he received a letter
from his mother stating that his father's eyesight was failing and the
family was having financial problems as a result of his father's in-
ability to work. He applied for a hardship discharge, but he was denied.
He was transferred back to Ft. Gordon, where he learned by mail
that his father's eye condition had worsened. Subsequently, he left
the military control and went home where he worked continually for a
construction company.
(No. 441) Applicant testified under oath that after receiving his combat
arms bonus he went home for a weekend expecting to return to duty on
the following Monday. He further testified that he used his bonus for
an automobile for his mother. He then lost his ticket and asserts that
he stayed to look for it, but was unable to find it. His mot her's illness,
kidney disease, worsened approximately three months later. Applicant
then remained home to take care of her.
12b.
(No. 236) (weak No. 2) His mother's health began to fail when the
applicant was 16 years of age and consequently the family was receiving
welfare assistance. He reportedly went AWOL in order to help his
mother pay bills and to get off welfare.
(No. 280) Applicant explains the reason for his AWOL, for which he
received a special court-martial, as follows: He was at home help-
ing his pregnant wife find a place to live and was awaiting an allotment
which was never activated. Therefore, his wife was forced to move
back with her mother. Subsequently, this allotment was never started
and the applicant's pay records were lost and he could never be paid.
Because of this financial trouble, applicant was forced to seek work
and provide for his family. His wife was on welfare and was in poor
health due to complication of the birth from their second child; bad
heart and possible sickle cell anemia. Applicant explains that he
requested an Undesi rable Discharge because of his family situation.
(No. 495) (weak No. 2) In a letter to the Discharge Review Board
he stated that his problems began when his father's health worsened,
resulting in almost total blindness. Unable to obtain leave, he went
AWOL since being home meant more than receiving the Article 15
and the Undesirable Discharge. In substantiation ot his father's con-
dition, he submitted a letter from the doctor stating that the father
was legally blind.
(No. 506) While he was waiting at Ft. Dix, his records were shipped
to Europe and he was not paid for 45 days. He reported his family
was having financial problems and he requested Red Cross help and
emergency leave to deal with the difficulty. His family was put out of
their apartment and was forced to live in their automobile and also nad
no food. He traveled to The Pentagon and talked to a Major in Classi-
fication and Assignment and was reportedly told to go home and await
the results of a telegram to Europe regarding his pay records. He called
back twice but reportedly no one knew of his situation or had heard of
him.
(No. 241) In January 71, a few days before he was due to report to the
Army Overseas Replacement Station, Ft. Lewis, Washington, appli-
cant's first wife had locked herself in the bathroom and he could hear
water running and botties rattling. She had threatened to commit suicide
unless he promised not to report, as she was positive he was going to
Vietnam and would be killed. He kicked in the bathroom door and found
his wife with a handful of pills and thereupon decided not to return to duty.
Applicant subsequently divorced his first wife in July 1971 but did not
then return to military control because he had debts he wanted to pay
before returning.
12c.
(No. 215) Applicant relates that he went AWOL because he was
having family problems. His divorce went through, and his Army
pay report was in disorder which resulted in his not being paid and
not being able to support his family. On top of this, his 62-year-old
diabetic mother, who receives no support from her husband, is
taking care of his sister's two children, ages 12 and 3 years.
Applicant relates that his mother receives welfare but she needed
his help financially and around the home. He testified that he had
to obtain an Administrative Discharge from the Army before going
AWOL but his request was denied.
(No. 189) This applicant, who is an American Indian, was raised
by his aunt and uncle in a small community in North Carolina. During
his AWOL he worked for his tribe earning $2.00 an hour to support
his aunt and uncle, the latter being crippled.
(No. 293) Applicant enlisted in the Marines on 7 Oct 68 for six years.
In Jan 1969 he applied for a Hardship Discharge on the grounds that
his mother had broken her wrist and was unable to work. The
Administrative Discharge Board found his mother had recovered
sufficiently so that she could work and the request was denied. Appli-
cant also alleged that his mother was nervous.
(No. 226) Induction at age 25 compounded the marital strains appli-
cant was already experiencing. Applicant completed basic training
at Ft. Lewis, Washington, and AIT at Ft. Ord, California. He was
transferred to Ft. Hood, Texas, after a short leave period. On leave
he discovered that his prolonged absence in military service made
reconciliation with his estranged wife impossible.
(No. 475) At his court-martial, applicant, a PFC (E-3) attributed
his first AWOL to the fact that he wanted to stay in Vietnam and did
not think his wounds were serious enough to prevent him from return-
ing to the country. He stated that he continued to go AWOL because
he was a young, foolish and confused person who was fearful of
military punishment.
(No. 130) At the trial, applicant attributed his absence to the following:
that he could not believe the things he did at boot camp and so he
thought he was not ready for the Marine Corps. During his AWOL he
got married in Apr 1972 and found a good job. Subsequently, his wife
became pregnant and he decided to return to military control and face
the punishment. He acknowledged his responsibility to the Marine
12d.
Corps and the fact that he did not fulfill it, but also acknowledged
his responsibility to his family and did not want to fail there also.
Applicant stated that he wanted to give his family the home that he
never had.
(No. 451) Prior to departure to a UA status, applicant applied for
a hardship discharge but was denied. Applicant's mother was
suffering from a serious ailment which was being aggravated by
her husband's girl friend who used to come around and harass her.
Applicant then asked for leave which was denied. At this juncture
applicant departed on his UA on 31 Aug 68. During his entire UA
applicant worked in an unknown capacity for Western Electric. With
those earnings he supported his mother and brother. Even before
entering the Army the applicant had to support his sickly mother and
brother. His father sent no support, having deserted them.
(No. 238) At trial, applicant gave two reasons for his AWOL. The
first reason related to the conditions at Ft. Hood, Texas. He was
assigned as a tanker although he was never trained in that area.
Neither were the other members of the company and as a result
three people were killed in training, two in the presence of the appli-
cant. Applicant himself was nearly run over by a tank. He stated
people had no idea what they were doing and he saw the deaths as a
result of stupidity. Coupled with this situation at Ft. Hood, was the
fact that applicant's father went bankrupt as a result ot his drinking
problem. Applicant sent most of his pay home but this situation
did not improve. His parents' home was foreclosed on and applicant
felt compelled to leave and help his mother and seven younger brothers
and sisters. While AWOL he was employed and earned $180 a week and
gave his money to his mother.
(No. 192) At his trial, applicant, a Pvt (E-1), testified under oath that
at the time he went AWOL his wife was pregnant, unable to work and
could not find a job. Because she was unable to financially support
herself, applicant felt that he was needed more at home than in the
Army. After the children were born, applicant remained at home be-
cause his family was in a financially worse position than when he first
went AWOL.
(No. 385) His natural parents died in an automobile accident and he
was adopted at the age of 5. His adoptive parents died when the appli-
cant was 14 years old. The applicant is unmarried and has an older
sister but he does not know where she lives. He dropped out of school
12e.
after completing the tenth grade but was encouraged by his principal
to join the Army. The applicant reported during his trial that he
enlisted at the age of 17 and that was when he became involved with
the drug culture. Applicant completed basic training and while in
AIT began his first of three periods of AWOL.
(No. 397) At his trial, applicant, a PVT (E-1), described the cir-
cumstances leading up to his AWOL. On entering the Army, appli-
cant complained of stomach pains and was subsequently discovered
to have a duodenal ulcer. After his reassignment to Ft. Bragg his
condition worsened and in Apr 1968 he was hospitalized for ten days
because of a bleeding ulcer attack. Applicant wanted to remain on the
same diet he was on in the hospital but this was not available at his
mess hall. He was advised by the doctor to eat at the post cafeteria
which he did not think was right. Applicant then went UA in June 1968.
