Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "1506009",
    "label": "Memoranda - Buchen, Philip",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1506009"
}

{
    "id": "1506009",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1506009",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Memoranda - Buchen, Philip",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1506009",
    "collections": [
        "Charles E. Goodell Papers",
        "Presidential Clemency Board Subject Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "President (1974-1977 : Ford). Presidential Clemency Board. 9/16/1974-9/15/1975",
        "Amnesty"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0193/648291/1506009.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0193/648291/1506009.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0193/648291/1506009.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1506009",
    "naId": 1506009,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-11-30",
        "month": 11,
        "year": 1975
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-04-01",
        "month": 4,
        "year": 1975
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0193/648291/1506009.pdf",
    "mediaId": "e39cfddb3a13e375",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 7, folder \"Memoranda - Buchen, Philip\" of the\nCharles E. Goodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Charles Goodell donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box 7 of the Charles E. Goodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nExtra\nCEG\nPRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 18, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR: PHIL BUCHEN\nAttached is a Summary of Case No. 75-1223,\nan applicant to the Presidential Clemency Board.\nThe Board would appreciate guidance from\nthe President as to whether this is the type of\ncase that the President had in mind to receive\nclemency.\nI would appreciate your asking the President\nto read the Summary and give the Clemency Board\nhis decision.\nCharles Goodill\nCharles E. Goodell\nChairman\nAttachment\nFORD d LIBRARY 03RALD\nPRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD\nCASE SUMMARY\ngo Pres go\nPCB Attorney: Broder\nCase Number: 75-1223-BRO-M\nTelephone Number: (202) 456-2110\nBranch of Service: Army\nSummary Completed: 10 Mar 1975\nAge: 25\nTotal Time Served: 25 days pre-\nPresent Status: Civilian\ndischarge confinement\nDate of Application: 21 Jan 1975\nDischarge Status: Undesirable\nDischarge in lieu of court-martial\nOffenses: AWOL - 2 specifications:\n27 Jan 1972 - 1 Mar 1972 (1 month,\n5 days); 2 Mar - 26 Nov 1972 (8 months,\n25 days)\nTotal absence: 10 months\nTotal Creditable Service: 1 year, 2 days\nBackground:\nThis married, Caucasian applicant, one of four brothers, was born in\nWashington, D.C., on 10 Dec 1949. He has one child. Available records\ndisclose no other information about his family background, except that his\nfather did not live with his family. Applicant is a high school graduate\nwith a GT score of 141 and an AFQT score measuring 99 (Group I). He has\nattended several years of college, and in a letter to the Board accompanying\nhis application he relates that he is presently studying to be an optometrist,\nexpecting to graduate in 1978. On 17 Feb 1971 applicant enlisted in the\nArmy for a period of two years. During his one year and two days of\ncreditable service he was awarded the M-16 expert rifle badge and a hand\ngrenade badge. Additionally, in Sept 1971, he was given the Self-Achievement\nAward for his battalion. Applicant was rated twice as excellent for conduct\nand efficiency. He has neither prior civilian nor prior military convictions,\nand he has no non-judicial punishments.\nCircumstances of Offense:\nDuring the summer and fall of 1971 applicant was stationed at Ft. Carson,\nColorado, where he encountered many men returning from Vietnam. In a\nletter to the Board dated 8 Jan 1975 applicant relates that he was troubled\nby the attitude and bitterness of these men which caused him to reconsider\ncarefully the United States involvement in Southeast Asia. Applicant does\nnot characterize himself as a conscientious objector. Specifically, he states:\nI believe there is a need for an armed forces to defend the\nUnited States and I cannot classify myself as a conscientious\nobjector because this status indicates a belief that all war is\nwrong and therefore a military force is unnecessary.\n-2-\nCase Number: 75-1223-BRO-M\nNonetheless, when applicant received orders for duty in Vietnam in Dec\n1971,\n\"\n[he] became more distressed and confused as to what course\nof action\n[he] should take. \" Despite serious doubts about his own\nfeelings he reported to the overseas replacement station at Ft. Lewis,\nWashington, in January 1972 where he ultimately received counselling\nas to discharge by reason of conscientious objection. Having concluded\nthat he was not a conscientious objector, applicant \"decided to go AWOL\nuntil\n[he] had cleared up\n[his] own doubts. \" He proceeded home\nto his wife and daughter. A short time later he was returned to military\ncontrol, but went AWOL again because he 11\nstill needed more time to\nresolve the conflicts\n[he] felt about service to\n[his] country. \"\nHe surrendered from this second absence on 26 Nov 1972. In this letter\nto the Board, applicant's own words best describe his feelings:\nI examined the interests of the United States in this war.\nThe enemy was not a threat to our country and no U.S.\nlives were jeopardized by this war. It was and still is a\ncivil war. It was said to be a matter of honor but I felt\nour country's [sic] honor lay in serving a just cause, not\nin serving the ends of another country's civil war.\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\nAs I examined this inner conflict, my questions were:\nCan a man believe in the right to a military defense and\nthe duty of a citizen to serve and yet refuse to support a\nparticular military action? Does government policy make\na cause just? Am I in a situation where I cannot consciously\n[sic] support a policy/action? If so, what measures are\njustifiable?\n*****\nI accepted the adverse affect [sic] on my life and the\nloneliness of my decision because I believe a citizen must\nserve his country the best way he can, not the easiest.\nApplicant's request for an Undesirable Discharge was granted on 21 Dec\n1972. In his letter to the Board accompanying his application he states\nthat his discharge was not the result of, nor did it involve, any proced-\nural unfairness.\nVictnam Service: None\n-3-\nCase Number 75-1223-BRO-M\nChronology:\n10 Dec 1949\nDate of birth\n1968\nHigh School graduation\n17 Feb 1971\nTwo-year enlistment\nSept 1971\nSelf-Achievement Award\nJuly 1971 - Dec 1971\nStationed at Ft. Carson, Colorado\n27 Jan 1972\n1 mo\nAWOL\n1 Mar 1972\nTermination of AWOL\n2 Mar 1972\n9 mos\nAWOL\n26 Nov 1972\nSurrender\n26 Nov - 21 Dec 1972\nPre-discharge confinement\n21 Dec 1972\nUndesirable Discharge\nJan 1973\nAttendance at community college\nJune 1973\nAttended Maryland University\nSept 1973 - June 1974\nAttended Ohio State University\nSept 1974 to date\nAttends Optometry College in California\n8 Jan 1975\nLetter to Board\n21 Jan 1975\nPCB application; letter to Board\nAwards and Decorations:\nNational Defense Service Medal;\nExpert Badge M-16\nHand Grenade Badge\nPrior Military Offenses: None\nSources:\n1. Military Personnel Records jacket\n2. Letters of Applicant dated 8 and 21 Jan 1975\nEvelyn:\nI believe these should be in their respective\ncase files - don't you?\nMarilyn M. 9/10\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 24, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nCharles E. Goodell\nFROM:\nPhilip W. Buchen T.W.B.\nThis memorandum is in response to your request on behalf\nof the Presidential Clemency Board (\"Board\") for guidance in\nthe disposition of cases similar to Case No. 75-1223. In that\ncase the applicant violated the Uniform Code of Military\nJustice twice by absenting himself from his unit during the\nVietnam Era because he believed the war was unjust. Your\nmemo inquires whether the President intended the reconciliation\nprogram to apply to offenders who evidence such anti-war\nmotives.\nThe language in the Proclamation and the Executive Order\nestablishing the program gives no indication whether an\noffender's motives are relevant to the Board's deliberations.\nThus the President's intent is not affirmatively stated. The\nabsence of such language might be interpreted to infer that such\na matter was left to the Board's discretion. However, if such an\nexamination of motives were intended, it would have to apply\nequally to the Departments of Justice and Defense in order not\nto create a gross inequity in the overall administration of the\nreconciliation program. An examination of the language in the\nProclamation establishing the guidelines for the Departments\nindicates that distinguishing cases based on the motives of the\noffenders was not intended because these guidelines are drawn\ntoo tightly. Therefore, I conclude that there was no intention\nthat the Board distinguish between the motives of any applicant\nin considering whether to recommend Executive clemency.\nPRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD\nApril 18, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR: PHIL BUCHEN\nAttached is a Summary of Case No. 75-1223,\nan applicant to the Presidential Clemency Board.\nThe Board would appreciate guidance from\nthe President as to whether this is the type of\ncase that the President had in mind to receive\nclemency.\nI would appreciate your asking the President\nto read the Summary and give the Clemency Board\nhis decision.\nCharles E. Goodell\nChairman\nAttachment\nCEG:mm\nPRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD\nCASE SUMMARY\ngo Pres go\nPCB Attorney: Broder\nCase Number: 75-1223-BRO-M\nTelephone Number: (202) 456-2110\nBranch of Service: Army\nSummary Completed: 10 Mar 1975\nAge: 25\nTotal Time Served: 25 days pre-\nPresent Status: Civilian\ndischarge confinement\nDate of Application: 21 Jan 1975\nDischarge Status: Undesirable\nDischarge in lieu of court-martial\nOffenses: AWOL - 2 specifications:\n27 Jan 1972 - 1 Mar 1972 (1 month,\n5 days); 2 Mar - 26 Nov 1972 (8 months,\n25 days)\nTotal absence: 10 months\nTotal Creditable Service: 1 year, 2 days\nBackground:\nThis married, Caucasian applicant, one of four brothers, was born in\nWashington, D. C., on 10 Dec 1949. He has one child. Available records\ndisclose no other information about his family background, except that his\nfather did not live with his family. Applicant is a high school graduate\nwith a GT score of 141 and an AFQT score measuring 99 (Group I). He has\nattended several years of college, and in a letter to the Board accompanying\nhis application he relates that he is presently studying to be an optometrist,\nexpecting to graduate in 1978. On 17 Feb 1971 applicant enlisted in the\nArmy for a period of two years. During his one year and two days of\ncreditable service he was awarded the M-16 expert rifle badge and a hand\ngrenade badge. Additionally, in Sept 1971, he was given the Self-Achievement\nAward for his battalion. Applicant was rated twice as excellent for conduct\nand efficiency. He has neither prior civilian nor prior military convictions,\nand he has no non-judicial punishments.\nCircumstances of Offense:\nDuring the summer and fall of 1971 applicant was stationed at Ft. Carson,\nColorado, where he encountered many men returning from Vietnam. In a\nletter to the Board dated 8 Jan 1975 applicant relates that he was troubled\nby the attitude and bitterness of these men which caused him to reconsider\ncarefully the United States involvement in Southeast Asia. Applicant does\nnot characterize himself as a conscientious objector. Specifically, he states:\nI believe there is a need for an armed forces to defend the\nUnited States and I cannot classify myself as a conscientious\nobjector because this status indicates a belief that all war is\nwrong and therefore a military force is unnecessary.