Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1506014
label
Memoranda - President and White House Staff
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1506014
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Memoranda - President and White House Staff
citationUrl
collections
Charles E. Goodell Papers
Presidential Clemency Board Subject Files
subjects
President (1974-1977 : Ford). Presidential Clemency Board. 9/16/1974-9/15/1975
Amnesty
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1506014
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-12-31
month
12
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1974-10-01
month
10
year
1974
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
83bb8f84b890f706
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 9, folder "Personnel Matters (1)" of the Charles
E. Goodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Charles Goodell donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
R
Now DRAFT
A
IN
T
ACTION
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
CHARLES E. GOODELL
FORD LIBRARY
SUBJECT:
Upgrading the Discharges of Ex-Servicemen to
Whom You Grant Clemency
On behalf of a unanimous Presidential Clemency Board, this
memorandum recommends that you extend, within the scope of your
clemency Proclamation, the remedies available to former service-
men to whom you grant clemency pursuant to counsel by the Board.
Up till now, the Board has assumed that you will offer, to ex-
servicemen with "bad paper" discharges, a Clemency Discharge and
a full pardon, both for court-martial offenses and for offenses which
led to an Undesirable Discharge. The Clemency Discharge has been
construed by the Department of Defense to be "under other than
honorable conditions", and therefore roughly equivalent to an Undesirable
Discharge. The Clemency Discharge confers no entitlement to
veterans' benefits, although the Veterans Administration may confer
benefits in its discretion in unusual cases.
We have been surprised to find that some of the military applicants
to the Board have wounds from service in Vietnam, decorations for
valor, and multiple tours of honorable service. Some of our applicants
got transferred back home for garrison duty after being in combat,
were unable to take the stateside military routine, and simply cracked
up and went AWOL. Some of them volunteered for second and third
tours of duty in Vietnam, were refused, and went AWOL because their
superiors would not let them go back to fight in Vietnam.
These are special cases. These men served their country
exceptionally well, and committed an unauthorized absence offense only
afterward. For that one offense after a valorous record, they got the
book thrown at them and received a punitive or undesirable discharge.
We feel that the records of some of these people cry out for the correction
of injustice. On motion by General Walt, we have concluded, unanimously,
that these men deserve better from their country than they have received,
and certainly better than a Clemency Discharge "under other than
honorable conditions".
Digitized from Box 8 of the Charles E. Goodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
- 2 -
We therefore propose that for these truly special cases, you
offer a full and unconditional pardon, and an immediate upgrading
by you of their discharges to a General Discharge or, in exceptional
cases, to an Honorable Discharge. We unanimously believe that
these special cases should receive veterans' benefits.
For the typical ex-serviceman to whom you will grant clemency
on our recommendation, the military services have available a routine
discharge review process under which anyone may ask for review of
his discharge. We believe that your offer of clemency to an ex-serviceman
is precisely the sort of new fact in the record which should trigger a
review of that ex-serviceman's discharge by the normal military
process.
We propose, therefore, that whenever you offer clemency to an
ex-serviceman, your clemency should not only provide for a full
pardon and a Clemency Discharge, but should also trigger a directive
from you to his military service to automatically review his case
through that service's normal discharge review mechanism. Your
directive should specify that that de novo review be conducted without
reference to the offense for which you have granted a pardon--as if
the offense were not in his record at all.
We expect that in some cases, this review will result in an
upgrading to a General Discharge, with or without veterans' benefits
depending on the length of honorable military service in each particular
case. In some cases the individual will be left with a Clemency Discharge
or, if he fails to complete alternate service, with his "bad paper"
discharge.
The Department of Defense is amenable to the procedure which
we propose for upgrading discharges.
Implementation of Your Decision
If you approve our recommendation, we will construe that as a
directive to the Board to write master pardon warrants with appropriate
language for the ex-servicemen, and we will prepare a directive
for transmittal to the military services under your signature.
Approve
Disapprove
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
Old Executive Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20500
October 1, 1974
The Honorable Charles E. Goodell
Suite 601
1225 19th Street, NW.
Washington, D. C. 20036
Dear Mr. Goodell:
This letter outlines procedures for obtaining reimbursement for travel
expenses incurred in performance of official duties as a member of the
Presidential Clemency Board. Travel must be performed in accordance
with the Federal Travel Regulations promulgated by the General Services
Administration which are applicable to all civilian employees of the
United States.
Briefly summarized are points of interest to you:
(1) Travel must be performed in the most economical class of
service available, i.e., tourist class on airplanes, lowest cost first class
on other types of carriers. Use of superior class accommodations must
be justified by unusual circumstances (only class available, etc.)
(2) You may claim reimbursement for subsistence expenses
(lodgings and meals) on an actual expense basis up to a limit of $40.00
per day, provided that cost of hotel accommodations exceed $20.00 per
day.
(3) You may claim reimbursement for taxicab and limousine fares
used to and from residence/office to transportation terminals. You may
also claim taxicab fares while at your temporary duty station. You may
also claim charges for official telephone calls made during your stay at
your temporary duty station. You may claim use of your privately-owned
2
automobile to and from residence and terminals at a rate of $.12 per mile
provided that costs including parking fees do not exceed the costs of taxi-
cab or limousine.
(4) Receipts must be provided for any item claimed which exceeds
$15. 00 in cost. Receipts for hotel expenses are required in all cases.
Official travel vouchers must be prepared to claim reimbursement for
expenses. The staff of the Board will prepare these for you if you will
complete the attached Travel Reimbursement Worksheet for each trip
you take. You should also sign the Travel Voucher where indicated by the
red checkmark leaving everything else blank. Vouchers will be processed
by the General Services Administration and a check will be sent to you from
the Treasury Department. The normal processing time is approximately
2 weeks. Extra copies of travel vouchers and worksheets will be provided
at the Board meeting scheduled for October 7, 1974.
In the future it will be possible to provide you with prepaid airline tickets
if you desire. If you will inform the staff at least five days in advance of
your travel as to your plans (flight number, etc. ) we can have a ticket
ready for you to pick up at the airline terminal on your day of departure.
It is requested that you do not make reservations with the airlines; the
Board's staff will handle them for you.
In reference to official telephone calls, please send a copy of your tele-
phone company statement with the calls applicable to Board business
circled, we will obtain reimbursement for you.
It is hoped that the above will provide you with a general guide as to travel
and related matters. Please address all correspondence and inquiries
relating to the aforementioned matters to the attention of Ray Mitchell,
Presidential Clemency Board, Room 460, Old Executive Office Building.