This resulted in a special court-martial and a sentence including
extra duty and a suspended confinement. Shortly thereafter, appli-
cant was late for formation and he learned because of this, his
suspension of confinement was going to be vacated. He did not feel
that this is just so he went AWOL. While AWOL he suffered another
bleeding ulcer attack in August 1973 which required hospitalization.
(No. 456) In 1964 applicant was married and three children were born
of this union. He was divorced in 1971 and custody of the children was
awarded to the mother. She was remarried and her husband desires
to adopt the children. Applicant does not oppose the adoption but
while confined he indicated a desire to withhold consent until he could
ascertain personally that the children would be provided with a good
home. According to applicant's sworn testimony in extenuation of
mitigation, he forecasted to be discharged on normal discharge state
in 1972 but instead was ordered to return from Okinawa to Grissom
Air Force Base in Indiana. He was informed by his First Sergeant
that he would have to extend his enlistment for seven months to meet
the requirement for sufficient retainability of his overseas duty
assignment. He did re-enlist for the short term period with the under-
standing that he would be discharged once he returned to Grissom.
He was unable to return timely to the continental United States to effect
his discharge. No reason is disclosed for this tardiness, (not accord-
ing to the applicant) did notknow why he could not be discharged at
Okinawa.
12f.
(No. 222) The applicant was inducted under "Project 100, 000". He
has stated that he had previously been rejected by the Marines and
had failed the Army's mental test, but claimed that his papers had
been changed so he would qualify. At his trial, there was psychiatric
evidence that, although legally sane, the applicant was mildly re-
tarded. Also, in evidence there was a letter from his wife pointing
out the poor health of herself and their four-year-old daughter; a
letter from his mother disclosing that, when he was 19, he had been
diagnosed as having the mind of a six-year-old. Following his con-
viction and sentence he was sent to the Disciplinary Barracks where
he was again diagnosed as being mildly retarded, manifested by
low intelligence.
(No. 121) Applicant's first AWOL began because his father was
seriously ill and had his leg amputated. Applicant's brother was in
prison. Thus, applicant felt he was needed at home. The most
recent AWOL was committed because applicant's father was criti-
cally ill. Applicant's wife and family were having serious financial
and medical problems. His wife has suffered from a disease of the
blood cells, and according to applicant, 'almost died two times. 11
His son has three testicles and an operation is needed, and his
daughter has been under a doctor's care due to her poor appetite.
His wife and children are now on weltare. Applicant himself suffers
from a kidney problem which causes his blood to be present in his
urine. He is deeply in debt because of his family's medical problems.
His father had also been seriously ill ever since his enlistment, and
eventually died.
(No. 207) At his trial, he testified that in early 1972, while stationed
at Ft. Carson, Colorado, he received orders to report to Ft. Dix,
N.J., enroute to Germany. However, he was given only eight days,
which was insufficient time to dispose of his home and obtain a visa
and citizenship for his wife so she and her daughter could accompany
him.
(No. 332) Applicant testified under oath that he was granted emergency
leave in the ten months of service in Vietnam upon verification by the
Red Cross that his mother had lapsed into psychiatric depression
and had threatened suicide. Her psychiatric crisis was precipitated
by the physical trauma and sequelae she sustained from an automobile
accident in May 1969. The accident left her with an abnormal thyroid
condition, causing enlargement of the gland and cardiac impairment
rendering her unable to work. These domestic conditions altered
applicant's original intention to return to Vietnam despite his drug
addiction. Some effort was made to extend applicant's leave or obtain
12g.
other assignment. Applicant, with no leave extension or reassign-
ment, passed into an unauthorized absence status. Applicant re-
mained home to provide care and support for the disabled mother.
(No. 245) The applicant had completed basic training and was taking
AIT at Ft. Gordon, Georgia, when he learned that his future wife
was pregnant with a child and having a miscarriage. He requested
a pass and was turned down by his Sergeant and went AWOL for 15
days to see his intended wite. When he returned he was told by the
same Sergeant that he was getting a court-martial. He was then
ordered to dig a grave. He dug six feet deep by six feet long by
three feet wide and then was told to fill it up again. He filled up
the grave and went AWOL again.
13
Mitigating Factors
3.
Mental or Physical Condition -
This factor reflects physical diseases and defects, and mental
diseases that may have contributed to an applicant's offense or
which may affect his ability to perform alternate service. Mental
defects are more appropriately noted under mitigating factor No. 1.
The condition must be serious enough to have caused some personal
hardship or incapacity. However, mental or physical problems related
to alcohol or drug abuse have not resulted in the application of this
factor. In many military cases in which the factor is found, the
physical and mental problems were related to military service and
the quality of medical treatment received by the applicant, but that
relationship is not necessary to make the factor apply.
13a.
3. Mental or Physical Condition
(No. 439) (strong No. 3) Applicant's record does show that he had
a history of psychiatric treatment prior to entering the service.
On a medical report he stated that he had psychiatric problems in
college. He stated that between 1968 and 1970 he got flashbacks and
felt like committing suicide. Applicant was experiencing similar
problems to those outlined above and felt he was unable to cope
with the pressures of military lite. He went AWOL on 19 Jul 1970-
Jan 1971. Prior to discharge he was given a psychiatric evaluation
and found to have character behivior disorders due to deficien cy
and emotional personalties dev
opment. The psychiatrist noted
that the applicant had a history
f psychiatric care.
(No. 194) While applicant, a PVT
E-2, had been on leave he was
hospitalized for treatment of innectious hepatitis. In an unsworn
statement during extenuation of
nitigation, applicant states that
after the diagnosis of infectious
hepatitis had been made by a civil-
ian doctor, the doctor had told
im that "his resistance was low
and that he (applicant) would liv
to be 30 years old. " Applicant's
shock and fear at this statemen
coupled with the rea lization
that, if true, he had only a rela
ively short time to live, precipi-
tated his absence. Defense Ex
ibits admitted at trial confirm appli-
cant's contraction of viral hep/itis
and the fact that he was treated
at a veterans' hospital after hi
visit to the civilian doctor.
(No. 309) During boot camp a
olicant had been subjected to verbal
and physical abuse and therefo
e absented himself. He recalls being
called "chili bean" and "Mexic
1 chili". His ineptness also made
him the butt of his boot camp
it. Applicant wept hysterically at
the trial when he recalled his
perience. Finding training intoler-
able, applicant sought advice f
om his mother, who advised him to
absent himself. At his trial,
plicant introduced an affidavit by
a Navy psychologist which stails
that the applicant is passive,
dependent/schizoid and should
e granted an Administrative Discharge
so as not to cause the applicar
"further psychological decompensa-
tion into either anxiety, neuro
S or possibly a psychosis. 11 A civil-
ian psychiatrist found the appl
ant to have "passive, dependent
personalities severe. " Applic
it also introduced testimony of three
suicidal attempts.
13b.
(No. 510) Applicant explains that he was sent to Korea shortly
after enlisting and while there he contracted pneumonia and had
a cold his entire duty. In Dec 1969 applicant was medically evacu-
ated from Korea to the United States for lung surgery. In Jan 1970
a part of one of his lungs was removed. Because of this applicant
tried unsuccessfully for the next seven months to obtain a medical
discharge and disability benefits.