\n-2-\nCase Number: 75-1223-BRO-M\nNonetheless, when applicant received orders for duty in Vietnam in Dec\n1971, \"\n[he] became more distressed and confused as to what course\nof action\n[he] should take. 11 Despite serious doubts about his own\nfeelings he reported to the overseas replacement station at Ft. Lewis,\nWashington, in January 1972 where he ultimately received counselling\nas to discharge by reason of conscientious objection. Having concluded\nthat he was not a conscientious objector, applicant \"decided to go AWOL\nuntil\n[he] had cleared up\n[his] own doubts. 11 He proceeded home\nto his wife and daughter. A short time later he was returned to military\ncontrol, but went AWOL again because he 11\nstill needed more time to\nresolve the conflicts\n[he] felt about service to\n[his] country. \"\nHe surrendered from this second absence on 26 Nov 1972. In this letter\nto the Board, applicant's own words best describe his feelings:\nI examined the interests of the United States in this war.\nThe enemy was not a threat to our country and no U.S.\nlives were jeopardized by this war. It was and still is a\ncivil war. It was said to be a matter of honor but I felt\nour country's [sic] honor lay in serving a just cause, not\nin serving the ends of another country's civil war.\nAs I examined this inner conflict, my questions were:\nCan a man believe in the right to a military defense and\nthe duty of a citizen to serve and yet refuse to support a\nparticular military action? Does government policy make\na cause just? Am I in a situation where I cannot consciously\n[sic] support a policy/action? If so, what measures are\njustifiable?\n*\n*\n*\nI accepted the adverse affect [sic] on my life and the\nloneliness of my decision because I believe a citizen must\nserve his country the best way he can, not the easiest.\nApplicant's request for an Undesirable Discharge was granted on 21 Dec\n1972. In his letter to the Board accompanying his application he states\nthat his discharge was not the result of, nor did it involve, any proced-\nural unfairness.\nVietnam Service: None\n-3-\nCase Number 75-1223-BRO-M\nChronology:\n10 Dec 1949\nDate of birth\n1968\nHigh School graduation\n17 Feb 1971\nTwo-year enlistment\nSept 1971\nSelf-Achievement Award\nJuly 1971 - Dec 1971\nStationed at Ft. Carson, Colorado\n27 Jan 1972\n1 mo\nAWOL\n1 Mar 1972\nTermination of AWOL\n2 Mar 1972\n9 mos\nAWOL\n26 Nov 1972\nSurrender\n26 Nov - 21 Dec 1972\nPre-discharge confinement\n21 Dec 1972\nUndesirable Discharge\nJan 1973\nAttendance at community college\nJune 1973\nAttended Maryland University\nSept 1973 - June 1974\nAttended Ohio State University\nSept 1974 to date\nAttends Optometry College in California\n8 Jan 1975\nLetter to Board\n21 Jan 1975\nPCB application; letter to Board\nAwards and Decorations:\nNational Defense Service Medal;\nExpert Badge M - 16\nHand Grenade Badge\nPrior Military Offenses: None\nSources:\n1. Military Personnel Records jacket\n2. Letters of Applicant dated 8 and 21 Jan 1975\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 28, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nChairman Charles E. Goodell\nFROM:\nPhilip W. Buchen T.W.B.\nBy your memorandum to the President dated April 18, 1975,\nyou requested the President's personal consideration of\nCase No. 041 which is pending before the Presidential\nClemency Board. The Board is narrowly divided on its\nrecommendation and both the majority and the minority have\nsupporting reasons which they want to insure are brought\nto the President's attention.\nSince the Board has not made a recommendation to the\nPresident in this case, the President's review at this time\nmight be considered premature. Also, such review would\nonly serve to insure that the Board's final recommendation\nwould coincide with the President's final action. There is\nno indication that such complete agreement is necessary.\nAn alternate course of action which the Board might adopt in\nthis case is to submit its majority and minority views to the\nPresident along with a final recommendation. In this way,\nthe President would be fully informed of the Board members'\nviews before reaching his final decision.\nThe Counsel's office will delay action on the Board's memo\nuntil the Board determines whether the proposed alternate\ncourse of action is acceptable.\nPRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nACTION\nApril 18, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nCherles C Hoodell\nFROM:\nCHARLES E. GOODELL\nSUBJECT:\nCase #041\nAt the request of the members of the Presidential Clemency Board,\nI am transmitting to you by special memorandum Case #041. The\nBoard has considered this case a number of times and is divided\non the proper recommendation. They ask that you consider the\ncase personally.\nThe Board, by a divided vote of 4 - 3, recommends a full and\nimmediate pardon. The majority believes that this applicant was\nso mentally ill that he was not responsible for his action. They\nalso believe that his continuing psychological problems are such\nas to make him unable to perform any alternative service. In\neffect, a requirement to do service would be tantamount to a denial\nof clemency. The minority believes that a period of alternative\nservice of at least three months is proper. They are not persuaded\nby the evidence of mental infirmity. It is quite clear that absent\nthis infirmity the Board would have recommended that this particular\nindividual perform a term of service.\nThe summary prepared for the Board's use is attached.\nOPTIONS:\n(a) Approve an immediate pardon for Case #041.\n(b) Approve a pardon conditioned on 3 months\nalternative service.\nDECISION:\n(a)\n(b)\nAttachment\nPRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD\nCase Summary\nCase No. 74-041\n-C\nSentence: 2 years; no jail time\nPresent Status: PCB furlough\nTime Served: 8 months, 2 days\nOffense: Failure to report for\ncivilian duty\nBackground\nApplicant was born on 20 Oct 1946 in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. He is the\nyounger of two children. The applicant's father reportedly (presentence\nreport) is an alcoholic and thrice married. The second marriage followed\na period of four to five years during which the applicant lived with his pater-\nnal grandparents. The second wife of applicant's father reportedly was such\na poor housekeeper (prison report) that a half-sister was hospitalized due\nto living conditions. The third marriage is reportedly a happy one and the\napplicant's stepmother took a strong interest in him. During high school\nthe applicant was seen as an \"All American Boy\". He was in the upper 15%\nof his class, played football for two years, and was president of his senior\nclass. Upon graduation in 1965 the applicant entered the University of\nCincinnati. He continued there until spring of 1968 where he accumulated\n142 quarter hours. Following a short period of work and another semester\nof school, the applicant left the country to travel in Europe, Africa and\nLebanon. He was arrested and sentenced in Beirut, Lebanon, to a three year\nprison term for smuggling hashish. A panel of medical experts found his\nmedical condition unstable and the sentence was reduced to nine months (pre-\nsentence report). Subsequently the applicant appeared in Holland where he\njoined a society that advocated the benefits of trephination. The applicant\nperformed this operation on himself (drove a hole in his skull), was sub-\nsequently hospitalized for infection, returned to the United States and hos-\npitalized in Cincinnati, Ohio. The report of a prison psychiatrist indicates\nthe applicant is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia (prison report).\nCircumstances of Offense\nThe applicant registered for the draft, received a student deferment, and\nin 1967 was granted conscientious objector status. In July 1969 the appli-\ncant was authorized civilian work at Citizens Hospital in Ohio but failed\nto report.\nPRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD\nMay 15, 1975\nFORD\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nPHILIP W. BUCHEN\nFROM:\nCHARLES E. GOODELL\nSUBJECT:\nPending Clemency Board Issues\nBefore the President\nThe President has acted on 65 recommendations from the Presidential\nClemency Board to date. There are now 236 recommendations pending,\nincluding 114 recommendations sent to the President on March 26, 1975.\nI understand they are being held because some question as re-arison\nwith reference to the President granting a pardon for the AWOL\noffenses that led to an Undesirable Discharge. If you will recall,\nthis issue was resolved by the President in a meeting with Marsh,\nBuchen and Goodell in late November or early December. You and\nI discussed the issue in your office prior to meeting with the President.\nI recall your reaching for a copy of the Constitution and reading the\nlanguage as follows:\n\"and he shall have power to grant reprieves and\npardons for offenses against the United States\".\nI explained that the elemency Board had then reached a serious impasse\nbecause we unanimously felt that we could not require alternative\nservice of an applicant if all we had to offer him was a change from\nan Undesirable Discharge to a Clemency Discharge. We distinguished\nthe cases being processed by the Department of Defense because that\nprogram dealt with fugitives who had charges hanging over them.\nTheir participation in the clemency program benefitted them by the\nmilitary dropping the pending charges against them.\nI believe it would be not only unfortunate, but a serious disruption\nof the Elemency Board functions to reopen the issue of pardons for\nAWOL offenses leading to Undesirable Discharges. The matter was\ndiscussed in the presence of the President and a decision was made\nwhich solved a major policy crisis in the Board last fall. Since\n- 2 .\napproximately 70% of our applications are from undesirable\ndischargees, a decision to grant them only a Clemency Discharge\nwould expose the President to vehement criticism and perhaps even\nridicule. All of the members of the Elemency Board have repeatedly\nstated in public the President's decision to grant pardons for AWOL\noffenses leading to Undesirable Discharges. This is not the time\nfor a retraction or an apparent reneging on public commitments\nwith reference to clemency.\nI understand that there are those advisors to the President who have\nbeen advocating, in view of events in Vietnam, that the President\nannounce universal and 1\n?\nn/ot\nadvocate such a course,\nInsert - page 2\nfollowing actions previo\n....\ndate, 5 of which have been forwarded\n1. Upgrade\nto the President.\nThe Board has recomme\nThese are individuals who\nvolunteering for extra h\nup and are now denied V\non the motion of the Boa\nthat these individuals ro\nbenefits.\n2. Effect of Clemency O.\nWe proposed that any individual going to a Discharge Review Board\nor Board for the Correction of Military Records having received a\nPardon from the President would be treated as follows:\n(a) He would not have to make a separate, special\napplication to these boards. The application to the\nclemency Board would be considered the functional\nequivalent of the application to the military; (b) Any\nreview would be taken without regard to the acts for which\nthe President has issued a Pardon.\n3. Nature of Clemency Discharge\nThe Proclamation and the President's evident intent is that the\nClemency Discharge be a truly neutral discharge, neither less-than-\nhonorable nor \"under honorable conditions\". The actual certificate\n2 $ t\napproximately 70% of our applications are from undesirable\ndischargees, a decision to grant them only a Clemency Discharge\nwould expose the President to vehement criticism and perhaps even\nridicule. All of the members of the Elemency Board have repeatedly\nstated in public the President's decision to grant pardons for AWOL\noffenses leading to Undesirable Discharges. This is not the time\nfor a retraction or an apparent reneging on public commitments\nwith reference to clemency.