Sincerely,
Charles Mott/RM
Charles Mott
Clemency Board Liaison
Enclosures 2
STANDARD FORM 1012
August 1970
TRAVEL VOUCHER
Title 7, GAO Manual
1012-113
DEPARTMENT. BUREAU. OR ESTABLISHMENT
VOUCHER NO.
PAYEE'S NAME
SCHEDULE NO.
MAILING ADDRESS Including ZIP Code)
PAID BY
OFFICIAL DUTY STATION
RESIDENCE
FOR TRAVEL AND OTHER EXPENSES
TRAVEL ADVANCE
CHECK NO.
FROM (DATE)
TO (DATE)
Outstanding
s
CASH PAYMENT OF $
APPLICABLE TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION(S)
Amount to be applied
RECEIVED (DATE)
NO.
DATE
Balance to remain
outstanding
$
(Signature of Payee)
TRANSPORTATION REQUESTS ISSUED
AGENT'S
INITIALS OF
MODE, CLASS
POINTS OF TRAVEL
TRANSPORTATION
VALUATION
CARRIER
OF SERVICE,
DATE
REQUEST NUMBER
OF TICKET
ISSUING
AND ACCOM.
ISSUED
TICKET
MODATIONS
FROM-
TO-
** Certified correct. Payment or credit has not been received.
Dollars
Cts
AMOUNT
X
CLAIMED
(Date)
(Signature of Payee)
Approved. Long distance telephone calls are certified as necessary in the
DIFFERENCES:
interest of the Government.
(Date)
(Approving Officer)
NEXT PREVIOUS VOUCHER PAID UNDER SAME TRAVEL AUTHORITY
Total verified correct for charge to appropriation(s)
VOUCHER NO.
D.O. SYMBOL
DATE (MONTH-YEAR)
(initials)
Certified correct and proper for payment:
Applied to travel advance (appropriation symbol)
NET TO
(Date)
(Authorized Certifying Officer)
TRAVELER
ACCOUNTING CLASSIFICATION
* Abbreviations for Pullman accommodations: MR, master room; DR, drawing room; CP, compartment; BR, bedroom; DSR, duplex single room; RM, roomette;
DRM, duplex roomette; SOS, single occupancy section; LB, lower berth; UB, upper berth; LB-UB, lower and upper berth; S, seat.
FRAUDULENT CLAIM-Falsification of an item in an expense account works a forfeiture of the claim (28 U.S.C. 2514) and may result in a fine of not more
than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than 5 years or both (18 U.S.C. 287; id. 1001).
***If long distance telephone calls are included, the approving officer must have been authorized in writing by the head of the department or agency to so certify
(31 U.S.C. 680a).
SCHEDULE OF EXPENSES AND AMOUNTS CLAIMED
PREVIOUS TEMPORARY DUTY (Complete these blocks only if in travel status immediately prior to period covered by this voucher and if admin-
istratively required)
DEPARTURE FROM OFFICIAL STATION
TEMPORARY DUTY STATION LAST DAY OF PRECEDING VOUCHER PERIOD
(DATE)
(HOUR)
(LOCATION)
(DATE OF ARRIVAL)
AUTHORIZED
MILEAGE
DATE
AMOUNT CLAIMED
RATE
e
NATURE OF EXPENSE*
19
SPEEDOMETER
No. OF
READINGS
MILEAGE
SUBSISTENCE
MILES
OTHER
Grand total to face of voucher
(Subtotals, to be carried forward if necessary)
*U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1974 o - 535-393
*If per diem allowances for members of employee's immediate family are included, give members' names, their relationship to employee,
and ages and marital status of children (unless this information is shown on the travel authorization).
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT WORKSHEET
Name:
Social Security #:
Zip
Address:
Code
TRANSPORTATION
Form of Transportation Used:
Air
Train
Bus
Private Auto (Speedometer: begin
end
)
Method of Payment: (Attach copy of ticket or Government T/R)
Personal Funds
Government T/R #
Prepaid Ticket
Departure from residence/office
Arrival at destination
Date
Hour
Date
Hour
Return travel began
Arrival at residence/office
Date
Hour
Date
Hour
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION (Taxicab, Limousine, etc.)
Date
From
To
Cost
OTHER EXPENSES (Attach receipts when possible)
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5
*Hotel
*Breakfast
*Luncheon
*Dinner
Telephone
*Breakdown of these expenses is required only
Telegraph
when traveling on actual expense basis rather
than normal per diem basis. Total hotel and
Other (specify)
meals cannot exceed $40.00 per day. Use reverse
of sheet for additional days.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Payment of travel vouchers is usually made two weeks after preparation and submission.
If payment is not received within four weeks please notify.
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
MEMORANDUM
&
FORD
GERALD
TO:
HONORABLE JOHN O. MARSH, JR.
FROM:
CHARLES E. GOODELL
DATE:
OCTOBER 15, 1974
SUBJECT:
OPERATION OF THE PRESIDENTIAL
CLEMENCY BOARD
I first wish to express my personal appreciation for the assistance
you and your associates have provided during the initial organiza-
tion period of the Clemency Board. Your efforts helped us avoid
many of the more difficult problems which otherwise might have
hindered the speedy implementation of the President's Executive
Order.
Unfortunately, there still remain a number of problems which are
presently unresolved. When the Order was issued, the President
made specific commitments to me regarding the administration
of the Board. First, I expressly understood that I would have a
free hand in hiring key staff. It was further understood that because
of the high priority of the program and its specialized problems,
we would require individuals with superior qualifications. Now
that we have been in operation for a few weeks, I have determined
that it will be necessary to hire five senior staff people, who would
have the grades and salaries commensurate with their responsibi-
lities. The positions for these employees are described below:
1) Chief Counsel
G.S. 18
2) Deputy Chief Counsel
G.S. 16
3) Executive Secretary
G.S. 15
-2-
4)
Deputy Executive Secretary
G.S. 14/15
5) Public Information Officer
G.S. 13
Fortunately, I found an Executive Secretary within the Executive
Branch and was able to get him detailed from H.U.D. I have also
identified the person I want as Chief Counsel. His name is Lawrence
Baskir, currently Chief Counsel of the Senate Sub-Committee on
Constitutional Rights. When I interviewed Larry I told him that the
position was a G.S. 18. I expressed my belief that the salary and
grade were not a problem because of the President's commitment
to the Program and the necessity that the staffing accurately reflect
that commitment. I would, therefore, appreciate your assistance
in obtaining a "super grade" for Larry.