(No. 342) (weak No. 3) Applicant, a PVT (E-2), pled not guilty at
his court-martial and claims that he did not possess the adequate
mental responsibility at the time he went AWOL. Based upon the
evidence produced by the Government, the court decided the issue
against the applicant. Evidences in the record of trial indicated
the applicant was upset and nervous and unhappy with his orders to
Vietnam. A letter from a psychiatrist was introduced on behalf of
the applicant and it stated that he was suffering from extreme
anxiety brought on by his infantry training and his orders to Vietnam.
The letter explains that the applicant had an extreme fear of physical
mutilization brought on by his having been in two car accidents and
the fact that some ot his friends were killed in Vietnam.
(No. 446) The applicant took leave in the Detroit area and failed
to report to Ft. Lewis, Washington, on time. Sometime around
10 Dec 1970 he sustained a serious back injury in an auto accident
in Detroit. It was treated at a civilian hospital and at a VA hospital.
He returned to Ft. Lewis on 1 Oct. He attempted to obtain further
medical treatment for his back. He became frustrated at the lack
of treatment for his injured back and went AWOL again on 13 Oct 1970.
He received medical treatment at home and then when he improved,
he worked as an apartment manager, and then a parking lot attendant.
(No. 397) Upon entering the Army, applicant complained of stomach
pains and it was subsequently discovered that he had a duodenial
ulcer. After his reassignment at Ft. Bragg his condition worsened
and in Apr 1968 he was hospitalized for ten days because of a bleeding
ulcer attack. Applicant wanted to remain on the same dietthat he
was on in the hospital but this was not available at his post mess hall.
He was advised by his doctor to eat in the post cafeteria, which he
did not think was right. Applicant then went UA in June 1968. He
again suffered another bleeding ulcer attach in Aug 1973, which re-
quired hospitalization.
13c,
(No. 184) For as long as he could remember, the applicant reported
severe migrane headaches at times of tension and stress. The
applicant requested medical evaluation for his headaches during
basic training and AIT, but did not receive medical evaluation. He
was ordered to report to the Overseas Station at Ft. Lewis,
Washington, and again requested medical evaluation. He was placed
in Holding Company for 45 days and received a number of medical
tests. He was never told the results of the tests but was lead to
believe that he was to be discharged from the Army because of his
headaches.
(No. 208) Prior to completing basic training at Ft. Knox, Kentucky,
he was hospitalized tor pneumonia. Shortly thereafter he went AWOL
for two weeks. About two weeks after his release from confinement
he was again hospitalized for pneumonia, but the next day, on 21
Apr 70, went AWOL and remained absent until 12 Jun 70. He stated
that he, himself, had suffered from nervousness and fits of depression
since coming into the Army, and after returning from the AWOL was
not able to take the pressure and again went AWOL on 3 Aug 70.
While AWOL he was involved in an automobile accident, severely in-
juring his arm. It was then discovered that he was suffering from a
thyroid condition which caused him to lose 70 pounds. Based on his
family and medical problems, the investigating officer stated that a
long period of confinement was unnecessary and recommended
trial only by BCD Special. At the pretrial hearing, only the defense
presented evidence from the Chief of Mental Hygiene and that, be-
cause of the applicant's thyroid condition he may not have been legally
sane, and the applicant testified that he had numerous memory lapses.
Applicant departed AWOL again. The trial, however, proceeded in
his absence and he was found sane, convicted and sentenced to a DD,
three years confinement at hard labor and total forfeitures. This
was approved by the Convening Authority and he was transferred to
the Disciplinary Barracks where the psychiatrist recommended again
prolonged confinement on the basis that the applicant's conduct was
caused by his hyperthyroid condition. While in confinement his
thyroid was treated and brought under control. In an examination con-
ducted in conjunction with his appeal, the psychiatrist concluded that
he had the typical thyroid symptoms of depression, irritability, im-
pulsivity, feelings of persecution and low tolerance for stress; these
problems were probably precipitated by his induction, illness and
confinements, marriage and accident; this was most noticeably shown
by his weight loss; and that, although he could distinguish from right
and wrong, his illness serious impaired his ability to adhere to the
right or to form a specific intent.
13d.
(No. 227) Applicant suffers from a physical disability, an apparent
birth defect, defined as pseudarthosis of the lumbar spine with fusion
at joints L5 and S1. The defect causes applicant to have severe lower
back pains, preventing him from engaging in any vigorous activity.
Applicant mentioned his back problem when he was being examined
at the Induction Station. This disclosure was ignored. Such a condi-
tion is acceptable basis for rejection for induction. Applicant was
inducted into the Army on 18 Feb 69. He was sent to Ft. Dix, N.J.,
for basic training. Despite his failures of physical and other test
requirements for stamina, he was deemed as having met all the re-
quirements of BCT and was sent on to AIT as a cook.
(No. 121) Applicant himself suffers from a kidney problem which causes
blood to be presented in his urine. He is deeply in debt because of his
family's medical problems.
(No. 188) During his combat tour in Vietnam, applicant's platoon
leader, with whom he shared brotherly relationship, was killed
while the latter was awakening applicant to start his guard duty. The
platoon had set up an ambush point because they had come upon an
enemy complex. "This event was extremely traumatic to applicant
and he experienced nightmares." In an attempt to cope with this ex-
perience, applicant turned to the use of heroin in which he became
addicted. During his absence, he overcame his drug addiction only
to become an alcoholic.
(No. 245) An extensive psychiatric report for the court-martial
reported a mixed neurotic picture manifested by increasing anxiety
and military facilities, avoidance of such facilities, feelings of
depression, feelings of low self-esteem, feelings of helplessness and
hopelessness. The report also stated that there was a history of
passive dependence and immature adaptation to life.
(No. 117) While at the Disciplinary Barracks, applicant participated
actively in AAA.
(No. 162) Applicant stated that he went AWOL because he had injured
his arm in a parachute jump, and since the Army doctors could not
do anything about the pain he turned to drugs and alcohol.
13e.
(No. 74) Applicant states that he started drinking when he was eleven
years old, feels that he has had a serious drinking problem for the
past few days, has attempted to secure assistance, but was not able
to follow through. Most of his juvenile and adult offenses appear to
be related to excessive drinking. According to a psychological
evaluation he is a borderline psychotic and in need OI professional
treatment for both his alcoholism and emotional difficulties. Appli-
cant's stepfather testified at trial that applicant was afraid of going
into the Army because he had a fear of being "closed in" which re-
sulted from his prior confinements.
(No. 45) Following his conviction for refusal to report and during
his appeal, applicant was hospitalized with a mental disorder, later
described as transient situational disturbance.
(No. 5) His physical and mental health appear normal. He suffers,
however, from a speech impediment -- stuttering. While incar-
cerated the applicant was placed in minimum custody in a program
for treatment ot a drug problem.
14.
Mitigating Factors
4.
Employment and Other Activities of Service to the Public -
This factor includes employment prior to, during, or subsequent to
the qualify offense. The employment can be, but need not be, com-
parable to alternate service under this program -- for example,
hospital work, police work, assistance to the underprivileged, or
church missionary work. The period of service must be at least a
few months. A summer job would be enough to qualify for this
factor. The question of whether payment disqualified the factor is
hard to answer, and the factor should be flagged when in doubt.
The period in which this work is performed under conscientious
objector or judicial order is applied for the baseline.
14a.
4.
Employment and Other Activities of Service to the Public
(No. 474) Applicant was born and raised in Indianapolis and has no
criminal convictions. There is evidence that applicant was inter-
ested in law enforcement and that he assisted the Indianapolis police
on numerous occasions. For this work he received a certificate of
appreciation.
(No. 523) His previous employment includes work as a shelver at a
public library, seasonal laborer and clerical helper. Applicant was
also a volunteer worker for a Quaker church group. He is presently
attending college, taking pre-med courses, and he hopes to attend
medical school.