\nI understand that there are those advisors to the President who have\nbeen advocating, in view of events in Vietnam, that the President\nannounce universal and unconditional amnesty at this time. I do not\nadvocate such a course, but 1 believe the President should take the\nfollowing actions previously recommended by the Glemency Board:\n1. Upgrade\nThe Board has recommended twenty-one upgrade cases to date. (insent)\nThese are Individuals who served gallantly in Vietnam, often\nvolunteering for extra hazardous duty. They subsequently cracked\nup and are now denied voterans benefits. We recommend unanimously,\non the motion of the Board members who are veterans of Vietnam,\nthat these individuals receive General Discharges with veterans\nbenefits.\n2. Effect of Clemency on Future Discharge Review\nWe proposed that any individual going to a Discharge Review Board\nor Board for the Correction of Military Records having received a\nPardon from the President would be treated as follows:\n(a) He would not have to make a separate, special\napplication to these boards. The application to the\nclemency Board would be considered the functional\nequivalent of the application to the military; (b) Any\nreview would be taken without regard to the acts for which\nthe President has issued a Pardon.\n3. Nature of Clemency Discharge\nThe Proclamation and the President's evident intent is that the\nClemency Discharge be a truly neutral discharge, neither less-than-\nhonorable nor \"under honorable conditions\". The actual certificate\n- 3 -\nused by Defense states that it is a Clemency Discharge given\n\"under clemency conditions\" or some similar phraseology.\nHowever, the Department has made it quite clear that they\nconsider the Clemency Discharge to be a discharge under other\nthan honorable conditions (the functional equivalent of an Undesirable\nDischarge), not only for the purposes of continuing to preclude\nveterans benefits (the President's desire), but also as a public\nconnotation and an official description within the government.\nWe recommend that the President make it clear that a Clemency\nDischarge replaces a discharge under less than honorable conditions.\nThe Executive Order states that a Clemency Discharge is \"in lieu of\"\nand \"substituted for\" a Bad Discharge. The Clemency Discharge\nshould be regarded as completely neutral, smither under honorable\nconditions or less than honorable conditions.\n4. The President should act upon the 236 recommendations made\nby the clemency Board thus far and publicly announce that he has\nsigned the warrants implementing those recommendations.\nCEG\nFYI\nPRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMay 16, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nPHILIP W. BUCHEN\nCharles E. Hoodell\nFROM:\nCHARLES E. GOODELL\nSUBJECT:\nPending Clemency Board Issues\nBefore the President\nThe President has acted on 65 recommendations from the Presidential\nClemency Board to date. There are now 236 recommendations pending,\nincluding 114 recommendations sent to the President on March 26, 1975.\nI understand they are being held because some question has re-arisen\nwith reference to the President granting a pardon for the AWOL\noffenses that led to an Undesirable Discharge. If you will recall,\nthis issue was resolved by the President in a meeting with Marsh,\nBuchen and Goodell in late November or early December. You and\nI discussed the issue in your office prior to meeting with the President.\nI recall your reaching for a copy of the Constitution and reading the\nlanguage as follows:\n\"and he shall have power to grant reprieves and\npardons for offenses against the United States\".\nI explained that the Clemency Board had then reached a serious impasse\nbecause we unanimously felt that we could not require alternative\nservice of an applicant if all we had to offer him was a change from\nan Undesirable Discharge to a Clemency Discharge. We distinguished\nthe cases being processed by the Department of Defense because that\nprogram dealt with fugitives who had charges hanging over them.\nTheir participation in the clemency program benefitted them by the\nmilitary dropping the pending charges against them.\nI believe it would be not only unfortunate, but a serious disruption of\nthe Clemency Board functions to reopen the issue of pardons for\nAWOL offenses leading to Undesirable Discharges. The matter was\ndiscussed in the presence of the President and a decision was made\nwhich solved a major policy crisis in the Board last fall. Since\n- 2 -\napproximately 70% of our applications are from undesirable\ndischargees, a decision to grant them only a Clemency Discharge\nwould expose the President to vehement criticism and perhaps even\nridicule. All of the members of the Clemency Board have repeatedly\nstated in public the President's decision to grant pardons for AWOL\noffenses leading to Undesirable Discharges. This is not the time\nfor a retraction or an apparent reneging on public commitments\nwith reference to clemency.\nI understand that there are those advisors to the President who have\nbeen advocating, in view of the events in Vietnam, that the President\nannounce universal and unconditional amnesty at this time. I do not\nadvocate such a course, but I believe the President should take the\nfollowing actions previously recommended by the Clemency Board:\n1. Upgrade\nThe Board has recommended twenty-one upgrade cases to date,\n5 of which have been forwarded to the President. These are individuals\nwho served gallantly in Vietnam, often volunteering for extra hazardous\nduty. They subsequently cracked up and are now denied veterans\nbenefits. We recommend unanimously, on the motion of the Board\nmembers who are veterans of Vietnam, that these individuals receive\nGeneral Discharges with veterans benefits.\n2. Effect of Clemency on Future Discharge Review\nWe proposed that any individual going to a Discharge Review Board\nor Board for the Correction of Military Records having received a\nPardon from the President would be treated as follows:\n(a) He would not have to make a separate, special\napplication to these boards. The application to the\nClemency Board would be considered the functional\nequivalent of the application to the military; (b) Any\nreview would be taken without regard to the acts for\nwhich the President has issued a Pardon.\n3. Nature of Clemency Discharge\nThe Proclamation and the President's evident intent is that the\nClemency Discharge be a truly neutral discharge, neither less-than-\n- 3 -\nhonorable nor \"under honorable conditions\". The actual certificate\nused by Defense states that it is a Clemency Discharge given \"under\nclemency conditions\" or some similar phraseology. However, the\nDepartment has made it quite clear that they consider the Clemency\nDischarge to be a discharge under other than honorable conditions\n(the functional equivalent of an Undesirable Discharge), not only for\nthe purposes of continuing to preclude veterans benefits (the\nPresident's desire), but also as a public connotation and an official\ndescription within the government.\nWe recommend that the President make it clear that a Clemency\nDischarge replaces a discharge under less than honorable conditions.\nThe Executive Order states that a Clemency Discharge is \"in lieu of\"\nand \"substituted for\" a Bad Discharge. The Clemency Discharge\nshould be regarded as completely neutral, neither under honorable\nconditions or less than honorable conditions.\n4. The President should act upon the 236 recommendations made\nby the Clemency Board thus far and publicly announce that he has\nsigned the warrants implementing those recommendations.\nI firmly believe Presidential action on all of the above issues would\nre-emphasize the fair, generous and significantly beneficial nature\nof the President's approach to amnesty, stopping far short of\nunconditional amnesty. Any arguments that such actions create\ndifficult precedents for existing agencies or open floodgates,\nignore the fact that the clemency program is by definition unique\nand sets no precedents whatsoever in other agencies for those\nbeyond the purview of the clemency program itself.\nFeb 27, 1975 - Memo from Jerry Jones to all concerned,\n\"The President has made the decision to extend the Clemency Board\napplication deadlines, as well as the deadlines of the Departments\nof Defense and Justice, for a period to end March 31st. This is to\nbe the absolute final extension and the extension of time in no way\nimplies any broadening of authority\"\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMay 22, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nCHAIRMAN CHARLES GOODELL\nFROM:\nPHILIP W. BUCHEN\nT.W.B.\nThis memo is in response to your memo dated May 16, 1975,\nin which you raised four issues concerning the President's\nclemency program.\nAlthough you believe the issue concerning pardons for\nservicemen who received undesirable discharges was discussed\nwith the President last year, I have confirmed that positions\non this issue were never requested from the Departments\nof Defense and Justice. Attached for your review are memos\nfrom the United States Pardon Attorney and the Department of\nDefense opposing your recommendation. In light of their\nopinions, it would be desirable to hold a meeting of the interested\nagencies for the purpose of reaching a resolution on this issue.\nWith respect to the issue you raised in item number three of\nyour memo, I believe it also should be discussed at the meeting\nof all interested agencies. This issue had been raised with the\nPresident in September, 1974. At that time he decided that a\nclemency discharge would be equivalent to an undesirable discharge.\nHowever, because that decision was made prior to the appointment of\nthe Board, I believe it would be appropriate to have an exchange\nof views on this issue in a meeting with other interested agencies.\nAlso, your memo raises two issues (numbers one and two) which\nwere previously raised by you in a memorandum dated\nFebruary 24, 1975, to the President. On February 25 these issues\nwere discussed with the President. All interested agencies had the\nopportunity to convey their views to the President in person or\nby memo, and on February 27 the staff secretary by memo informed\nall parties that the President did not approve the Board's\nrecommendations. Therefore, I feel that these issues are moot.\n2\nFinally, in response to item number four in your memo, it\nis my intention to forward to the President the recommendations\nof the Board as soon as final agreement is reached among all\nparties on these issues.\nYou will be contacted concerning a convenient date for the\nproposed meeting.\nPRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD\nMay 16, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nPHILIP W. BUCHEN\nFROM:\nCHARLES E. GOODELL\nSUBJECT:\nPending Clemency Board Issues\nBefore the President\nThe President has acted on 65 recommendations from the Presidential\nClemency Board to date. There are now 236 recommendations pending.\nincluding 114 recommendations sent to the President on March 26, 1975.\nI understand they are being held because some question has re-arisen\nwith reference to the President granting a pardon for the AWOL\noffenses that led to an Undesirable Discharge. If you will recall,\nthis issue was resolved by the President in a meeting with Marsh,\nBuchen and Goodell in late November or early December. You and\nI discussed the issue in your office prior to meeting with the President.\nI recall your reaching for a copy of the Constitution and reading the\nlanguage as follows:\n\"and he shall have power to grant reprieves and\nperdons for offenses against the United States\".