Although this is my primary problem, it is not the only one. Charles
Mott has been especially helpful to me in locating staff for the Board.
I believe he has also been successful in securing an additional $30,000
to cover Board expenses. However, I have also been told that these
funds are expressly limited to Board Members' salaries and expenses.
It appears, therefore, that no allocation has been made for staff
travel, expenses and secretarial overtime -- should the need for
any of these arise.
Finally, secretarial help also poses a problem. After the announce-
ment of the creation of the Board, secretarial support was generously
provided on an ad hoc basis from various offices throughout the
White House. Four secretaries were assigned from the White House
staff. Although I understand that the press of White House business
places heavy demands on their time, I strongly urge that the Board
be allowed to keep these secretaries for the time being. As you
are aware, we are a fledgling operation and the White House experience
of these ladies has contributed greatly to our effective functioning
during the first few weeks of our existence.
In summary, obtaining the appropriate grades for my Chief and
Deputy Counsel are my most serious administrative problems. For
the time being, we seem to have an adequate number of staff
attorneys to handle the current work load, although I expect our
staffing needs to increase as time goes on. Fortunately, the Board
is now sufficiently well established to request staff from other
Federal Agencies when the need arises.
Thank you again for your help.
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
December 20, 1974
ACTION
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
CHARLES E. GOODELL
SUBJECT:
Nature of the Clemency to be Granted
Former Servicemen
The Presidential Clemency Board unanimously recommends that
the particulars of the elemeney to be granted in the military cases
under your Clemeney Proclamation be as follows:
1) A full and complete pardon;
2) A Clemeney Discharge
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
3) An automatic review by appropriate military
authorities of the service record of each individual
to determine whether an Honorable Discharge or
General Discharge should be awarded, such review
to be made without consideration of the acts for
which your parden is granted.
In each case, such action will be conditioned upon the satisfactory
completion of a period of alternate service, where appropriate.
4) In exceptional cases of merit, the immediate grant
of an Honorable Discharge or General Discharge in
addition to the parden.
Discussion
Under the terms of the Proclamation, you have granted elemency in
the form of pardons to those civilians convicted of draft-evasion
offenses. The Beard unanimously recommends that pardons be
granted as well for the acts of unauthorised absence, desertion, or
missing movement committed by former servicemen. Such pardons
may, of course, be conditioned upon the satisfactory completion of
an appropriate period of alternate service.
. 2 .
Because former servicemen applying for elemency have an additional
disability in the form of a discharge under less than honorable
conditions, the Proclamation states that a Clemency Discharge is
to be substituted for the original discharge characterization. Such
a Clemency Discharge does not, however, alter the base to antitlement
to veterans benefits which may exist as a result of the original
discharge.
Under existing authority, each military department has procedures
to review and upgrade discharges shown to be unjust, improper, or
improvident. The Beard unanimeusly believes that the grant of a
Presidential parden for the act which occasioned the less than
honorable discharge is sufficient cause to require the services to
review the grounds for the original discharge. The Board believes
that this review properly should be undertaken without regard to
the act for which you have granted the pardon. Since each former
serviceman has already submitted an application for elemeney, the
Beard believes it should not be necessary to require an additional
application to be made to the services for this review to take place.
The Board has in its review of military cases, found that some
individuals have performed well and faithfully their military duties
prior to their offense. Many served courageously in Vistasm. Some
were awarded decorations for valor in combat. Often they suffered
severe psychological injuries from their experiences, and these led
to the commission of the military offense for which they were
discharged under other than honorable eircumstances.
Because the Clemeney Discharge does not adequately reflect the
prier faithful service of these individuals, and does not confer
entitlement to the benefits which that prior service otherwise earns,
the Beard upon the suggestion of those members with military service
believes that further action is required in these cases.
We recommend that pursuant to your authority as Commander in Chief
and consistent with existing statutory authority, you should order the
immediate issuance of an Honorable Discharge or General Discharge
in these special cases. Such further action is not precluded by the
terms of the Proclamation and is entirely consistent with the spirit
of your act. Full respect of regular military procedures will be
preserved since the services will then determine in each case whether
the final discharge should be Honorable or General. The Board has
n $ #
indicated in the recommendations it has forwarded to you which
individuals should be granted this additional aspect of elemency.
The Board is engaged in consultation with the Department of
Defense to work out appropriate procedures for the implementation
of these recommendations.
Approve
Disapprove
LBaskir:mm
THE PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THE PRESIDENT
BERALD FORD LIBRARA
FROM:
CHARLES E. GOODELL
RE:
Personal Assessment of the Clemency Program
as of January 1, 1975
Introduction
On January 31, your program of Vietnam clemency will end,
except for certain terminal activities of the Presidential
Clemency Board. This memorandum gives you my personal
evaluation of the program and makes recommendations for an
extension and some improvements in its terms.
Summary
By any definition except the most cynical, your clemency program
has not succeeded. At worst, it has failed and is seen as a failure
by those familiar with the program. The causes of the failure are:
1) The residue of distrust of the Government and its former
policy towards those who disagreed with the war.
2) Weaknesses in the program and deficiencies in its
administration.
3) Ignorance, confusion, or caution on the part of most
potential candidates.
To remedy these deficiencies, I suggest:
1) An extension of the program to at least June 30, and
perhaps to the end of the year.
- 2 -
2) Changes in the military part of the program, especially
as regards the nature of the Clemency Discharge.
3) Improvements in the administration and tone of the
program.
4) Certain relatively minor improvements in the remedies
available for the Presidential Clemency Board.
The Department of Defense Program--Evaluation
Although the Department of Defense program for returning
military deserters is numerically the most successful, having
attracted 2, 500 of a total of 12, 500, it is the most illusory of the
three parts. The Department offers an Undesirable Discharge to
all who return, with the attraction of a Clemency Discharge upon
completion of 24 months alternate service.
The program is illusory because prior to September 17, and no
doubt following January 31, the Department will offer Undesirable
Discharges to all who return. Only a relative few (10%) AWOL cases
were referred to court-martial in the period prior to September 17.
Thus, while the Department of Defense program offers the major
benefit of avoiding a court-martial, this is an advantage most
participants would have had in any case.
The Clemency Discharge is not, in Department of Defense terms,
any different from the Undesirable Discharge it replaces. For
the Government to extract 24 months service for a discharge of
no tangible difference and only conjectural social advantage is
deceptive at best.
The Department of Defense also concedes that it has no way
to enforce the terms of its program. A person accepting an
Undesirable Discharge and giving a commitment to perform
alternative service cannot, as a practical matter, be held to
this arrangement.