(No. 583) Applicant has spent the bulk of his time, while in and since
leaving school, ching handicapped and impoverished children. From
the pre-sentence report and from the statements of professional people
in the education field, it appears that applicant applied himself with
total commitment to his teaching responsibilities. He was committed to
the point of personal sacrifice. Upon release on parole, applicant
plans to complete his college education and return to teaching and
helping the youth of the country.
(No. 142) As a civilian, applicant has done a great deal of undercover
work for the local police and sheriff's department in his home town.
(No. 410) There was abundant evidence introduced at applicant's
/court-martial in extenuation and mitigation summarized as follows:
that applicant has made an intense effort to improve himself and has
the potential to be an excellent citizen; that applicant was active in
opposing drug abuse after his jail term; that he was an outstanding
prisoner and that applicant possesses a sincere desire to correct his
past mistakes and make a better life for himself.
(No. 171) While applicant was UA he worked as a musician and in
Feb 1974 he worked for a voluntary organization associated with the
Cincinnati Human Relations Committee. He was appointed music
director for a number of free concerts and shows which were designed
to attract underprivileged, inter-city youths and to serve as a pre-
ventive measure against juvenile crime and drug abuse. He also con-
tributed his talents to projects of the Cincinnati Center for Youth and
the Cincinnati Musicians Association (Record of Trial, 24). Applicant
requested that the court award him a bad conduct discharge from the
service so that he could continue to work with needy children (Record
of Trial, 26).
14b
(No. 102) He has had several furloughs, all of which to attend circuit
assembly meetings of the Jehovah's Witness, and all have been success-
ful. This applicant is eligible for parole on 1 November 1974;upon re-
lease he intends to return to his parental home in Sulphur, Oklahoma,
become a Jehovah's Witness minister, and seek employment.
(No. 14) From Sep 1970 to Sep 1971 he worked as a dietary supervisor
at the Buxnham City Hospital. The applicant claims he opposed the
Vietnam War on an ideological basis, and that he sincerely believes he
is a conscientious objector. He claims his work in the hospital was to
support his beliefs.
(No. 51) He worked for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference
between 1969 and 1973. However, the report on convicted prisoners
by the U. S. Attorney states that "he was assigned to three hospitals
and worked in two hospitals for approximately eleven months, but he
was terminated at each because of his mistreatment of patients and co-
workers." He failed to report to the third hospital where he was assigned
(Classification Summary).
15.
Mitigating Factors
5.
Service-connected Disability -
This factor has not been applied very often and there are not many
examples. It indicates some permanent physical or mental injury
resulting from military duty. As with factor No. 2, drug or
alcohol-related disabilities do not apply. The disability need not
rise to the level of, nor need it have been recognized by, the
Veterans Administration to qualify.
16.
Mitigating Factors
6.
Extended Period of Creditable Military Service -
This factor is marked with the time in service, not a simple "Yes"
or "No". Creditable service does not include time spent AWOL or
in military confinement. With these exceptions, the factor bears
no relationship to the quality of an applicant's military service --
just the length of that service.
&
FORD
014958
17.
Mitigating Factors
7.
Tours of Service in the War Zone -
This factor is applicable in cases where the applicant has completed
a full tour in Vietnam, where he has served aboard a Navy ship
that had a sea patrol off the coast of Vietnam, or where he was
unable to complete his tour for reasons other than his offense. In
some cases it has been applied where the applicant had not completed
a tour, but while on authorized leave from Vietnam assumed an
unauthorized absence status.
18.
Mitigating Factors
8.
Substantial Evidence of Personal or Procedural Unfairness -
This factor embodies a reasonable determination of whether an
applicant was treated fairly in any application for conscientious
objector status, claim for Selective Service exemption or deferment,
or any remedy available under military law (including claims for
hardship discharge, compassionate reassignment or emergency
leave) on procedural, technical or improper grounds, or on grounds
which have subsequently been held unlawful by the judiciary. For
example, this factor is present when the military fails to consider
compelling personal problems or health difficulties, causing the
individual to go AWOL. Care should be taken in evaluating such
situations since the services are not expected to cater to every
complaint, and the legitimate demands of military discipline may
outweigh an applicant's personal needs. In case of doubt, the factor
should be flagged.
Two Selective Service situations are particularly important: First,
prior to June 1970 it was not a valid CO claim if the person alleged
personal moral or ethical values against war or killings. The Welch
case reversed this rule. Persons denied CO on this claim prior to
Welch qualify for this factor, even if no actual procedural unfairness
occurred.
Watch for two other service situations -- when an individual is told
to wait at home for further orders, which never come; and when a
superior advises an AWOL in order to get a discharge. Corroborating
facts should be explicitly noted in the summary.
Care should be taken in reviewing the sequence of events before a
Selective Service Board, since we have seen many examples of pro-
cedural errors which may have affected the substantive rights of the
applicant.
18a.
8.
Substantial Evidence of Personal or Procedural Unfairness
(No. 433) The applicant volunteered from Germany to go to Vietnam.
He went home on leave in May 1970 en route to Vietnam and contracted
a rash and fever. He went to Fort Mac Arthur for medical treatment
and was ordered to stay at home until he had recovered. He was told
to expect orders following his recovery. No new orders were received
and by July 1970 he contacted his Congressman, who was a friend of
his parents, to find out what had happened. He received a reply that
the Army had nothing on his shipment. He contacted the Army
Inspector General at Fort MacArthur following that but never heard
from the Army about his orders. There is some evidence he thought
he would have been eligible for a medical discharge related to curva-
ture of the spine. The applicant also spent approximately two months
in the hospital in Germany following his request for reassignment to
Vietnam but before his actual transfer. During his absence, the appli-
cant worked a number of part-time jobs. He was apprehended in Dec
1973 when he stopped for a traffic violation and he showed the police
military ID. At the trial he stated that he thought the Army had just
forgotten about him.
(No. 215) Applicant relates that he went AWOL because he was having
family problems; his divorce went through; and his Army pay record
was in disorder which resulted in not being paid and not being able to
support his family. On top of this, his 62-year-old diabetic mother,
who receives no support from her husband (whereabouts unknown), is
taking care of his sister's two children, ages 12 and 3. Applicant
relates that his mother receives welfare but that she needed his help
financially and around the home. He testified he attempted to obtain
an administrative discharge from the Army before going AWOL but his
request was denied.
(No. 454) He applied for a hardship discharge in January 1967 because
his wife was a deaf mute and had given birth to their second child while
he was in basic training.
(No. 451) Prior to departing in a UA status applicant applied for a
hardship discharge but it was denied (RT 15). Applicant's mother was
suffering from a nervous ailment which was being aggravated by her
husband's girlfriend who used to come around and harass her (RT 16).
Applicant then asked for leave which was denied (RT 16). At this
juncture applicant departed on his UA on 30 August 1968.
18b.