\nI explained that the Clemency Board had then reached a serious Impasse\nbecause we unanimously felt that we could not require alternative\nservice of an applicant if all we had to offer him was a change from\nan Undestrable Discharge to Liamancy Discharge, we distinguished\nthe cases being processed by the Department of Defense because that\nprogram dealt with fugitives who had charges hanging over them.\nTheir participation in the clemency program benefitted them by the\nmilitary dropping the pending charges against them.\nI believe It would be not only unfortunate, but a serious disruption of\nthe Clemency Board functions to reopen the issue of pardons for\nAWOL offenses leading to Undesirable Discharges. The matter was\ndiscussed in the presence of the President and a decision was made\nwhich solved a major policy crisis in the Board last fall. Since\n- 2 -\napproximately 70% of our applications are from undesirable\ndischargees, a decision to grant them only a Clemency Discharge\nwould expose the President to vehement criticism and perhaps even\nridicule. All of the members of the Clemency Board have repeatedly\nstated in public the President's decision to grant pardons for AWOL\noffenses leading to Undesirable Discharges. This is not the time\nfor a retraction or an apparent reneging on public commitments\nwith reference to clemency.\nI understand that there are those advisors to the President who have\nbeen advocating, in view of the events in Vietnam, that the President\nannounce universal and unconditional amnesty at this time. I do not\nadvocate such a course, but I believe the President should take the\nfollowing actions previously recommended by the Clemency Board:\n1. Upgrade\nThe Board has recommended twenty-one upgrade cases to date,\n5 of which have been forwarded to the President. These are individuals\nwho served gallantly in Vietnam, often volunteering for extra hazardous\nduty. They subsequently cracked up and are now denied veterans\nbenefits. We recommend unanimously, on the motion of the Board\nmembers who are veterans of Vietnam, that these individuals receive\nGeneral Discharges with veterans benefits.\n2. Effect of Clemency on Future Discharge Review\nWe proposed that any individual going to a Discharge Review Board\nor Board for the Correction of Military Records having received a\nPardon from the President would be treated as follows:\n(a) He would not have is make a suparate, special\napplication to these boards. The application to the\nClamency Board would be considered the functional\nequivalent of the application to the military; (b) Any\nreview would be taken without regard to the acts for\nwhich the President has issued a Pardon.\n3. Nature of Clemency Discharge\nThe Proclamation and the President's evident intent is that the\nClemency Discharge be a truly neutral discharge, neither less-than-\n- 3 -\nhonorable nor \"under honorable conditions\". The actual certificate\nused by Defense states that it is a Clemency Discharge given \"under\nclemency conditions\" or some similar phraseology. However, the\nDepartment has made it quite clear that they consider the Clemency\nDischarge to be a discharge under other than honorable conditions\n(the functional equivalent of an Undesirable Discharge), not only for\nthe purposes of continuing to preclude veterans benefits (the\nPresident's desire), but also as a public connotation and an official\ndescription within the government.\nWe recommend that the President make it clear that a Clemency\nDischarge replaces a discharge under less than honorable conditions.\nThe Executive Order states that a Clemency Discharge is \"in lieu of\"\nand \"substituted for\" a Bad Discharge. The Clemency Discharge\nshould be regarded as completely neutral, neither under honorable\nconditions or less than honorable conditions.\n4. The President should act upon the 236 recommendations made\nby the Clemency Board thus far and publicly announce that he has\nsigned the warrants implementing those recommendations.\nI firmly believe Presidential action on all of the above issues would\nre-emphasize the fair, generous and significantly beneficial nature\nof the President's approach to amnesty, stopping far short of\nunconditional amnesty. Any arguments that such actions create\ndifficult precedents for existing agencies or open floodgates,\nignore the fact that the clemency program is by definition unique\nand sets no precedents whatsoever in other agencies for those\nbeyond the purview of the clemency program itself.\nCEG:mm\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMay 22, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nCHAIRMAN CHARLES GOODELL\nFROM:\nPHILIP W. BUCHEN\nT.W.B.\nThis memo is in response to your memo dated May 16, 1975,\nin which you raised four issues concerning the President's\nclemency program.\nAlthough you believe the issue concerning pardons for\nservicemen who received undesirable discharges was discussed\nwith the President last year, I have confirmed that positions\non this issue were never requested from the Departments\nof Defense and Justice. Attached for your review are memos\nfrom the United States Pardon Attorney and the Department of\nDefense opposing your recommendation. In light of their\nopinions, it would be desirable to hold a meeting of the interested\nagencies for the purpose of reaching a resolution on this issue.\nWith respect to the issue you raised in item number three of\nyour memo, I believe it also should be discussed at the meeting\nof all interested agencies. This issue had been raised with the\nPresident in September, 1974. At that time he decided that a\nclemency discharge would be equivalent to an undesirable discharge.\nHowever, because that decision was made prior to the appointment of\nthe Board, I believe it would be appropriate to have an exchange\nof views on this issue in a meeting with other interested agencies.\nAlso, your memo raises two issues (numbers one and two) which\nwere previously raised by you in a memorandum dated\nFebruary 24, 1975, to the President. On February 25 these issues\nwere discussed with the President. All interested agencies had the\nopportunity to convey their views to the President in person or\nby memo, and on February 27 the staff secretary by memo informed\nall parties that the President did not approve the Board's\nrecommendations. Therefore, I feel that these issues are moot.\n2\nFinally, in response to item number four in your memo, it\nis my intention to forward to the President the recommendations\nof the Board as soon as final agreement is reached among all\nparties on these issues.\nYou will be contacted concerning a convenient date for the\nproposed meeting.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nEvelyn-\nmtq. 10:00- Thus. 5/29\nw) Buchen etal\nUr.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMay 22, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nCHAIRMAN CHARLES GOODELL\nFROM:\nPHILIP W. BUCHEN\nT.W.B.\nThis memo is in response to your memo dated May 16, 1975,\nin which you raised four issues concerning the President's\nclemency program.\nAlthough you believe the issue concerning pardons for\nservicemen who received undesirable discharges was discussed\nwith the President last year, I have confirmed that positions\non this issue were never requested from the Departments\nof Defense and Justice. Attached for your review are memos\nfrom the United States Pardon Attorney and the Department of\nDefense opposing your recommendation. In light of their\nopinions, it would be desirable to hold a meeting of the interested\nagencies for the purpose of reaching a resolution on this issue.\nWith respect to the issue you raised in item number three of\nyour memo, I believe it also should be discussed at the meeting\nof all interested agencies. This issue had been raised with the\nPresident in September, 1974. At that time he decided that a\nclemency discharge would be equivalent to an undesirable discharge.\nHowever, because that decision was made prior to the appointment of\nthe Board, I believe it would be appropriate to have an exchange\nof views on this issue in a meeting with other interested agencies.\nAlso, your memo raises two issues (numbers one and two) which\nwere previously raised by you in a memorandum dated\nFebruary 24, 1975, to the President. On February 25 these issues\nwere discussed with the President. All interested agencies had the\nopportunity to convey their views to the President in person or\nby memo, and on February 27 the staff secretary by memo informed\nall parties that the President did not approve the Board's\nrecommendations. Therefore, I feel that these issues are moot.\n2\nFinally, in response to item number four in your memo, it\nis my intention to forward to the President the recommendations\nof the Board as soon as final agreement is reached among all\nparties on these issues.\nYou will be contacted concerning a convenient date for the\nproposed meeting.\nPRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD\nMay 16, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nPHILIP W. BUCHEN\nFROM:\nCHARLES E. GOODELL\nSUBJECT:\nPending Clemency Board Issues\nBefore the President\nThe President has acted on 65 recommendations from the Presidential\nClemency Board to date. There are now 236 recommendations pending,\nincluding 114 recommendations sent to the President on March 26, 1975.\nI understand they are being held because some question has re-arisen\nwith reference to the President granting a pardon for the AWOL\noffenses that led to an Undesirable Discharge. If you will recall,\nthis issue was resolved by the President in a meeting with Marsh,\nBuchen and Goodell in late November or early December. You and\nI discussed the issue in your office prior to meeting with the President.\nI recall your reaching for a copy of the Constitution and reading the\nlanguage as follows:\n\"and he shall have power to grant reprieves and\npardons for offenses against the United States\".\nI explained that the Clemency Board had then reached a serious Impasse\nbecause we unanimously felt that we could not require alternative\nservice of an applicant if all we had to offer him was a change from\nan Undesirable Discharge to a Clemency Discharge. We distinguished\nthe cases being processed by the Department of Defense because that\nprogram dealt with fugitives who had charges hanging over them.\nTheir participation in the elemency program benefitted them by the\nmilitary dropping the pending charges against them.\nI believe it would be not only unfortunate, but a serious disruption of\nthe Clemency Board functions to reopen the issue of pardons for\nAWOL offenses leading to Undesirable Discharges. The matter was\ndiscussed in the presence of the President and a decision was made\nwhich solved a major policy crisis in the Board last fall. Since\n. 2 -\napproximately 70% of our applications are from undesirable\ndischargees, a decision to grant them only a Clemency Discharge\nwould expose the President to vehement criticism and perhaps even\nridicule. All of the members of the Clemency Board have repeatedly\nstated in public the President's decision to grant pardons for AWOL\noffenses leading to Undesirable Discharges. This is not the time\nfor a retraction or an apparent reneging on public commitments\nwith reference to elemency.\nI understand that there are those advisors to the President who have\nbeen advocating, in view of the events in Vietnam, that the President\nannounce universal and unconditional amnesty at this time. I do not\nadvocate such a course, but I believe the President should take the\nfollowing actions previously recommended by the Clemency Board:\n1. Upgrade\nThe Board has recommended twenty-one upgrade cases to date,\n5 of which have been forwarded to the President. These are individuals\nwho served gallantly in Vietnam, often volunteering for extra hazardous\nduty. They subsequently cracked up and are now denied veterans\nbenefits. We recommend unanimously, on the motion of the Board\nmembers who are veterans of Vietnam, that these individuals receive\nGeneral Discharges with veterans benefits.