- 3 -
While the Department of Defense's part of the program is the
least significant in terms of what news it offers, it has been
administered with almost no criticism. Applicants are
treated with respect, dignity and consideration, and the
processing is expeditious.
Recommendation
1) The Defense Department program should be extended to
help the military clear its books and to complete the unfinished
business of the 10, 000 servicemen still with outstanding AWOL
charges.
2) The clemency discharge and the condition of performing
24 months alternate service should be eliminated, or in the
alternative;
3) The clemency discharge should be characterized as a
general discharge for the convenience of the Government,
bearing no entitlement to veteran's benefits. If the Government
is to extract two years of honorable alternate service, the
discharge characterization at least should reflect that.
The Department of Justice
The Department of Justice part of the program offers the
most attractive terms of the entire program. Upon completion
of 24 months alternate service, all threat of a felony prosecution
is removed, the individual's record is totally clear, and he
suffers no future jeopardy for his draft violation. Despite this,
the Department has had the most disappointing response--some
350 candidates of a total that runs from 6, 000 to as high as a
theoretical 176, 000.
I attribute this failure to three causes:
1) An inherent and deep-seated distrust of the Justice
Department in general, and especially as regards its role
during the Vietnam experience;
2) Failure on the part of the Department to take positive
steps to remove this distrust. In fact, in some respects the
Department of Justice seems to have taken actions which,
calculatedly or not, increase the suspicion; and
- 4 -
3) Substantial ignorance or confusion about the program
or its pertinancy to many potential applicants.
The distrust in which the Department of Justice is held in
general is not helped by the fact that it is not publicly regarded
as being sympathetic to the Vietnam clemency program. In the
course of the past 3 months, the Department has taken some
actions which aggravate this distrust. While not major, they
have had the cumulative effect of discouraging applicants.
1) The Department requires a signed admission of guilt by
anyone participating. This puts anyone in extreme jeopardy of
conviction if their alternate service experience is unsatisfactory,
and it makes the program clearly punitive.
2) The Department has not wholeheartedly accepted its
responsibility of providing counsel to any who participate.
3) The Department's actual policy is not to apprehend anyone
who enters the country but who fails to conclude an agreement.
Publicly, however, it has stated that 15 days after entry in
the country, a person is liable to apprehension and prosecution.
4) In the middle of the program, the Department handed down
61 indictments for draft-evasion in Boston, Massachusetts.
Whatever the reason, it was a clear message to the exile
community of the Department's attitudes.
5) The Department has not guaranteed that anyone not presently
under indictment is free from liability. It is unable to give
assurances that anyone inquiring as to his status will not be
subject to prosecution if he is not now under investigation. This
was characterized as entrapment by a representative of the VFW.
Since the unresolved cases number 176, 000, this means that
anyone inquiring runs the risk of having his case reviewed,
perhaps for the very first time, and then becoming liable for
prosecution.
6) Rumors abound that the Department taps phones of those
making inquiry. While not true, and simply a product of the
distrust in which the Department is held, the rumors serve
further to discourage participation in the program.
- 5 -
To remedy this problem, I suggest:
1) Generally, that the tone of the Department's program
be improved to reflect the Department's commitment to the
spirit of the program as you envisioned it.
2) An extension of the deadline.
3) Dispensing with the requirement of conceding guilt.
4) Provision for counsel to be appointed to any applicant.
5) Preparation of a "closed list" containing all those
persons liable for draft-evasion prosecution. Anyone not on
the list would be free of jeopardy.
6) A public admission that no one will be apprehended until
after the deadline for applying has expired.
The Presidential Clemency Board
The Presidential Clemency Board has had more success than
the Justice Department, but its level of participation is still
disappointingly low. I attribute this to a number of factors:
1) The start-up delay of the Board's program. As a new
agency, the Board had to acquire staff, facilities, determine
policy and implement decisions beginning on September 17. It
was not until mid-November that the Board completed this first
stage and could make recommendations to you. The first results
for civilians were announced on November 29, and for servicemen
on December 28. While a short time for any comparable agency,
it still represents 3 1/2 of the 4 1/2 months allotted to the program.
2) An inability of the Board to provide sufficient information
about the program to prospective candidates. The Board is now
well into a direct-mail and public-service announcement program,
but neither will be complete by the expiration date of January 31.
Most of the Board's applicants are apparently not sophisticated,
articulate, well-educated or socially-favored. Further, they
- 6 -
are all now punished for their offense. They have no natural
incentive to participate by becoming involved again with the
Government. It therefore takes an extra effort to contact
them, inform them of the program, and enlighten them as
to the advantages of participating.
3) The benefits of participating in the Board program need
to be improved in minor respects to increase the attractiveness
to candidates. For servicemen especially, the substitution of
a Clemency Discharge for an existing bad discharge is at best
a minor advantage. For most of the Board's participants,
trading an Undesirable Discharge for a Clemency Discharge
is no strong reason for serving up to 24 months. Because the
Board offers no chance to obtain veteran's benefits, even if
the case well deserves it, this means that many will not see
an advantage in participating. This is so, despite the fact
that a Presidential pardon is involved, since the bad discharge
is the most significant aspect of an unsuccessful term of
military service.
4) The Board has had to contend with a number of petty
administrative difficulties. While probably inevitable, they
have served to detract our attention from our work. These
include an inability to place staff on payroll, problems with
details of employees, inadequate or slowly produced supplies,
reluctance on the part of other White House offices to give full
priority to the program, and the like. These problems
resulted in the loss of an opportunity to exploit a political coup
with the support of former Prisoner of War general officers,
employment for 6 or more weeks without pay of key staff,
the imminent loss of staff serving on detail, and delays in the
approval by other White House offices of Board proposals and
actions.
To remedy these deficits, I suggest:
1) An extension of the deadline
-2) Better provision for staff support
3) Improvement of the terms of the benefits of the program
for Vietnam deserters. This should include:
- 7 -
a) Characterization of the Clemency Discharge as a
General Discharge for the convenience of the Government,
under honorable conditions, but without veteran's benefits;
b) Provision for the award of a General Discharge or
Honorable Discharge, with benefits, for deserving cases;
c) Automatic referral of all cases receiving clemency
back to the service for a review of the military record for
possible upgrading of the discharge.