(No. 230) On 2 January 1968 the applicant again absented himself
and remained in this status until 30 January 1968. He was prosecuted
before a special court-martial at Fort Dix, N.J. on 16 February 1968
and was sentenced to confinement for three months and partial for-
feitures. Applicant never received any further training during his
assignment to Fort Dix. On 17 April 1968, three days after release
from confinement, he was ordered to report to the Army Overseas
Replacement Station, Oakland, California, for further assignment as
an infantryman (11B20P) to the 90th Replacement Battalion, APO San
Francisco 96491 (Vietnam). Applicant contended that his orders were
erroneous and sought to have them changed. He demanded orders for
advanced training with a school brigade (Record of Trial, 17-19). He
was unsuccessful. Thereupon, he absented himself. At trial on the
major absence, applicant's military attorney invoked Section 454(a),
Title 50, Appendix, U. S. Code, as a defense. This section, inter
alia, provides in pertinent part that:
Every person inducted into the Armed Forces
shall, following his induction be given full and ade -
quate military training for service in the armed
forces, into which he is inducted for a period of not
less than four months, and no person shall, during
this four-month period, be assigned for duty at any
installation located on land outside the United States,
its territories and possessions (including the Canal
Zone)
The military judge ruled that the cited statutory provision would
not justify a self-help remedy, namely: unauthorized absence.
(No. 172) At his trial, applicant, a private first-class (E-1), attributed
his absence to financial and family problems. He was told that he was
not receiving any pay because he had been overpaid by $1500 which
was allegedly sent to his wife by allotment. Applicant testified that
neither he nor his wife received this money and that one of his children
was also in the hospital at this time with bronchial asthma (Record of
Trial, 16).
(No. 322) The Record of Trial indicates that applicant went AWOL 27
days before he was scheduled to be released from active duty. At his
trial, applicant attributed his AWOL to the fact that he thought it was
proper for him to go home and await his release from the service.
No one had ever explained to him how much time lost he had accumulated
and he learned through a friend that his unit's First Sergeant had stated
that applicant was signed off the post and was not to return. Applicant
admitted that he had never personally checked whether it was proper for
him to leave the post on 21 Nov 1968 (Record of Trial, 11-17).
18c
(No. 397) At his trial, applicant, a private (E-1), described the cir-
cumstances leading to and causing his AWOL. Upon entering the Army,
applicant complained of stomach pains and it was subsequently dis-
covered that he had a duodenal ulcer. At his reassignment to Fort
Bragg, North Carolina, his condition worsened and in April 1968 he
was hospitalized for ten days because of a bleeding ulcer attack.
Applicant wanted to remain on the same diet that he was on in the
hospital but this was not available at his post mess hall. He was advised
by a doctor to eat in the Post cafeteria which he did not think was right.
Applicant then went UA in June 1968. This resulted in a special court-
martial and a sentence including extra duties and suspended confinement.
Shortly thereafter, applicant was late for a formation and he learned that
because of this his suspension of confinement was going to be vacated.
He did not feel this was just so he went AWOL (Record of Trial, un-
sworn statement, 14-18). Applicant stated at his court-martial that he
stayed in New York the entire AWOL and was steadily employed. He
suffered another bleeding ulcer attack in August 1973, which required
hospitalization.
(No. 184) For as long as he could remember, the applicant reported
severe migrane-type headaches at times of tension and stress (Medical
Report in Record of Trial). The applicant requested medical evalu-
ation for his headaches during basic training and AIT but did not receive
medical evaluation. He was ordered to and reported to the Overseas
Replacement Station at Ft. Lewis, Washington, and again requested
medical evaluation. He was placed in a holding company for 45 days
and received a number of medical tests. He was never told of the
results of the test but was led to believe he was to be discharged from
the Army because of the headaches (unsworn statement in Record of
Trial). Finally, frustrated due to apparent inaction of his problem,
he went AWOL. Following the AWOL he sought civilian medical treat-
ment but was unable to continue it due to financial problems. A medical
report introduced at the court-martial recommended two possible reme-
dies for the applicant before his AWOL. He should have either a change
of duty assignment to a non-combat unit to relieve the stress causing
the applicant's headaches or he should have an administrative discharge
on grounds of unsuitability. The applicant surrendered himself to the
military at Ft. Dix, New Jersey, on 7 May 1974.
(No. 383) He fainted on duty as gate guard (Record of Trial and
Hospital Records); was examined at the base emergency hospital, and
was referred to a psychiatrist. He had a history of fainting, chest
pains, nausea and vomiting that he reported to the psychiatrist (Record
of Trial). Shortly after his absence he attempted suicide, using a hose
connected to the exhaust pipe of his van.
18d.
(No. 417) Applicant testified at his court-martial that before being
inducted he had requested a delay due to his mother's poor mental
health and financial condition (Record of Trial, 47). He did receive
two induction postponements from the Selective Service but was sub-
sequently inducted on 10 March 1969 (Record of Trial, Defense Exhibits
M and O). After arriving at Camp Pendleton, California, in the summer
of 1969, applicant applied for a hardship discharge but it was turned
down because of insufficient documentation (Record of Trial, 60, and
Defense Exhibit U). Shortly thereafter, applicant's mother was hos-
pitalized because of a car accident and he went home on emergency
leave. While at home applicant attempted to gain further documentation
for his hardship discharge. At the end of his leave, applicant did not
return to his base because his mother was bedridden and there was no
one to take care of and provide for his younger brothers and sisters
(Record of Trial, 62).
(No. 179) While stationed at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina, applicant
received orders for duty in Germany. Not desiring to go overseas,
he re-enlisted for six years on 13 Dec 1963 with the understanding
that he would be guaranteed 18 months duty at Ft. Dix, New Jersey
(Record of Trial, 15). Approximately seven months later, applicant
again received orders to Germany. At this time he was married and
had a baby daughter. He tried to get out of the orders but was un-
successful. Applicant was given 30 days leave and used this time to
find a temporary home for his family, who up to this time had been
living with applicant's mother (Record of Trial, 16). This home, con-
sisting of one room, was located in the ghetto. Not wanting to leave
his family in such an environment, the applicant went AWOL to earn
more money (Record of Trial, 16-17).
(No. 165) During sworn testimony in extenuation and mitigation,
applicant, a Private (E-1), stated that he received a letter from his
grandmother in which she indicated her need for further financial
support and the fact that her home was in a state of disrepair, border-
ing upon inhabitability (Record of Trial, 44-45). According to appli-
cant, his take home pay was insufficient to sustain both himself and
his grandmother. He went to his commanding officer for help but was
told that he had no problem and that all he wanted was to get out of
the service (Record of Trial, 47). As a result, applicant assumed a
status of unauthorized absence. During his absence he purchased
and fully paid for a home trailer for his grandmother (Record of Trial,
45).
18e.
(No. 456) According to applicant's sworn testimony in extenuation
and mitation, he forecasted to be discharged on his normal discharge
date in 1972 but instead was ordered to return from Okinawa to Grissom
Air Force Base, Indiana (Record of Trial, 35-36). He was informed
by his First Sergeant that he would have to extend his enlistment for
seven months to meet the requirement for sufficient retainability for
his overseas duty assignment. He did re-enlist for this short-term
period with the understanding that he would be discharged once he
returned to Grissom Air Base (Record of Trial, 36). He was unable
to return timely to the continental United States to effect this dis-
charge. No reason is disclosed for the tardiness, nor according to
applicant did he know why he could not be discharged in Okinawa.
His absence was terminated by apprehension and he was tried and
convicted by general court-martial on 28 May 1974.
(No. 198) At his trial, the applicant, a Private (E-2), testified that
he had been addicted to heroin since he was 19. Although he was able
to get through Basic, he began using it again while on a 3-day pass
during AIT. This resulted in his special court-martial and was the
cause of his subsequent periods of AWOL. During his last AWOL, he
signed himself into a drug rehabilitation center. According to a letter
from the center, he was a resident from 4 Feb 71 until 4 Oct 71, and
was under aftercare supervision until 3 Feb 74. It further stated
that when he was released his condition was stable and he had pro-
gressed significantly. The applicant stated that he then called Fort
Dix to arrange his return but was told that they did not have his
records. A few weeks later the FBI called and stated that they had
his records and would be out to pick him up. Following his conviction,
he was sentenced to a Bad Conduct Discharge and.four months con-
finement at hard labor. Subsequent to his release under the clemency
program, the sentence was approved by the Convening Authority, but
the remaining confinement was suspended.