\n2. Effect of Clemency on Future Discharge Review\nWe proposed that any individual going to a Discharge Review Board\nor Board for the Correction of Military Records having received a\nPardon from the President would be treated as follows:\n(a) He would not have to make a separate, special\napplication to these boards. The application to the\nClemency Board would be considered the functional\nequivalent of the application to the military; (b) Any\nreview would be taken without regard to the acts for\nwhich the President has issued a Pardon.\n3. Nature of Clemency Discharge\nThe Proclamation and the President's evident intent is that the\nClemency Discharge be a truly neutral discharge, neither less-than-\n- 3 -\nhonorable nor \"under honorable conditions\". The actual certificate\nused by Defense states that it is a Clemency Discharge given \"under\nclemency conditions\" or some similar phraseology. However, the\nDepartment has made it quite clear that they consider the Clemency\nDischarge to be a discharge under other than honorable conditions\n(the functional equivalent of an Undesirable Discharge), not only for\nthe purposes of continuing to preclude veterans benefits (the\nPresident's desire), but also as a public connotation and an official\ndescription within the government.\nWe recommend that the President make it clear that a Clemency\nDischarge replaces a discharge under less than honorable conditions.\nThe Executive Order states that a Clemency Discharge is \"in lieu of\"\nand \"substituted for\" a Bad Discharge. The Clemency Discharge\nshould be regarded as completely neutral, neither under honorable\nconditions or less than honorable conditions.\n4. The President should act upon the 236 recommendations made\nby the Clemency Board thus far and publicly announce that he has\nsigned the warrants implementing those recommendations.\nI firmly believe Presidential action on all of the above issues would\nre-emphasise the fair, generous and significantly beneficial nature\nof the President's approach to amnesty, stopping far short of\nunconditional amnesty. Any arguments that such actions create\ndifficult precedents for existing agencies or open floodgates,\nignore the fact that the elemency program is by definition unique\nand sets no precedents whatsoever in other agencies for those\nbeyond the purview of the clemency program itself.\nCEG:mm\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 12, 1975\nDear Chairman Goodell:\nOn the basis of the recommendations contained in your\nmemorandum dated June 2, 1975, the President has decided\nthat the Presidential Clemency Board may recommend\npardons to him in meritorious cases for those applicants to\nthe Board, under the Program for the Return of Vietnam Era\nDraft Evaders and Military Deserters, who were discharged\nfrom the Military Departments for their absentee offenses.\nThe grant of pardons in these cases would be conditioned on\nthe satisfactory completion of any period of alternate service\nrecommended by the Board and approved by the President.\nIn reaching this decision, the President was aware that to\ngrant pardons to those who received undesirable discharges\nfor their offenses is an unusual exercise of his power to grant\nclemency. However, the President concluded that in meritorious\ncases the unique purposes of his Proclamation, to show mercy and\nto offer these young Americans the chance to contribute a share\nin the rebuilding of peace, required an unusual exercise of clemency.\nSincerely,\nPhilyW.Buchen Philip W. Buchen\nCounsel to the President\nThe Honorable Charles E. Goodell\nChairman\nPresidential Clemency Board\nThe White House\nWashington, D.C. 20500\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nThe Honorable Charles E. Goodell\nChairman\nPresidential Clemency Board\nThe White House\nWashington, D.C. 20500\nJuly 2, 1975\nDear Phil:\nThe Presidential Clemency Board is fortunate to have the\nservices of approximately 130 legal interns who represent\na broad geographical section of the United States. Because\nmany of our legal interns are from other parts of the\nUnited States, and will return to their respective homes\nonce their stay with the PCB is over in order to finish\ntheir legal education, I would very much like to make their\nstay in Washington, D.C. as instructive as possible.\nMembers of my staff are now in the process of putting\ntogether a number of interesting programs that are speci-\nfically designed for our legal interms, I would very much\nappreciate it if Bill Casselman could give an informal\ntalk to our interns on the nature of his work as a White\nHouse Counsel. Bill has informally indicated to a member\nof my staff that he could do so.\nIn addition, at some further time I think that an informal\nmeeting between Jay French and our legal interns would also\nbe very beneficial. Jay has been very much involved with\nthe Presidential Clemency Board from its inception, and\nI believe that our interns would particularly profit from\nhis observations about the origins and aims of the program.\nWith kind regard, I am\nSincerely,\nCharles E. Goodell\nChairman\nMr. Philip W. Buchen\nThe White House\nWashington, D.C. 20500\nJuly 21, 1975\nDear Phil:\nThank you for your letter of July 17, 1975. I\nam aware that the President wishes the Clemency Board\nprogram to be completed by September 15.\nWe have now processed 9,000 cases, and we will\ncomplete all the cases for which we have files by September 15.\nThere will be some carryover, for which we must make provision,\nbecause there are no files whatsoever on some cases. I\nhave a special project working to reconstruct files where\nnecessary in order to minimize that problem.\nWe sent 413 cases to the President last week,\ntotaling 1,067 cases to the President to date. As you\nknow, we guarantee an applicant 30 days in which to correct\nthe summary of his record after receipt thereof. We began\nvirtually full time operations the first week in June,\ndisposing of 1200 to 1500 cases a week. Those cases are\nnow \"ripe\" and the President will be receiving upwards\nof 1,000 recommendations per week from the Clemency Board\nhereafter.\nYou need have no concern about the matter of\nlate applications. The Clemency Board established a policy\nfrom the outset that any confirmed inquiry to an official\nGovernment agency should be considered an application if\nfollowed up by a written application by May 31, 1975. Our\nprojected applications, taking account of the fallout that\nwe have had thus far, are between 16,000 and 17,000. The\nClemency Board has not changed its rules in order to accom-\nmodate late applicants. I suspect that Jay French's inquiry\narises from a single case which the full Board heard last\nweek. The applicant had inquired as to how to apply for\nelemency to the United States consulate in Canada prior\nto March 31, 1975, the deadline for applications. He was\ngiven misinformation. He returned to the United States\non April 12 and turned himself in to the U.S. Attorney.\n-2-\nThe Board unanimously accepted the application since,\non the basis of our established rule, he submitted his\napplication prior to March 31, 1975.\nI am not about to permit revision of rules\ncontrary to the President's directives, and I certainly\ndo not intend to complicate our problem of completing\ndisposition of all cases for which we have adequate infor-\nmation by September 15. It will be done.\nSincerely,\nCharles E. Goodell\nChairman\nMr. Philip W. Buchen\nThe White House\nWashington, D.C. 20500\nPRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD\nAugust 15, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nPHILIP BUCHEN\nFROM:\nCHARLES E. GOODELL\nSUBJECT:\nPresidential Clemency Board's Final\nRecommendations\nUnder section 9 of Executive Order 11803 (\"Establishing a\nClemency Board...\"), the Presidential Clemency Board is\ncharged to \"submit its final recommendations to the\nPresident not later than December 31, 1976\". Since the\nBoard contemplates a completion of its caseload by\nSeptember 15, we are preparing a final report to the\nPresident to be submitted by that date.\nThat report will describe to the President what kinds of\npeople applied to the Board and what kinds of problems\ngenerated their offense, the procedure by which the Board\nreached its recommendations on clemency applications, some\nbroad problems which we have learned about as we see patterns\nemerging from the cases, and some recommendations as to what\nthe President might do to remedy those broad problems,\nIt is the President's prerogative, not the Board's, to re-\nlease or to elect not to release all or part of the Board's\nfinal recommendations to him. On that assumption, I envision\nsubmitting those recommendations in a two-part package:\n(1) A final report written in a form appropriate for\npublic release, in contemplation of its release\nby the White House very shortly after submission\nto the President. The Board itself will submit the\nreport to the President, and will not publicly\nrelease anything. Although the existence of a\nreport will obviously be known to the press, the\nPresident will retain the option of releasing it or\nnot.\n(2) An options memorandum forwarding the Board's\nrecommendations for action by the President. This\nmemorandum will not be released to the public.\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\n- 2 -\nTo avoid confusion about who will publicly release what\nmaterials at what time, we should establish procedural ground\nrules well before the Board's recommendations are formulated.\nPlease let me know whether you concur on the procedure which\nI propose, and, if not, what alternatives you proffer.\nCC.: DONALD RUMSFELD\nRTropp: mm\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nAugust 26, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nCHARLES E. GOODELL\nFROM:\nPHILIP W. BUCHEN T.W.B.\nSUBJECT:\nYour memorandum of August 15\nAs I read your memorandum, you interpret Section 9 of\nExecutive Order 11803 differently from the way I think\nit must be interpreted. Section 9 calls for \"final\nrecommendations to the President\" by a specified date\nwhich you now indicate will be no later than September 15.\nThe only recommendations called for by the Order are those\nspecified in Section 3. The Board's recommendations shall\nbe \"as to whether executive clemency should be granted or\ndenied in any case [and] if clemency is recommended\nthe form that such clemency should take.\" Thus, according\nto the Order, once the Board makes its recommendations\nas to granting or denial of clemency in each case which\nhas come before it, its work will have been completed.\nYou, on the other hand, appear to read the Order as\nrequiring recommendations of how the President should\ndeal in the future with broad problems which you may have\ndetected as a result of the activities of the Board. This\nis an interpretation which I do not believe is supported\nin any way by the language of the Order or the President's\nintent, and I believe you should confine the remaining\nactivities of the Board to completing review of the cases\nbefore you in accordance with Section 3 of the Order. By\nfollowing this appropriate course, we avoid any question\nabout preparing either a further report to the President\nfor him to release or a confidential memorandum to him.\nCC: Donald Rumsfeld\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nAugust 26, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nCHARLES E. GOODELL\nFROM:\nPHILIP W. BUCHEN P.W.B.\nSUBJECT:\nYour memorandum of August 15\nAs I read your memorandum, you interpret Section 9 of\nExecutive Order 11803 differently from the way I think\nit must be interpreted. Section 9 calls for \"final\nrecommendations to the President\" by a specified date\nwhich you now indicate will be no later than September 15.\nThe only recommendations called for by the Order are those\nspecified in Section 3. The Board's recommendations shall\nbe \"as to whether executive clemency should be granted or\ndenied in any case [and] if clemency is recommended\nthe form that such clemency should take.