D
R
A
F
T
ACTION
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
CHARLES E. GOODELL
SUBJECT:
Extension of January 31 Deadline for Applications
to the Presidential Clemency Board
This memorandum recommends that on
you
extend the deadline for applications to the Presidential Clemency Board
from January 31 to June 30, outlines the arguments for and against that
recommendation, and summarizes why I believe that you should extend
the deadline for application to the Clemency Board only instead of an
all three parts of the clemency program.
I. Why Do It?
Your Proclamation creating the amnesty program contemplated
a limited application period ending January 31, with the goal of resolving
the amnesty problem once and for all.
The selection of January 31 as the deadline apparently rested
upon three assumptions:
(1) It was apparently assumed that the draft evaders and deserters
covered by your program are for the most part reasonably well-
educated, middle or upper-class persons whose motivation to
violate Selective Service or military law was ideological--
opposition to the war in Vietnam.
(2) It followed from that assumption that those people generally
have substantial exposure to broadcast and print media.
(3) It also followed from that assumption that those people must be
part of a finely tuned evader and deserter "underground" com-
munications network.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
2
If one accepted those three assumptions at the outset, it was reasonable
to expect that most of the population eligible for clemency would learn
about the program early and easily, and would therefore be able to
make an informed and thought-out choice by January 31 on whether to
apply.
The Presidential Clemency Board has found that, at least with
respect to the people eligible for consideration under our part of the
clemency program, thos assumptions are wrong. The applicants who
come before us do not at all fit the sterotypes which we held before we
began.
In reviewing our cases, we have found that they are not generally
ideological war resisters. For the most part, they are people who had
severe marital problems which required immediate attention, or a
family left without support when a parent died, or a mother or wife
who became acutely ill. Some of them are Jehovah's Witnesses and
members of other groups with objections to killing, but most were
motivated in their offense by their need to take care of a family hardship.
Regardless of the reason for their offense, we have found them
generally to be uneducated and not from middle or upper-class back-
grounds at all. Most of them were unable to pursue their remedies
properly within the legal system precisely because they were
unsophisticated and inarticulate. Those who believed deeply that they
should not kill, but who couldn't express their feelings adequately,
wound up with conviction records and sometimes jail sentences, while
the
glib sophisticated got a better shake in the first place. Many
of our applicants would have, had they known how to properly proceed,
received hardship deferments, or compassionate reassignments or
hardship discharges in the military.
Assuming that the applicants we have before us are representative
of the over 100, 000 potential applicants with whom we have not had
contact, we conclude that our potential applicants, as a class, are not
at all the educated and sophisticated people we had thought them to be
likely realize at this stage that Bay also are eligible
It follows from that proposition that our potential applicants
generally do not read or watch television news programs a great deal,
and that they are certainly not "plugged in" to any underground com-
munications network of deserters and evaders.
3
Most of our potential applicants, then, have not contacted the
Presidential Clemency Board simply because they do not know that
the program exists or do not realize that they are eligible. Although
we are making strenuous efforts to reach them by direct mail and by
broadcast spots, it is unreasonable to expect, given the nature of the
population with which we are dealing, that most of those who have not
applied will learn about the program by January 31.
Contrary to the assumptions upon the basis of which January 31
was originally chosen, most potential applicants will not have been
able to make an informed and thought-out choice by January 31.
II. Why Not Do It ?
Four arguments suggest that you may prefer to keep the
deadline at January 31 even though most of the eligibles will not
have learned about it by then:
(1) Extension of the deadline prevents the country from
reaching closure on the problem for at least five additional
months.
-- It may be counterargued, however, that since
most of the eligible population hasn't been reached,
any closure reached would be illusory. The
problem would remain to be dealt with.
(2) Given the uninformed nature of the people with whom we
we are attempting to establish contact, it may be that we
will not be able to reach many more of them by June 30
than by January 31. Even with repeated direct ma il and
radio and television spots, they may be for the most part
inherently unreachable.
(3) It may be that most potential applicants are in fact aware
of the clemency program, but are putting off the hard decision
until just before the deadline. If that is true, then our
application rate should rise steeply as January 31 approaches.
Extension of the deadline until June 30 may simply postpone
that time of decision for potential applicants, who may wait
until just before the new deadline.
4
The problem with argument (2) is that we will never know whether
it is true unless we try, and the problem with argument (3) is that we
can never prove it one way or the other. Even if there is a steep rise
in applications just before January 31, it may be that the rise just before
the deadline would be steeper if the deadline were June 30.
(4) Extension of the deadline is an implicit admission that, you
already believe that the Board's part of the clemency pro-
gram is, quantitatively, a failure.
-- The counterargument is that the low numbers speak
for themselves, whether or not you remain silent.
III. Why Do It Only for Clemency Board Applicants, and Not for
Applicants to the Department of Justice and the Department of
Defense?
The principal reason why I recommend that you extend the deadline
with respect to Clemency Board applicants, and not necessarily for
applicants to the other agencies involved in the clemency program, is
that there are clearly new facts not available to you on September 16
- which suggest that the January 31 deadline for the Board's applicants
was based upon mistaken assumptions (see section I of this memorandum)
Moreover, we have taken a small survey of potential applicants in Seattle,
and have found that none of them is aware that the program exists.
You should be aware, however, that this argument may suggest extension
of the Defense Department's part of the program as well, since Defense
has apparently found that their applicants generally have the same
characteristics as ours. We assume that Justice's potential applicants
are different, but we do not know that for sure.
Two other arguments suggest extension only of the Board's part of
the program:
(1) Unlike those under the jurisdiction of Justice and Defense, potential
applicants under our jurisdiction have already been convicted and
punished. Because they have paid mor e to society, they deserve
your generosity more than unconvicted applicants for clemency.
5
(2) Because the books of the criminal justice system and the
military discharge system have been closed on our potential
applicants, many of them apparently believe that your clemency
program does not apply to them. I have heard substantial
anecdotal evidence which suggests that many of our potentials
believe that the program only to draft evaders who have not yet
gone to trial, and to deserters who have not yet returned.
For all three of these reasons, extension of the Board's part of
the program alone will be easier to explain to the country than extension
of the whole program.
On the other hand, most people do not understand the tripartite nature
of the clemency program, and are not aware that the stereotyped draft
evaders who fled to Canada are under Justice's jurisdiction. Even if
you extend only the Board's part of the program, therefore, you will
probably get political reaction based on the mistaken perception that you
are extending the whole program. This probability suggests that in
terms of public perception, you may have only two choices -- extension
of the whole clemency program, or of none of it.