(No. 305) Applicant served stateside until 21 January 1969 when he
reported for duty as a rifleman in Vietnam. He served in combat for
an entire year with the America Division. Applicant departed AWOL
because he was not taken out of combat within the customary seven
days prior to outprocessing. Applicant felt that his Company Commander
was making an exception with him and that it was not justified (Record
of Trial, 17-18). He left Vietnam on his own a few days before his
tour of duty was up.
18f.
(No. 222) The applicant was inducted under Project 100, 000. He
had stated that he had previously been rejected by the Marines, and
had failed the Army's mental test, but claimed that his papers had
been changed so that he would qualify. At his trial, he testified that
he had tried to complete basic training but went AWOL when the
pressures became too great. He went home to his wife who was preg-
nant and suffering from asthma. After being returned to military con-
trol and convicted by special court-martial, he was assigned to Ft.
Polk, Louisiana, but instead went back home to his wife. After the
birth of their child, he worked at odd jobs both in Mississippi and
Texas until 11 Sept 70 when he was incarcerated by civilian authorities
for petty larceny. He was turned over to military authorities on 30
Sept but went AWOL the following day and remained absent until he was
apprehended on 31 Jan 74. During this time he served 9 months of a
one-year sentence in a Mississippi prison for grand theft and from
Aug 73 until Jan 74 worked as a truck driver for a masonry supply
company. Although the investigating officer recommended trial only
by a Special Court-Martial empowe to adjudge a Bad Conduct
Discharge, the charged were referred to a General Court-Martial.
At the trial, there was psychiatric evidence that, although legally sane,
the applicant was mildly retarded. Also in evidence was a letter
from his wife pointing out the poor health of herself and their 4-year-
old daughter; a letter from his mother disclosing that when he was 19
he had been diagnosed as having the mind of a 6-year-old; and a letter
from his employer attesting to his excellent job performance and stating
a desire for his return. Following his conviction and sentence, he was
sent to the Disciplinary Barracks where he was again diagnosed as being
mildly retarded, manifested by a low intelligence. He made excellent
progress and was evaluated as being slow, but having a positive attitude.
The psychiatrist recommended upgrading to a non-punitive discharge on
the basis that the Army was as much at fault as the applicant.
(No. 356) In a letter, dated 10 Nov 74, to the PCB, applicant relates
that he absented himself to avoid harassment by his immediate com-
mander. The alleged harassment evolved from a conviction. As the
result of an absence from 16 June to 3 August 1972, applicant was con-
victed by a summary court-martial and sentenced to confinement. On
release from the brig and his return to his former unit, applicant
found that he was constantly harassed, ridiculed and assigned to demean-
ing work. Applicant found the harassment intolerable. He relates that
he did not return to military control because he feared being returned
to the command that harassed him.
18g.
(No. 229) Applicant was enthusiastic about his induction into the
Army, believing thathe would have financial security and would
receive technical training. He was assigned to Ft. Dix, N. J., for
basic training. His lack of physical agility and difficulties in reading
and writing impeded his progress. Consequently, he was recycled for
his failure to achieve passing training test scores. Entered basic
training (normally, a six-week stint) on 2 Sept 1964 and did not grad-
uate until 7 June 1965. After a short leave, applicant was sent to Ft.
Knox, Kentucky, for advanced individual training as a tank driver.
He continued to have learning problems in advanced training. This
problem was compounded by the ridicule of his peer who discovered
that he required several months to complete basic training. Applicant
attributes his absences to frustration and discouragement caused by
his inability to learn and to earn the respectof his associates (Trial
Transcript, pp. 17-19).
(No. 207) At his trial, he testified that in early 1972, while stationed
at Ft. Carson, Colorado, he received orders to report to Ft. Dix,
N. J., enroute for Germany. However, he was given only eight days,
which was insufficient time to dispose of his home and obtain a visa
and citizenship for his wife so she and their daughter could accompany
him. He was therefore late and received an Article 15 on 14 Apr 12
for being AWOL from 4 Feb to 11 Apr. He was granted a delay enroute
to return to Ft. Carson to apply for a compassionate reassignment,
but his home had been repossessed. At the end of August he was told
that he could not be paid so he left to look for his wife and daughter
who had returned to Mexico. He was unsuccessful and returned to
Denver where he was apprehended on 29 Jun 74.
(No. 221) Applicant absented himself one month prior to the termination
date of his enlistment contract (Trial Transcript, 30). His absence was
precipitated by the illness of his father and the unresponsiveness of the
military authorities to applicant's pleading for approval of leave and
for information on the date of the termination of his enlistment. During
this time, applicant's parents were in dire financial condition (Trial
Transcript, 29-30). Frustrated by these conditions, applicant ab-
sented himself to provide support for his parents. After an absence of
30 days, applicant became concerned, telephoned his commander, in-
formed him of his whereabouts, and sought to obtain a commitment on
the disposition of his offense. The commander declined to make any
commitment or prediction on the disposition of the offense (Trial
Transcript, 33-34).
18h.
(No. 227) Applicant suffers from a physical disability, an apparent
birth defect, defined as Pseudarthrosis of the lumbar spine with
fusion at joints L-5 and S-1. The defect causes the applicant to have
severe lower back pains, preventing him from engaging in any vig-
orous activity. Applicant mentioned his back problem when he was
being examined at the induction station. His disclosure was ignored
(Trial Transcript, 22). Such a condition is an accepted basis for
rejection for induction (Para. 36(c), Chap. 2, AR 40-501; letter from
Dr. Darnell to Capt. Stein, DC, dated 19 Aug 1974, allied papers
(Trial Transcript).
(No. 223) Applicant was ordered to Vietnam in March 1967 to be
assigned to an artillery group at the completion of leave. Applicant
absented himself after leave and remained absent until Aug 1967 when
he returned to military control at Ft. Meade, Maryland. From Ft.
Meade he was transported under guard to Oakland, California, for
air transportation to Vietnam. On 6 Sept 1967 applicant missed a
scheduled flight to Vietnam. On 8 Sept 1967 his major absence began
(Trial Transcript, 29-30). Applicant was disillusioned with the Army
because he enlisted in the Army for Korea but instead was to be
assigned to Vietnam. He also was led to believe by a recruiter that
he was to receive training in electronics. This never happened
(Trial Transcript, 31-32). Thoroughly alienated by what he regarded
as breaches of contract, applicant then reacted by absenting himself.
(No. 123) One of the periods of AWOL for which he was charged was
occasioned by an attempt to attend his grandmother's funeral (Record
of Trial).
(No. 495) In a letter to the Discharge Review Board he stated that
his problems began when his father's health worsened, resulting in
almost total blindness. Unable to obtain leave, he went AWOL since
being home meant more than receiving the Article 15's and the Undesir-
able Discharge. In substantiation of his father's condition, he sub-
mitted a letter from a doctor stating that the father was legally blind.
(No. 506) The applicant served in Vietnam in 1967 as a Sergeant in
the Infantry although he was trained as an M.P. He reported he had
been wounded and returned to duty. He then was involved in serious
combat just before he was scheduled to go on a rest and relaxation
trip to Hawaii. He was delayed in returning to his base because of
the combat, and when he traveled to Hawaii he found his wife was sick.
He absented himself on 8 May 1967 and traveled home in order to help.
181.