\" Thus, according\nto the Order, once the Board makes its recommendations\nas to granting or denial of clemency in each case which\nhas come before it, its work will have been completed.\nYou, on the other hand, appear to read the Order as\nrequiring recommendations of how the President should\ndeal in the future with broad problems which you may have\ndetected as a result of the activities of the Board. This\nis an interpretation which I do not believe is supported\nin any way by the language of the Order or the President's\nintent, and I believe you should confine the remaining\nactivities of the Board to completing review of the cases\nbefore you in accordance with Section 3 of the Order. By\nfollowing this appropriate course, we avoid any question\nabout preparing either a further report to the President\nfor him to release or a confidential memorandum to him.\nCC: Donald Rumsfeld\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 5, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nCHARLES E. GOODELL\nFROM:\nPHILIP W. BUCHEN\nP.W.B.\nThis is in response to a memorandum dated June 2, 1975, from the\nClemency Board's General Counsel to Jay French, of my staff,\nforwarding a letter dated May 29 from Forrest R. Browne, Director,\nFederal Personnel and Compensation Division, General Accounting\nOffice, advising you that GAO intends to conduct a survey of the\nPresidential Clemency Board.\nThe request of the GAO has been considered by the Department of\nJustice and this office. Based on the following discussion, I have\nprepared a suggested response for you to send to Mr. Browne.\n(See Tab A.)\nIn large measure, the operations of the Presidential Clemency Board\nare based upon the President's exclusive constitutional authority to\ngrant Executive clemency. To the extent the GAO survey seeks\ninformation about this area of the Board's operations, such informa-\ntion is not subject to disclosure without the President's permission.\nA small part of the operations of the Board involves upgrading dis-\ncharges of former servicemen. To the extent the GAO survey con-\ncerns information about this part of the Board's activities, such\ninformation falls within a legitimate area of interest to the Congress\nbecause the Congress has the constitutional authority to \"make rules\nfor the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. 11\nSee Article I, Section 8, Constitution.\nIf the GAO decides that it would like to have access to material of\nthis specific nature, it will be necessary to review each document\nto determine whether it may be subject to a claim of privilege.\nFORD i LIBRARY\nPage 2\nPrivileged material is generally intra-executive advisory, deliberative\nmaterial, or material directed to the President. The Counsel's office\nshould review all material which you determine is privileged.\nDRAFT\nDear Mr. Browne:\nThis is in response to your letter dated May 29 informing\nme that the General Accounting Office intends to perform a survey\nof the Presidential Clemency Board.\nThe operations of the Board are largely based upon the\nPresident's exclusive constitutional authority to grant \"reprieves\nand pardons for offenses against the United States. \" To the extent\nthe GAO survey concerns information based upon this authority,\nsuch information is not subject to disclosure. A smaller part of\nthe Board's actions, however, concern upgrading discharges of\nformer servicemen. Information about this area of the Board's\nactivities would be available to GAO, unless it was determined\nthat such information involved intra-executive advisory, deliberative\nmaterial, or material directed to the President.\nIf the General Accounting Office would like to conduct a\nsurvey of matters involving the upgrading of discharges of former\nservicemen, the Board and its staff would be pleased to assist in\nany way possible.\nSincerely,\nEcielgn- a copy has been\n1\ngiven to Rick.\nMi - 9/8\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 5, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nCHARLES E. GOODELL\nFROM:\nPHILIP W. BUCHEN\nP.W.T.\nThis is in response to a memorandum dated June 2, 1975, from the\nClemency Board's General Counsel to Jay French, of my staff,\nforwarding a letter dated May 29 from Forrest R. Browne, Director,\nFederal Personnel and Compensation Division, General Accounting\nOffice, advising you that GAO intends to conduct a survey of the\nPresidential Clemency Board.\nThe request of the GAO has been considered by the Department of\nJustice and this office. Based on the following discussion, I have\nprepared a suggested response for you to send to Mr. Browne.\n(See Tab A.)\nIn large measure, the operations of the Presidential Clemency Board\nare based upon the President's exclusive constitutional authority to\ngrant Executive clemency. To the extent the GAO survey seeks\ninformation about this area of the Board's operations, such informa-\ntion is not subject to disclosure without the President's permission.\nA small part of the operations of the Board involves upgrading dis-\ncharges of former servicemen. To the extent the GAO survey con-\ncerns information about this part of the Board's activities, such\ninformation falls within a legitimate area of interest to the Congress\nbecause the Congress has the constitutional authority to \"make rules\nfor the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. 11\nSee Article I, Section 8, Constitution.\nIf the GAO decides that it would like to have access to material of\nthis specific nature, it will be necessary to review each document\nto determine whether it may be subject to a claim of privilege.\nPage 2\nPrivileged material is generally intra-executive advisory, deliberative\nmaterial, or material directed to the President. The Counsel's office\nshould review all material which you determine is privileged.\nDRAFT\nDear Mr. Browne:\nThis is in response to your letter dated May 29 informing\nme that the General Accounting Office intends to perform a survey\nof the Presidential Clemency Board.\nThe operations of the Board are largely based upon the\nPresident's exclusive constitutional authority to grant \"reprieves\nand pardons for offenses against the United States. 11 To the extent\nthe GAO survey concerns information based upon this authority,\nsuch information is not subject to disclosure. A smaller part of\nthe Board's actions, however, concern upgrading discharges of\nformer servicemen. Information about this area of the Board's\nactivities would be available to GAO, unless it was determined\nthat such information involved intra-executive advisory, deliberative\nmaterial, or material directed to the President.\nIf the General Accounting Office would like to conduct a\nsurvey of matters involving the upgrading of discharges of former\nservicemen, the Board and its staff would be pleased to assist in\nany way possible.\nSincerely,\nDRAFT.\nSeptember 25, 1975\nMEMORANDUM TO\n: Phil, Buchen\nCounsel to the President\nPaul O'Neill\nDeputy Director, OMB\nEdward H. Levi\nAttorney General\nFROM\n: Charles E. Goodell\nFORDO & 071770 LIBRARY\nSUBJECT\n: Final Report and Other PCB\nPolicy Issues Which Remain Unresolved\nAs the result of several discussions with the White House, OMB and the\nJustice Department, it was my understanding that the Presidential\nClemency Board was required by statute to issue a final report.\nPreviously I expressly assured all concerned that the PCB final report\nwould not be a political document but rather would be a narrative\ndescribing the Board's activities during the past year. Since there was\nno disagreement on the necessity and desirability of issuing such a\ndocument, I fully expected that necessary support would be provided to\nassure that the report would be issued quickly and without much fanfare.\nAs of this date I am uncertain that this belief is shared by\nothers involved in the transition of Presidential Clemengy activities\nto the Justice Department. On September 19, I addressed a memorandum to\nthe Attorney General requesting that certain key staff members be retained\non detail to the Justice Department, beyond September 29th, the date Board\nmembers will meet at 2033 M Street, Novement, to review the latest\ndraft of the final report. Although I have not received any formal\nTHARE\narer ,ES\nthe Federal orig Advisory Commission Act OT МИСИАЯ requires\na Final Report from 1069 the PCB. Phil Buchen & l\ndiscussed that IssumeD matter some time ago & agreed,\nThe Final Report will be descriptive, informative\nof the process 19530 bne followed, Irniq and factual, It will\nbevioaemU not be contr oversiel and will contain no\nrecommendations, 9ds bns amo dolv anoteascałb Israves to JIVEST edit aA\n[sat] the 909 Full Jadj bonzo Board is Vm 28W meeting 31 description bisod in Washington\nvoluntarily & at their HB own between expense ed VIsuol on bluow monday,\nSept 29 ntusat & give final bris directions to the staff\nand final approval of the report add по in VIINA accordance ,Inemusob\nw/ those botena twodshy directions, beneet ad bluow droger odd Jaris Stuars\nat forled still me I 23sb abds to 8A\n03\nmubnexomem At besepible the moment, there appears to be a misapprikan\nbrsog # by those directing st the THE PCB clean Issenso my earry over\noperation that 03 there will be no Final Regort, Perhaps\nthat reflects a Jon higher dguodsIA misunderstanding. the any\nevent, they are in the Rocess of Decemating the\nsmall staff necessary to away the Final Report. the of\n- 2 -\nresponse from the Attorney General, I have received verbal messages\nthrough intermediaries working for the Pardon Attorney, indicating\nthat my request was denied. These same people, acting on what they\nbelieve are instructions from their superiors, have also released or\nre-assigned both the professional and clerical staff working on the\nfinal report. Obviously, without the necessary professional and clerical\nsupport, it will be impossible to issue a report satisfactory for\nsubmission to the President., I am certain that such a result was not\nintended by any of the principals with whom this matter was discussed.\nHowever, it now becomes essential critical that specific written instructions\nbe issued as quickly as possible to insure that the final report can\nbe completed.\nIn my opinion there have been too many people involved in\npreparing the report to permit the whole issue to be swept under the rug.\never\nand\nTherefore, I suggest that efforts be made to completetche final report.\n#\nI believe this can be accomplished within the next 4 weeks. The remaining\nwork required is as follows. Phase 1 will involve final editing and\nincorporation of changes and suggestions made by the Board members on\nSeptember 29. Nine professionals, including Baskir, Knisely, Horn and\nStrauss, and three secretaries (two with MTST experience) would be\nrequired through October 3. Phase 2 involves proofreading and final\npreparation of the report for printing. It requires 5 provessionals,\nincluding Baskir and Strauss, and three secretaries, and should be\ncompleted by October 17. Phase 3 involves review of galleys and arranging\nfor and monitoring the actual printing. It will involve Baskir ) and one\n- 3 -\nprofessional and one secretary, it should be completed by November 1.\nI am also concerned about the apparent lack of progress that has\nbeen made since September 15 in completing the residual work of the\nClemency Board. To my knowledge no additional recommendations have been\nsent to the President since September 15. The previous rate was 1,000\na week. Packets 12 through 41 previously submitted by the Clemency Board\nhave been returned. Although a few of these packets require re-typing\nin order to separately list persons with felony convictions, the vast\nmajority of these transmittals require no additional work. If the\ntransition is to be completed by November 1, the remaining 6000 recommendations\nnot transmitted as of September 15 must be in the President's hands by\nOctober 1.