IV. Your Options
Please indicate which option you prefer:
Extension of deadline to June 30 for
Clemency Board only
Extension of deadline to June 30 for
whole clemency program
No extension of deadline
051-C
01
This black applicant, in his middle twenties, comes from a large
stable home in the South. He was classified as a conscientious
objector by his local board, and completed approximately eleven
months of alternative service. He was convicted of failing to
remain in alternative service when he failed to report to a hospital
to which he had been reassigned. The hospital was located a sub-
stantial distance from his home and he lacked the financial means
to make the trip and set up a residence. The applicant was con-
victed and originally sentenced to five years in prison. The
appellate court, on appeal, remanded the case for sentence re-
duction. The trial judge reduced the sentence only by eleven
months. He has completed 12-1/2 months of his sentence. When
the applicant was released on bond during his appeal, he performed
work in the public interest.
Disposition: Pardon
053-C C
12
This white applicant, in his middle twenties, was raised in a
financially stable home in the Midwest. While attending college
he applied for conscientious objector status, which was denied.
The local board noted he did not claim conscientious objector
status until he no longer qualified for any other kind of deferment.
It appears this may have been an improper act by the local board.
Selective Service rules allow an individual to apply for conscientious
objector until the time he receives his induction notice. When he
was ordered to report for induction, he appeared but refused to
submit to induction. He was sentenced to three years for failing
to submit to induction and has served ten months. When he was
in prison, applicant's financee died in an auto accident while re-
turning from visiting him.
FORD
Disposition: Pardon
C
C3
This applicant, who is white, in his mid-twenties, was raised on
the West Coast. His parents were divorced when he was 19. He
was a good student in high school and is closely affiliated with the
Catholic Church. Applicant was denied conscientious objector
status and advised that he would be denied an in-service hearing
for non-combatant duty. On advice of his attorney, he refused to
submit for induction. He was sentenced to 6 months in prison and
a 2-year probation. He was in prison 2 months. This case was
reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court
held against the applicant, but stated that people in his circum-
stances are entitled as a matter of right to a hearing while in
service.
Disposition: Pardon
102-C C4
This applicant is white, in his early twenties and the eldest of
several children. Due to a family health problem, applicant's
father was forced to leave his job and stay in the home. Conse-
quently, the family has been receiving public assistance. The
applicant is a high school graduate, and was granted conscientious
objector status. Based on his Jehovah Witness belief, applicant
failed to report to the Selective Service System assignment and was
sentenced to 5 years in prison. He has served 18-1/2 months.
Disposition: Pardon
104-C
C5
This applicant is black and grew up in a midwestern city. His
father abandoned the family when he was quite young and his mother
remarried, divorced and remarried again. He had completed one
year of college and had a stable employment record before being
sentenced to 3 years imprisonment for refusal to submit to induction.
He fled while on bail pending appeal and was subsequently rearrested.
He claims he was denied procedural due process and that he was not
given a physical disability deferment. Prison records show that he was
a model prisoner, and he was recommended for meritorious pay as a
result of outstanding performance in prison. He has served 17-1/2
months in jail and was due for parole October 4, 1974
Disposition: Pardon
074-C
C6
This applicant is white, single and from the est. He is the product
of a broken home. He began to have troubl S when he was very young.
He started drinking when he was eleven y .rs old. He has attempted
to secure help for his drinking but was u able to follow through. After
reporting for his pre-induction physical, he was given a break for
lunch, after which he was supposed to return for a psychiatric exami-
nation. Instead, he got drunk and diu not return. According to the
applicant, he always intended to go into the military but one day
realized that he couldn't handle it, In fact, his records report that
on several occasions he attempted to report to the authorities but
each time he turned back. He subsequently pled guilty to failure
to submit to induction and was given an indeterminate sentence
under the Federal Youth Corrections Act. He has served oneyear
of his sentence.
Disposition: Pardon
030-C
C7
Applicant is a black Muslim, the second of four children, who
grew up in a large city in the Midwest. He has 14-1/2 years of
formal education, but he had to terminate his schooling because
of financial problems. After leaving school, applicant began a
career in retail sales where he rose to a managerial level. He
declined to seek conscientious objector status and subsequently
refused to submit to induction. He was convicted and sentenced
to 18 months in prison, although he stood ready to perform
alternative service if ordered to do so by the judge. His re-
ligion forbids him from accepting alternate service from
Selective Service because it considers that agency part of the
military. Applicant served 11 months of his sentence. Prison
authorities commended his attitude, deportment and work per-
formance during his incarceration.
Disposition: Pardon
071-C
C8
This applicant is in his mid-twenties and is white. He was born
in the Southwest and was graduated from college. He claimed
conscientious objector status based on his moral beliefs and his
sincere opposition to the war. However, his claim was denied
and he was ordered to report for induction. He refused and was
convicted. The judge placed him on probation on condition that
he perform alternative service. He worked part-time in his
voluntary job and supported himself in a full-time factory job.
This factory went on strike and he refused to cross the picket-
line. He left his part-time volunteer work because of personal
difficulties although he continued to do alternative service on
weekends. However, his probation was revoked because he
failed to do the service as prescribed. He was sentenced to 3
years in prison. He has now served 8 months.
Disposition: Pardon
014-C
C9
This applicant, who is white and married, was raised in a
Midwestern town in a middle-class family. Following his
graduation from college with a degree in accounting, he sub-
mitted a request for classification as a conscientious objector.
He also attempted to meet his alternative service obligation by
first teaching in a public school for 4 months, and later working
for a year in a hospital. However, both his application and ap-
peals were denied and, after refusing to submit to induction, he
was convicted and sentenced to 18 months in prison. Prior to
his furlough, he had served approximately 8-1/2 months.
Disposition: Pardon
C/D
080-C
This applicant is white, in his middle twenties, married, and has one child.
After his father died, his mother remarried and the family moved to the
West Coast. Applicant's formal education stopped at the 11th grade. He
has a minor physical disability. In 1969, applicant became interested in
farming and moved from the West Coast to Hawaii. Before leaving, appli-
cant informed his draft board that he was moving. Living in relative iso-
lation, and believing that he was. physically disqualified for induction,
applicant became oblivious to his legal obligations. He was convicted of
failing to report for induction and was sentenced to 4-6 years under the
Federal Youth Corrections Act. Applicant has served ten months of his
sentence.
Disposition: Executive Clemency, three months alternate service. Upon
completion of alternate service, Pardon.