He reported that he was just out of hard combat and not responsible
for his actions (letter of applicant). He returned to Ft. Belvoir
(Virginia) on 6 Sept 1967 and received a Special Court-Martial. The
sentence adjudged and approved included a reduction to Corporal E-4.
He reported he was then ordered to Europe and he reported to Ft.
Dix (New Jersey) for further travel to Europe. While he was waiting
at Ft. Dix his records were shipped to Europe and he was not paid
for 45 days. He reported his family was having financial problems
and he requested Red Cross help and emergency leave to deal with
the difficulty. His family was putout of their apartment, was forced
to live in their automobile, and had no food. He traveled to The
Pentagon and talked to a Major in Classification and Assignments,
and was reportedly told to go home to await the results of a telegram
to Europe regarding his pay records (applicant's letter). He called
back twice, but reportedly no one knew of his situation nor had heard
of him. He reported he was committed to his course of action so he
continued to stay at home. He found a job but was still forced to take
bankruptcy. He was absent until 14 July 1974 when he was apprehended
and returned to military authorities at Ft. Meade (Maryland). He
received an Undesirable Discharge on 20 Sept 1974.
(No. 191) Applicant, a Private (E-2), was convicted by General
Court-Martial on 28 Aug 1974 for being AWOL from the U. S. Army
Overseas Replacement Station, Oakland, California, from 27 Mar
1969 until 30 May 1974. He commenced his absence from a leave
status and cited his father's failing health and his mother's poor
economic prospects as his reasons for being AWOL. He had applied
twice for hardship discharges prior to his offense. While AWOL his
father died of a stroke on 28 Aug 1972, leaving his mother with a
pension of $22 a month. She was a polio victim and was unable to work.
(No. 008) MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES: Applicant's claim to
C.O. status was apparently denied because it was not made prior to
notice of induction. He states that he has sought alternative service
but the courts would not allow it.
19.
Mitigating Factors
9. Denial of Conscientious Objector Status on Procedural, Technical
or Improper Grounds -
This factor is used when a draft board has denied a CO application
for reasons other than an apparently insincere or frivolous claim.
This factor has particular application where the draft board applied
the pre-Welch standard -- either before or after Welch -- that a
CO belief based on a moral, ethical or philosophical belief was not
an appropriate basis for exemption. The Board does look for some
evidence that a CO application was a sincere one. It should be
noted, therefore, whenever the record indicates, a CO situation
may be present.
A "late blooming" realization of CO may be legitimate even when
provoked only by a draft board notice. Naturally, the Board will
look closely at the evidence in these cases. Presuming sincerity,
look carefully at the reason why the claim was denied.
19a.
9. Denial of Conscientious Objector Status on Procedural,
Technical or Improper Grounds
(No. 68) After unsuccessful attempt to achieve a draft exempt status,
applicant left his home state of Florida in August 1970 as a fugitive
when finally ordered to report for induction. He has since admitted
it was a mistake and expressed contrition. He had attempted to
achieve C.O. status at one point. His parents claim he was always
of a non-violent nature. On 15 April 1974 he was arrested in Denver,
Colorado, terminating a period of odd jobs and frequent movement
while a fugitive.
(No. 14) On 17 Jan 1970 he applied for C.O. status after his student
deferment had expired. This was denied and, in May 1971, he refused
induction. His conviction by bench trial was appealed but on 9 Mar
1974 the judgment was affirmed. He was sentenced on 4 Jan 1974 to
18 months and served 9 months, 14 days prior to being furloughed.
At the time he was in minimum custody.
MITIGATING CIRCUMS TANCES:
The applicant claims he opposed the Vietnam War on an ideological
basis, and that he sincerely believes he is a conscientious objector.
He claims his work in the hospital was to support his beliefs, and that
his prime error as outlined in the appeal decision was his failure to
comply with time requirements for status changes under the Selective
Service Act. He also states that he was willing to do alternate service
for his country. According to a classification study prepared by the
Bureau of Prisons, his ideological reasoning appears to be sincere.
(No. 016) He claims conscientious objection to participation in the
Armed Forces and to all wars. He does not contest the verdict of
guilt. He feels that his mistake was in failing to follow the legal pro-
cedure. Applicant reads the Bible regularly and bases his conscientious
objection to some extent on religious belief. His wife is currently
the assistant manager of a clothing store.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENSE:
After receiving an induction order applicant submitted a letter to
the Selective Service indicating he was opposed to the Vietnam War
and all fighting. He formally submitted a conscientious objector form
on 4 November 1968. Selective Service denied the application and he
was ordered to report for induction. He failed to report and was
ultimately arrested in Atlanta, Georgia.
19b.
(No. 53) Prior to the expiration of his student classification he
applied for conscientious objector status. The Board denied this
request as it did not feel his beliefs were deeply and sincerely held
and the Board noted that he did not claim C.O. status until he no
longer qualified for any form of deferment. The applicant appealed
the decision of the local board and the local board's decision was
upheld. He was ordered to report for induction on 19 March 1971,
and he reported as ordered but he refused to submit to induction
(Presentence Report).
(No. 97) The applicant has been held under minimum custody, is
a Jehovah's Witness, and full term less 180 days is 19 Sept 1976.
Concerning his religious belief, he claims that he was ordained a
minister about 1968; but, according to the presentence report of
14 Sep 73, he has attended church on a very irregular basis for the
past two years and is not concerned over his religion as much now
as he has been in the past.
20.
Mitigating Factors
10. Evidence that an Applicant Acted for Conscientious, not Manipulative
of Selfish Reasons -
Where it can be shown from the statements and actions of the appli-
cant that he did not report for induction or alternate service or that
he went AWOL out of sincere, ethical or religious belief. For
example, Jehovah's Witness or Black Muslim beliefs which compel
an individual not to perform military service qualify an applicant
for this mitigating factor -- as would any evidence of deeply held
opposition to the Vietnam War.
The factor can also be found when an applicant's offense occurred
as a matter of conscience, even if there is no evidence that he
opposed the war. For example, one applicant went AWOL after
suffering a traumatic reaction to the death of his platoon leader,
who was shot while standing next to him.
20a.
10. Evidence that an Applicant Acted for Conscientious, not
Manipulative or Selfish Reasons
(No. 25) Applicant surrendered to the FBI on 23 July 1973 and
attempted to enlist in the U. S. Armed Forces while he was on bond
awaiting sentence. A U. S. Probation Officer reports he still wants
to enlist in U. S. Armed Forces "and become worth of U. S. citizen-
ship."
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES: Applicant has served six months and
six days in prison. Statement of Applicant:
"
I regret that I
have been a burden on the U. S. Government as a result of bad judg-
ment and impulsive behavior. I now realize my serious mistake and
pray that amnexty be granted in my case. I am willing to accept any
condition imposed upon me by the Clemency Board. My sincere desire
is to join the U. S. Armed Forces, prove my loyalty to the U. S.
and become a citizen of the United States."
(No. 30) Applicant grounded his resistance to induction on his religious
beliefs as a registered Muslim under the name of Bernard B. X. He
stated that conscientious objector status was unacceptable to him and
that he would accept imprisonment. He did indicate a willingness to
perform alternate service of national importance after conferring with
his religious advisor (Presentence Report, 20 Aug 73). According
to the Presentence Report, applicant is a member of a Muslim congre-
gation in Detroit.
Applicant's religious convictions and the advice received from his
religious advisor during the selection process had a determining effect
on his understanding of his legal obligations under the Selective Service
Act. His willingness to endure incarceration, a form of martyrdom to
him, may well have been the direct result of the influence of his advisor
during the selection process (see p.2, Presentence Report, supra).