\nAlthough the Presidential Clemency Board went out of formal\nexistence on September 15, I do not consider the Board's work concluded\nuntil the final report has been completed and the President has acted\non all 15,000 Board recommendations. You can understand my continuing\nconcern and interest that the transition phase be completed on schedule\nin a manner which does not jeopardize the work of the Board or the\nPresident's objectives with regard to eCemency.\nProf phase i [Straws] Horn, [Kinsely Quartel Baokir\nQuartel, Beek, Ebel, Pergian,\nThru Oct 3rd Remington\n2 secretaries MTST robitype\n2nd phase -:\n+ Mary Essex\nStrans & Bashir\nThem Oct 17th,\n3 of 5 professionals\n3 secretaries\n3rd Phase- : Baskir + / (Remington or Ebel)\nthem Nov 1st l secretary,\nAccess to typewriters, paper & -Xerox\nnothing is moving\nPackets #12 #41 / 6500 (2400 signed)\nPardons not going out from Dog,\n1000/wk to Pres prior to Sept 15.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nNovember 6, 1975\nRECEIVED NOV 10 1975\nDear Charlie:\nThank you for your recent memorandum concerning the disposition\nof the papers of former members of the Presidential Clemency\nBoard. However, there are two problems that should be resolved\nprior to the disposition of these papers outside of Government\ncontrol.\nAs I am sure you are aware, the question of ownership of Presidential\npapers is now in litigation. Enclosed are the guidelines used by the\nprevious Administration which describe the categories of materials\nthat staff members can take with them on departure. Inasmuch as\nthe present litigation does not appear to affect these guidelines, we\nhave continued to follow them in order to preserve the status quo.\nIn view of the unique nature of the Board's functions, these guide-\nlines should be applied in this instance.\nThe second problem relates to the confidentiality of the materials\nwhich the guidelines authorize to be taken on departure. Although\nthe Board's papers are not now subject to the specific safeguards\nof the Privacy Act of 1974, P.L. 93-579, any disposition of these\npapers should also take into account the protection of individual\nprivacy which the Act seeks to assure. In effect, the Board has\nalready made this determination by its regulation guaranteeing the\nconfidentiality of communications to the Board from applicants\nand potential applicants, 2 CFR 100. 12(a).\nIn view of this regulation and in order to comply fully with the\nspirit of the Privacy Act, appropriate guidelines should be developed\n-2-\nprior to the disposition of any of these materials to points outside\ngovernment control. My staff would be pleased to discuss further\nthese matters with you at your convenience.\nWith best wishes,\nSincerely,\nThil\nPhilip W. Buchen\nCounsel to the President\nThe Honorable Charles E. Goodell\nHydeman, Mason & Goodell\n1225 - 19th Street, N.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20036\n§ 101.11\nTitle 2-Clemency\n(3) As to any person denied executive\nplicant is entitled to representation and\nclemency, again not recommend the ap-\nwill be encouraged to seek legal counsel\nplicant for executive clemency.\nexperienced in military or selective serv-\nice law. Upon request, Board staff\n§ 101.11 Referral to appropriate agen-\nwill attempt to refer an applicant to a\ncies.\nskilled volunteer representative.\nAfter the expiration of the period\n(b) An applicant who does not wish\nallowed for petitions for reconsideration,\nto file his application in person may have\nthe Chairman of the Board shall forward\nhis representative do so on his behalf.\nfor further action to the Secertaries of\nthe Army, Navy, and Air Force, the\n§ 101.14 Requests for information about\nSecretary of the Department of Trans-\nthe clemency program.\nportation, the Director of the Selective\n(a) Upon receipt by the Board of an\nService System, and the Attorney\noral or written request for information or\nGeneral, as appropriate, the President's\nconsideration concerning an individual\ndetermination as to each recipient of\nwho is clearly beyond the jurisdiction of\nexecutive clemency.\nthe Board, a member of the Board's staff\nshall inform the individual:\n§ 101.12 Confidentiality of communica-\n(1) That jurisdiction does not lie;\ntions.\n(2) Whether jurisdiction may lie\n(a) The Board has determined that it\nwithin the Presidential clemency pro-\nwill take all steps possible to protect the\ngram, and if so, with which agency;\nprivacy of applicants and potential ap-\n(3) That in the event the individual\nplicants to the Presidential clemency\nprefers not to contact personally such\nprogram. No personal information con-\nother agency that an Action Attorney\ncerning an applicant or potential ap-\nwill obtain from such other agency in-\nplicant and related to the Presidential\nformation concerning the individual's\nclemency program will be made known\nstatus with respect to the Presidential\nto any agency, organization, or individ-\nclemency program, and provide to the\nual, whether public or private, unless\nindividual that information.\nsuch disclosure is necessary for the\n(b) The Action Attorney shall submit\nnormal and proper functioning of the\nto the Executive Secretariat of the Presi-\nPresidential Clemency Board. How-\ndential Clemency Board a summary of\nyou\never, information which reveals the\nthe communication with, and informa-\nnot\nexistence of a violation of law (other\ntion provided to, such individuals.\nyou\nthan an offense subject to the Presi-\nchd\ndential clemency program) will of neces-\nAPPENDIX A1\ntha\nsity be forwarded to the appropriate\nAPPENDIX B-INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICATION\ntain\nauthorities.\nFOR CLEMENCY\nwill\n(b) In order to have his case con-\nOn September 16, 1974, the President an-\nyou\nsidered by the Board, an applicant\nIV\nnounced a program of clemency. Depending\nneed submit only information sufficient\non your case, you may apply to the Presi-\nwhis\nfor a determination of jurisdiction, and\ndential Clemency Board, the Department of\nlette\nfor the retrieval of necessary official\nJustice, or the Department of Defense.\nrecords and files. The application\nYou may be eligible for clemency by the\nform will therefore require the ap-\nPresidential Clemency Board if you have\nbeen convicted of a draft evasion offense\n5\nplicant's name; date of birth; selective\nsuch as failure to register or register on time;\nthe\nservice number; military service and\nfailure to keep the local board informed of\nIf\nservice number, if applicable; informa-\ncurrent address; failure to report for or sub-\nwrit\ntion concerning the draft evasion of-\nmit to pre-induction or induction examina-\nWhit\nfenses or absence-related military of-\ntion; failure to report for or submit to or\n456\nfenses and the disposition thereof; and\ncomplete service, during the period from\nsent\nthe mailing address of either the appli-\nAugust 4, 1964 to March 28, 1973; or if you\nthat\nhave received an undesirable, bad conduct,\ncant or his representative. If the appli-\nber\nor dishonorable discharge for desertion, ab-\ncant submits such information as part\nsence without leave, or missing movement,\nindic\nof his initial filing, the completion of the\nand for offenses directly related, between Au-\nand\napplication form itself is not necessary.\ngust 4, 1964 to March 28, 1973.\nber\nIf you are now absent from military serv-\nAp\n§ 101.13 Representation before the\nice or have a charge against you for a Selec-\nshoul\nBoard.\ntive Service violation and have not been con-\nno\n(a) Although an applicant may bring\nvicted or received a discharge, you may still\nSpeci\nhis case before the Board without a rep-\nperso\nresentative or legal counsel, each ap-\n1 Filed as part of original document.\nhave\n6\nChapter I-Presidential Clemency Board\n$ 102.3\nbe eligible for clemency under another part\nPART 102-SUBSTANTIVE STANDARDS\nof the President's program. If you have any\nOF THE PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY\nquestions, please contact the Board and we\nBOARD\nwill try to answer your questions.\nIf you believe that you are eligible to be\nSec.\nconsidered by the Presidential Clemency\n102.1 Purpose and scope.\nBoard but are not sure, you should apply to\n102.2 Board decision on whether or not to\nthe Board. If it turns out that you are not\nrecommend that the President grant\neligible for consideration by the Board, you\nexecutive clemency.\nmay possibly qualify under another part of\n102.3 Aggravating circumstances.\nthe clemency program. You do not have to\n102.4\nMitigating circumstances.\nidentify your current location. We will then\n102.5 Calculation of length of alternative\nbe able to notify you of the proper agency to\nservice.\ncontact. If you are appealing a conviction or\na military discharge you may continue your\nAUTHORITY: E.O. 11803, 39 FR 33297.\nappeal, and still apply to the Board at the\nSOURCE: 39 FR 41353, Nov. 27, 1974, unless\nsame time.\notherwise noted. Correctly designated, 39 FR\nI. The Board will not give its files to any\n44709, Dec. 27, 1974.\nother federal agency. It will keep any in-\nformation you provide in strictest confidence,\n§ 102.1 Purpose and scope.\nexcept evidence of a serious crime which is\nThis part articulates the standards\nnot covered in the Presidential Clemency pro-\nwhich the Presidential Clemency Board\ngram.\nwill employ in deciding whether to rec-\nII. Although you may apply to the Board\nommend that the President grant execu-\nwithout attorney or any other representative\ntive clemency to a particular applicant,\nif you wish, we encourage you to obtain the\nand in then deciding whether that grant\nhelp of legal counsel. If you do not have a\nof celemency should be conditional. and,\ncounsel but desire one, we will be glad to\nrefer you to a lawyers' organization which\nif so, upon what specified period of alter-\nnative service.\nwill help you find one. These organizations\nwill help you get legal assistance even if you\n§ 102.2 Board decision on whether or\ncannot afford to pay.\nnot to recommend that the President\nIII. To apply to the Board, you need only\ngrant executive clemency.\nsupply the information necessary to find\nyour file from other departments. If you do\n(a) The first decision which the Board\nnot wish to file your application personally,\nwill reach, with respect to an application\nyou may select a representative of your own\nbefore it, is whether or not it will recom-\nchoice to do it for you, but you must tell us\nmend to the President that the applicant\nthat he is authorized. The Board will main-\nbe granted executive clemency. In reach-\ntain its own file on your case and that file\ning that decision, the Board will take\nwill be available for examination by you or\nnotice of the presence of any of the ag-\nyour own attorney.\nIV. You are encouraged to submit evidence\ngravating circumstances listed in $ 102.3,\nwhich you feel helps your case, and to submit\nand will further take notice of whether\nletters from other people on your behalf. You\nsuch aggravating circumstances are bal-\nmay submit evidence in order to correct in-\nanced by the presence of any of the miti-\naccurate, incomplete, or misleading informa-\ngating circumstances listed in § 102.4.\ntion to the Board's file.\n(b) Unless there are aggravating cir-\nV. A personal appearance by you before\ncumstances not balanced by mitigating\nthe Board will not be necessary.\ncircumstances, the Board will recommend\nIf you have any questions, please call or\nwrite the Presidential Clemency Board. The\nthat the President grant executive clem-\nWhite House, Washington, D.C. 20500, (202-\nency to each applicant.\n456-6476). If application is made by a repre-\n§ 102.3 Aggravating circumstances.