095-C
C11
This applicant is black, in his mid-twenties and single. He was born and
raised in a large Midwestern city. His father died when applicant was
seven and his mother, who is in a mental institution, was unable to provide
any care for him. Consequently, he was raised by various relatives. He
dropped out of school in the 11th grade. He was convicted of failure to re-
port for induction, sentenced to three years and placed on immediate pro-
bation. After his conviction, he attempted to enlist in the Army but was
rejected. He failed to report to his probation officer; thus his probation
was revoked and he was sentenced to 4 to 6 years. He has served 19
months and 20 days.
Disposition: Executive Clemency, three months alternate service. Upon
completion of alternate service, Pardon.
096-C
C12
This applicant is black, in his mid-twenties, and was raised in a religious
home in New York City. Although he and his numerous brothers and sisters
were reared in a ghetto-type setting, his parents always attempted to pro-
vide support and guidance. This applicant has no prior criminal record,
and, like his parents, is a Jehovah's Witness. He pleaded guilty to failure
to report for induction, and was given probation contingent upon 24 months
alternate service. Because he did not find the requisite employment, pro-
bation was revoked, and an indeterminate sentence, under the Federal Youth
Corrections Act, was imposed. He has served over 13 months imprisonment.
Disposition: Executive Clemency, three months alternate service. Upon
completion of alternate service, Pardon.
093 -C
C13
This applicant is black and in his mid-twenties. Although his father
died when the applicant was an infant, his mother remarried, and he
was raised in a stable environment in the South. This applicant is a
Jehovah's Witness who was assigned by his local draft board to
civilian work. He failed to report. When he agreed subsequently to
perform civilian employment he was placed on probation. After
performing his required alternate service for over one year, the
applicant left his job. The applicant was sentenced to three years in
prison of which he has served almost six months.
Disposition: Executive Clemency, 3 months alternate service.
Upon completion of alternate service, Pardon.
097-C 097 -C
C14
This applicant is in his mid-twenties and comes from a broken home.
He lived with many different relatives, in the South and in New York,
during his early years. His parents separated when he was 13 and his
mother had difficulty supporting him and herself. He was tried for
failing to report for induction. He said that, when he reported, he
was told that he had a felony conviction which was being investigated.
He said that the Marines told him the same thing when he tried to
enlist. The refusal to accept him arose from an unsealed juvenile
conviction. He was sentenced to an indeterminate term of four to six
years and has now served three years.
Disposition: Executive Clemency, 3 months alternate service.
Upon completion of alternate service, Pardon.
090 - C
C15
The applicant is white, in his early twenties, and the eldest of four
children. He was brought up in a comfortable middle class home,
and had no delinquency problems. He attended a Quaker boarding
school. He is committed to the Quaker religion and states that he
felt a duty to oppose the Vietnam War and the military system in
general. He refused to register for the draft and fled to Canada.
One of his employers in Canada describes him as industrious,
conscientious and capable. When he returned to the United States,
he was taken into custody, he pled guilty and was placed on probation
with the stipulation that he register for the draft. He again refused
to do so; his probation was revoked and a six year indeterminate
sentence was imposed. He spent seven months in jail. The
applicant states that if faced with the same decision again, he
would still refuse to go into the service, but he would accept
alternate service if ordered to do so by a court.
Disposition: Executive Clemency, 6 months alternate service.
Upon completion of alternate service, Pardon.
101-C C
C16
This applicant is black and in his mid-twenties. He was born and
raised in New York City. He left school in the 11th grade and has
been employed as a construction worker and mail carrier. He reported
;
for an Armed Forces physical examination and was found acceptable;
however, he claimed he was inadequately examined but never submitted
any substantive proof of that fact to his local draft board. Later he
communicated with his draft board and claimed conscientious objector
status which was denied. He failed to report for induction and was
declared delinquent. Although for a time he was classified as ineligible
for induction, he was subsequently reclassified 1-A and he failed to
show up for another physical. Several months later he again requested
conscientious objector status; again he was refused. He was convicted
of failure to report for induction and sentenced to four months in prison,
followed by two years probation. He has served 3-1/2 months.
Disposition: Executive Clemency, 10 months alternate service.
Upon completion of alternate service, Pardon.
081-C
C17
This applicant is Puerto-Rican; his family moved to New York when he
was four years old. He dropped out of school in the eighth grade and
has four children by his common-law wife. He attempted to enlist in the
Army when he was eighteen but was refused. The applicant was charged
and pled guilty of failing to report for induction. He expressed remorse
for this offense, explaining that he was not refusing induction but just
attempting to postpone it in order to settle some personal problems.
He has a previous criminal conviction for a minor offense. After being
sentenced to a four to six year term under the Federal Youth Corrections
Act, he served four months in prison.
Disposition: Executive Clemency, twelve months alternate service.
Upon completion of alternate service, Pardon.
012-C
C18
The applicant is white and came from a broken home in New York State.
He was raised under very deprived socio-economic conditions. He left
school during the ninth grade when he was sixteen years old. Applicant
registered for the draft during a period when he was having difficulty
providing for his family which included his wife, his wife's mother,
and a daughter burdened with a birth defect. He attempted to obtain a
hardship classification but was classified I-A when he failed to submit
proof of his claim. He failed to report for induction and shortly
thereafter became separated from his wife. He was sentenced to four
to six years under the Federal Youth Corrections Act and has served
three months in prison.
Disposition: Executive Clemency, 12 months alternate service.
Upon completion of alternate service, Pardon.
227-m
MI
This applicant is white and grew up in an unstable New England family.
He has a ninth grade education. He was inducted into the Army despite
his disclosure of a congenital birth defect of the spine which caused
disability and pain during vigorous physical activity. During basic training,
he suffered severe problems because of this physical defect. On leave
at home after five months in the Army, he discovered that his father had
cancer. He stayed AWOL to tend to his father who died five months later,
and he remained AWOL for four years and ten months. In a court-martial,
he was sentenced to a Bad Conduct Discharge and imprisonment for six
months, four months of which he has served.
Disposition: Pardon. Clemency Discharge.
25/-m
M2
This applicant is white, in his early twenties, and has a 12th grade
education. He was adopted at an early age by his aunt and uncle. When
he was 17, his stepparents threatened to turn him out unless he enlisted
in the Army. He did so, served more than eight months and then was
honorably discharged in order to effect his re-enlistment for Vietnam
duty. He served there for 14 months as an ammunition specialist and
was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal, the Vietnam Campaign Medal
and two overseas service bars. In 1972, he learned the identity of his
natural mother. He went AWOL in an effort to find her. After 16
months of AWOL, he was sentenced to a Bad Conduct Discharge, and
confinement at hard labor for nine months and total forfeitures. He
has served more than eight months in jail. He has 22 months of creditable
service.