Applicant is dedicated to the tenets of his faith (see p.2, Current Finding,
Classification Summary, U. S. Penitentiary, Marion, Illinois, 14 Dec
73). This extract is revealing for in it applicant first claims con-
scientious objector status (see p.1, Offender's Explanation, Classification
Summary, supra). Sole cause of his refusal of induction was his reli-
gious faith.
(No. 57) Applicant simply quietly refused to step forward and submit to
induction ceremony. He persisted in his refusal after counseling,
attributing his behavior to his Muslim faith.
20b.
(No. 188) During his combat tour in Vietnam, applicant's platoon leader,
with whom he shared a brotherly relationship, was killed while the
latter was awakening applicant to start his guard duty (Record of Trial,
61). The platoon had set up an ambush point because they had come
upon an enemy complex. Id. "This event was extremely traumatic
to
(applicant) and he experienced nightmares.' (Admission
Summary). In an attempt to cope with this experience, applicant turned
to the use of heroin to which he became addicted (Record of Trial, 61-62).
Upon returning to the continental U. S. (CONUS) on or about 12 April
1972, applicant initially reported as ordered to Ft. Carson, Coloardo.
"He did not discuss this (heroin) problem with anyone because he was
afraid he was going to be busted - or busted out OI the Army
11
(No. 72) He pled not guilty and made no conscientious objection to service
on original registration. He initially had a II-S classification which was
changed to I-A when his grades fell. He then requested C.O. status which
was denied. Defendant states that he is a Pacifist and objects to killing
and to war.
(No. 91) As a Jehovah's Witness he applied for and received C.O. status
from his local draft board, which subsequently ordered him to perform
civilian work contributing to the maintenance of national health, safety
and interest (10 Nov 70). He failed to report for such duty (23 Nov 70).
Applicant contended that he was a minister of the Jehovah's Witness
faith, and that to accept alternative service would be to compromise his
religious belief.
A classification study performed while applicant was imprisoned summed
up his character thusly:
(Applicant) is of above-average intelligence and ability
and is confident in his manner. He took a stand based on
his religious beliefs and is willing to face the consequences
of his decision. His dedication is an asset that will bene-
fit him greatly while he is serving his time and after his
release.
(No. 94) Prior to coming to court, applicant attempted to join the
New Jersey National Guard to express his desire to rectify the situ-
ation and perform acceptable alternate service.
(No. 98) He insisted throughout that he did not willfully evade induction;
that he simply failed to conform with all Selective Service procedures.
He cited family problems as distractions, to wit: his father's illness,
his mother's unemployment, his sister's drug addiction, and his
immediate family.
21.
Mitigating Factors
11. Voluntary Submission to Authorities -
This factor indicates that the applicant voluntarily turned himself
in when he returned from his last qualifying offense. Whether his
prior qualifying offenses ended in surrender is irrelevant. If he
is apprehended every time but the last time, the factor is present.
If he surrenders every time but the last time, it is not present.
For civilians, the factor indicates that an applicant voluntarily
surrendered to authorities before his trial, even if he had been a
fugitive before his surrender. It applies even if he submits pursuant
to a warrant or a subpoena.
22.
Mitigating Factors
12. Behavior Which Reflects Mental Stress Caused by Combat -
This factor is present when an applicant's offense resulted from
any emotional or psychological after-effects of being in a combat
zone. Some evidence is necessary to document this, such as a
traumatic incident on a drastic downgrade in a behavior pattern
after leaving the war zone. Combat-induced drug use would qualify
an applicant for this factor, if it led to his AWOL.
23.
Mitigating Factors
13. Volunteering for Combat or Extension of Service while in Combat -
This factor is present if an applicant volunteers for a first or
subsequent Vietnam tour, volunteers for a combat assignment
while in Vietnam, or volunteers for re-enlistment or an extended
Vietnam tour.
24.
Mitigating Factors
14. Above Average Military Conduct and Proficiency or Unit Citations -
This factor indicates the conduct and proficiency (efficiency) ratings
received by an applicant while in the service before or after his
qualifying offenses. The time of rating periods considered for the
factor are exclusive of the AWOL/UA periods.
The Marine Corps reports conduct and proficiency on a numerical
scale from 0 to 5. Average scores above 4.0 (conduct) and 4.0
(proficiency) are sufficient for this factor to exist.
The Navy reports personnel ratings of five different military traits
on a numerical scale of 0 to 4. Average scores above 3.0 (conduct)
and 2.7 (proficiency) are sufficient.
The Army reports personnel ratings of conduct and efficiency on
a one word qualification basis. Any excellent conduct and efficiency
rating is sufficient.
This factor can also be found if there is any indication in the record
that an individual was member of a unit that received a meritorious
citation. Disregard bad ratings given during absences.
25.
Mitigating Factors
15. Personal Decorations for Valor -
This factor reports receipt of the Army commendation medal,
Bronze Star, or other medal that is awarded for bravery or
achievement in combat. Some awards require a special device
for this factor to exist - such as a "V" for distinguishing valor
in combat from other reasons for the award. An award without
a "valor" citation applies under M-14. Check the Awards memo.
Unit citations and Purple Heart awards do not apply here.
26.
Mitigating Factors
16. Wounds in Combat -
This factor indicates whether an applicant suffered bodily injury in
"combat zone"; whether or not he received a Purple Heart Award.
A Purple Heart is sufficient to bring about this factor.
27.
SUMMARY OF DECISION: EFFECTIVE APRIL 8, 1975
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20500
Calculation of Baseline for Alternative Service:
Starting Point
24
Months
Less Three Times
Months in Prison
-
Months
Less Alternative Service Performed if Period Satisfactorily Completed
-
Months
Less Time Served on Probation or Parole if Period Satisfactorily
Completed
-
Months
BASELINE
Months
Judge's Sentence to Imprisonment as Reduced by Competent Authority, which
is the Baseline if Less Than the Above Figure
Months
Minimum Baseline
3
Months
Final Baseline for Determining the Period of Alternative Service
Months
Aggravating Factors:
(1).
Other adult convictions
(2).
False statement by applicant to the Presidential Clemency Board
(3).
Use of force by applicant collaterally to AWOL, desertion, or missing
movement or civilian draft evasion offense
(4).
Descrtion during combat
(5).
Evidence that applicant committed offense for obviously manipulative
and selfish reasons
(6).
Prior refusal to fulfill alternative service
(7).
Violation of probation or parole
(8).
Multiple AWOL/UA offenses
(9).
AWOL/UA of extended length
(10).
Failure to report for overseas assignment
None of the above
27a.
Mitigating Factors:
(1).
Lack of sufficient education or ability to understand obligations or
remedies available under the law
(2).
Personal and immediate family problems
(3).
Mental or physical condition
(4).
Employment and other activities of service to the public
(5).
Service-connected disability
(6).
Extended period of creditable military service
(7).
Tours of service in the war zone
.
(8).
Substantial evidence of personal or procedural unfairness
(9).
Denial of conscientions objector status on procedural, technical,
or improper grounds
(10).
Evidence that an applicant acted for conscientious, not manipulative
or selfish reasons
(11).
Voluntary submission to authorities by applicant
(12).
Behavior which reflects mental stress cause d by combat
(13).
Volunteering for combat, or extension of service while in combat
(14).
Above average military conduct and proficiency or unit citations
(15).
Personal decorations for valor
(16).
Wounds in combat
None of the above
Based on these factors, the Board's decision is that the
month baseline should be
.
Therefore, a pardon will be granted
after performance of
months of alternative service.
Case Number
Staff Attorney