\nsentative on your behalf, it is not necessary\nthat your home address and telephone num-\n(a) Presence of any of the aggravating\nber be included. Your representative should\ncircumstances listed herein either will\nindicate his capacity (attorney, friend, etc.)\ndisqualify an individual for executive\nand give us his address and telephone num-\nclemency or may be considered by the\nber.\nBoard as cause for recommending to the\nApplication for people not in custody\nPresident executive clemency conditioned\nshould be completed and mailed to the Board\nno later than midnight, January 31, 1975.\nupon a length of alternative service ex-\nSpecial procedures will be established for\nceeding the applicant's \"baseline period\npersons incarcerated whether or not they\nof alternative service,\" as determined\nhave been released on furlough.\nunder § 102.5.\n7\nWHITE HOUSE OFFICE PAPERS\nBy custom and tradition, all White House Office\nof newspapers or magazine clippings; and copies\npapers are regarded as the personal property of\nof records of a personnel nature relating to a per-\nthe President and subject to such control and dis-\nson's employment or service. Personal files should\nposition as he may determine. At the close of the\nnot include any copies, drafts or working papers\nAdministration, the entire collection of papers now\nthat relate to official business or any documents or\nbeing created may be expected to be deposited in\nrecords, whether or not adopted, made or received\na Presidential library similar to the libraries that\nin the course of official business.\npreserve the papers of the last six Presidents. To\n3. Each staff office shall forward regularly to\nprovide the President with a complete and accu-\nCentral Files three copies of all outgoing official\nrate record of his tenure in office, the White House\nbusiness consisting of correspondence and memo-\nstaff must oversee the preservation of the papers\nranda. One copy of all other outgoing related\nit generates.\nmaterials should also be filed.\nThe procedures set forth in this document rep-\n4. Each staff office shall forward regularly to\nresent the collective thinking of many members of\nCentral Files any incoming official business from\nthe staff as to how best to preserve papers and\nsources other than White House staff offices after\ndocuments for the President. Compliance with\naction, if any, has been taken. Each staff office, if\nthese procedures is an expression of loyalty by the\nit SO desires, may keep a copy of such incoming\nstaff to the President. For these procedures to be\nofficial business for its own working files.\neffective, it will require cooperation and assistance\n5. Each staff office shall forward regularly to\nof every staff member.\nCentral Files any originals of incoming official\nThe security classification of each document\nbusiness from other White House staff offices after\nprepared in the White House is determined by the\naction, if any, has been taken and if such originals\nindividual staff member writing it in accordance\nwere not intended to be returned to the sender.\nwith Executive Order 10501-or other applicable\nIf desired, a copy may be kept for the staff's work-\nExecutive Orders. He is responsible for insuring\ning files.\nthat the classification assigned to his work reflects\n6. Each staff office shall forward to Central Files\nthe sensitivity of the material concerned, and also\nat such times as it determines to be appropriate\nfor making certain that this classification is not\nall working files of official business which are in-\nexcessively restrictive.\nactive and no longer needed. These files will be\nstored by office as well as listed by subject matter.\nWhite House Office Papers: Filing with Central\nThey will, of course, always be available for later\nFiles\nreference.\n7. Each staff office at its own discretion may seg-\n1. It is requested that the maximum possible\nregate any materials that. it believes to be partic-\nuse be made of Central Files, and the procedures\nularly sensitive and which should not be filed by\nlisted below be followed. This will aid in the faster\nsubject matter. Such sensitive materials should be\nand more complete retrieval of current informa-\nforwarded to the Staff Secretary on the same basis\ntion, eliminate unnecessary duplication of files,\nas outlined in paragraphs 3 through 6 in an en-\nprevent excessive xeroxing, and maximize preser-\nvelope marked SENSITIVE RECORDS FOR\nvation of White House papers.\nSTORAGE with the office or individual from\n2. Each staff member shall maintain his per-\nwhich they are sent marked on the outside and (as\nsonal files separate from any working files he may\nappropriate) a list of inventory in general terms\nkeep on official business and clearly designate them\nattached. This list of inventory should also be\nas such. Personal files include correspondence un-\nsent to Central Files SO that notations can be made\nrelated to any official duties performed by the staff\nin subject files that certain material is missing from\nmember; personal books, pamphlets and periodi-\nthe file. These materials will be filed in locked con-\ncals; daily appointment books or log books; folders\ntainers and will only be made available to the in-\ndividual or office from whom they were received.\n3. A staff member, upon termination of employ-\n8. No defense material classified under Execu-\nment, may at his discretion make copies for his\ntive Order No. 10501 with a classification of TOP\npersonal use of a carefully chosen selection of the\nSECRET or Restricted Data under the Atomic\nfollowing types of documents within his files:\nEnergy Act of 1954 should be forwarded to Cen-\n(A) Documents which embody original intel-\ntral Files. All such material should be forwarded\nlectual thought contributed by the staff member,\nto the Staff Secretary for storage.\nsuch as research work and draftsmanship of\n9. No exceptions to the above shall be made\nspeeches and legislation.\nwithout the express consent of the Counsel to the\n(B) Documents which might be needed in\nPresident. Additional advice on the operation of\nfuture related work by the individual.\nCentral Files may be obtained from Frank\n4. No staff members shall make copies as per-\nMatthews, Chief of Central Files (Ext. 2240).\nmitted in paragraph three of any documents which\ncontain defense material classified as CONFI-\nWhite House Office Papers: Disposition of Papers\nDENTIAL, SECRET OR TOP SECRET under\nUpon Leaving Staff\nExecutive Order No. 10501, Restricted Data under\n1. Upon termination of employment with the\nthe Atomic Energy Act of 1954, or information\nstaff, each staff member will turn over his entire\nsupplied to the government under statutes which\nfiles to Central Files with the exception of any\nmake the disclosure of such information a crime.\npersonal files he might have maintained.\n5. Each staff member who decides to make copies\n2. Personal files include: correspondence unre-\nof such documents described in paragraph three\nlated to any official duties performed by the staff\nshall leave a list of all such documents copied with\nmember; personal books, pamphlets and periodi-\nCentral Files. This will enable retrieval of a docu-\ncals; daily appointment books or log books; folders\nment in the event that all other copies of it and the\nof newspaper or magazine clippings; and copies\noriginal should be later lost.\nof records of a personal nature relating to a per-\n6. The discretionary authority granted in para-\nson's employment or service. Personal files should\ngraph three is expected to be exercised sparingly\nnot include any copies, drafts, or working papers\nand not abused. All White House Office papers,\nthat relate to official business; or any documents or\nrecords, whether or not adopted, made or received\nincluding copies thereof, are the personal property\nin the course of official business. The White House\nof the President and should be respected as such.\nOffice of Presidential Papers, staffed by represen-\nAny copies retained by a staff member should\ntatives of the National Archives, is available to\nbe stored in a secure manner and maintained\nassist staff members in the determination of what\nconfidentially.\nare personal files. Any question in this regard\n7. All confidential and sensitive materials will\nshould be resolved with their assistance by con-\nbe protected from premature disclosure by specific\ntacting John Nesbitt, supervisory archivist of the\nprovisions of the Presidential Libraries Act of\nOffice of Presidential Papers (Ext. 2545).\n1955 (44 U.S.C. 2108).\nRECEIVED NOV 10 1975\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nNovember 7, 1975\nDear Charlie:\nThank you for providing me with a copy of your letter to Byron\nPepitone dated August 20 in which you set forth the Clemency\nBoard's recommendations for handling referrals to Selective\nService who are required to perform short terms of alternate\nservice.\nThe Director of Selective Service has assured me that he shares\nthe Board's concern and interest in these cases. Indeed, after\nconsidering these recommendations, Mr. Pepitone issued instruc-\ntions that referrals with three to six months of alternate service\nshould be permitted to keep their regular employment by working\ntwenty hours a week at their alternate service jobs. This new\nprocedure satisfies the first and second recommendations con-\ntained in your August 20 letter. Mr. Pepitone did not implement\nthe Board's third recommendation, that sixteen hours would be\nthe equivalent of a forty-hour week, because he felt that it created\ntoo great an inequity between persons who are already working at\nfull-time alternate service jobs or who have fulfilled their obliga-\ntions and those who would be permitted to take advantage of such\na change in the rules.\nI appreciate the principal concern underlying the Board's recom-\nmendations to insure that large numbers of referrals with short\nterms of service find employment. However, to date, only 542\nreferrals from the Clemency Board have enrolled at Selective\nService and it has been reasonably successful in locating alternate\nservice jobs. I think we now should give the Director of Selective\nNovember 7, 1975\nPage Two\nService an opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of the Board's\nrecommendations as larger numbers of referrals report for alter-\nnate service.\nSincerely,\nThil\nPhilip W. Buchen\nCounsel to the President\nCharles Goodell, Esquire\nRoom 601\n1225 - 19th Street, N.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20036\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nMASHINGTON,OF NOV DC\nALWAYS\nUSE ZIP\n1375\ncode\nSTATES\nCharles Goodell, Esquire\nRoom 601\n1225 - 19th Street, N.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20036\nNovember 14, 1975\nMr. Robert C. Carter\n601 Eye Street, S. W.\nWashington, D. C.\nDear Bob:\nEnclosed you will find a copy of a letter from Phil\nBuchen on the alternative service recommendations made\nto Selective Service by the Clemency Board.\nI think it would be helpful if either one of you, or\nboth, expressed your strong feelings on the issue\ndirectly to Phil Buchen. He obviously has decided not\nto intervene at this time or to hold a meeting with us\nto discuss intervention. Selective Service is telling\nhim that things are going swimmingly. If that turns\nout to be over-optimistic, it will be too late to do\nanything about it.\nYou might also consider meeting with Byron Pepitone.\nByron's letter arrived after our discussion at Jim\nMaye's party. In light of the letter, I think you two\nwould be more effective by yourselves without me. That\nalso leaves me more freedom to go directly to the\nPresident, in the event you run into a stone wall. I\nam hesitant to do that, however, until all other avenues\nhave been explored. After you have received this and\ndiscussed it with each other, perhaps one or both of\nyou might like to discuss the matter further by phone.\nI should be available all next week.\nWith warm regard, I am\nSincerely,\nCharles E. Goodell\nCEG:daw\nEnclosure"
}