Disposition: Pardon. Clemency Discharge.
117-m
M3
This applicant is black and grew up in a broken home in the Midwest.
He and four other children were raised by his mother, who has become
disabled. He dropped out of high school after his freshman year, and
two years later enlisted in the Marines. While he was home on leave,
his mother lost her eyesight and was hospitalized. He remained to
support the family, but he turned himself in when his mother returned
from the hospital. While awaiting trial for his four-month AWOL, he
learned that his brother had been hospitalized after being hit by a taxi.
He again went AWOL. This time he remained absent about two and one-
half years before turning himself in. He was sentenced to a Bad Conduct
Discharge and 18 months confinement. Prior to his release, he had
served almost ten months in prison.
Disposition: Pardon. Clemency Discharge.
187-m
M4
This applicant is white and grew up in a middle-class midwestern
family. After completing the 10th grade, he quit school but has
completed his GED. He worked as a truckdriver to help support
his family until he was drafted. He served four months in the
Army before going AWOL. He left the Army due to his strong
family ties and a feeling of responsibility for his family's financial
well-being. During his absence, he was gainfully employed and
contributed to the support of his family. He was apprehended 3-1/2
years later. In a court-martial, he was sentenced to a Bad Conduct
Discharge and five months confinement. He has served three months
of that sentence, plus two months pretrial confinement.
Disposition: Executive Clemency, 3 months alternate service.
Upon completion of alternate service, Clemency
Discharge and Pardon.
247-m
M5
This applicant, in his middle twenties, is black, single and the
youngest of five children. He grew up in the South in a closely-knit
family. His father died when he was 15, and he was thereafter
raised by his mother. He did not finish the 11th grade. He was then
inducted into the Army. He went AWOL twice, but he has fifteen
months of creditable service. During his over four years of AWOL,
he helped provide for his mother and his blind grandmother. He was
given a Dishonorable Discharge and two years of confinement, of
which he has served seven months.
Disposition: Executive Clemency, 3 months alternate service.
Upon completion of alternate service, Clemency
Discharge and Pardon.
201-m
M6
This applicant is white, in his early thirties, and one of nine
children raised in the rural South. He has graduated from high
school. He enlisted in the Army in 1965, and later re-enlisted.
He served creditably until 1969, when he learned that his wife was
ill. He went AWOL for a few days to find someone to help take
care of his four children. He returned to the Army and requested
leave in order to go back to his family. He was refused and again
went WOL and remained absent for almost 4-1/2 years until he
voluntarily turned himself over to military control. In a court-
martial, he was given a Bad Conduct Discharge and sentenced to
ten months confinement, six months of which he has served.
Disposition: Executive Clemency, 3 months alternate service.
Upon completion of alternate service, Clemency
Discharge and Pardon.
193-m
M7
This white applicant in his mid-twenties is the product of a stable
home. Having completed high school, he entered a three-year
enlistment in the Army, specifying a certain job preference. He
was trained in his job preference but nevertheless ordered to a duty
assignment unrelated to his skills. He went AWOL four times due
to family financial difficulties caused by his father's loss of employ-
ment. He lived openly during over two and one-half years of AWOL.
He has over a year of creditable service. He was sentenced to a
Bad Conduct Discharge and confinement for twelve months. Including
pretrial detention, he has served nearly 14 months in jail. While
confined, he suffered a hand injury which resulted in permanent
disability.
Disposition: Executive Clemency, 3 months alternate service.
Upon completion of alternative service, Clemency
Discharge and Pardon.
167-M
M8
This applicant is white, in his early twenties, and one of three
children. His father was prevented from working because of a
heart condition. Having dropped out of school in the ninth grade,
he was the sole support of his father and sister before he was
drafted. One month after his induction, he attempted to obtain a
weekend pass because of his father's worsening condition. When
the pass was refused, he went AWOL. He was absent for over three
years, as he worked to support his family and his father. He is
married and has two children, but his wife suffers from curvature
of the spine and is unable to work. He was sentenced to seven months
confinement and a Bad Conduct Discharge. He served nearly six
months in prison.
Disposition: Executive Clemency, 3 months alternate service.
Upon completion of alternate service, Clemency
Discharge and Pardon.
129-m
M9
This applicant, in his early twenties, is Puerto Rican and is one of
15 children. He was born and raised in New York and completed the
8th grade. He enlisted in the Marine Corps and has 11 months creditable
service. He went AWOL twice for a total of three and one-half years.
These absences were caused by his drug problem, for which he sought
assistance, and by family problems. He received a Bad Conduct
Discharge and a seven month sentence of which he has served five
months.
Disposition: Executive Clemency, 3 months alternate service.
Upon completion of alternate service, Clemency
Discharge and Pardon.
123-m
MID
This applicant is white and was born and raised in the northeastern
United States. After the age of twelve, he was reared by his grand-
mother. He left high school before graduation, worked for some
years for a moving company, and then joined the Marine Corps. He
went AWOL three times because he wanted to help his parents reconcile
their marriage. He was absent for a total of one year and seven months.
During his three and one-half months of creditable service, he accumu-
lated good conduct and proficiency reports. The applicant was court-
martialed and sentenced to a Bad Conduct Discharge and four months
confinement. He has served approximately two months of his sentence
and was in pretrial confinement over two months.
Disposition: Executive Clemency, 3 months alternate service.
Upon completion of alternate service, Clemency
Discharge and Pardon.
231-m
MII
Applicant is of Spanish surname, is in his late twenties, and he was
one of 12 children in a stable but low-income family. He completed
nine years in school. Inducted into the Army, applicant completed
basic and advanced individual training and was assigned to the Republic
of Vietnam. He served as a light vehicle driver in an artillery unit
for a full tour in Vietnam, and he returned with his unit to the United
States. He had excellent conduct and proficiency ratings and one year
and seven months of creditable service. With his father facing prison
for vehicular homicide and his girlfriend pregnant, he went AWOL to
deal with these problems. He remained absent for nearly three years.
In a court-martial, he was sentenced to a Bad Conduct Discharge and
imprisonment for six months, two and one-half of which he has served.
Disposition: Executive Clemency, 3 months alternate service.
Upon completion of alternate service, Clemency
Discharge and Pardon.
122m
3
This white applicant, in his mid-twenties, was born and raised in a
small midwestern town. Applicant's father was extremely strict with
him and the other children in the family. His parents eventually were
divorced. He completed high school by passing the GED test. After
enlisting in the Marines in 1969, he volunteered for overseas duty but
was rejected because of high blood pressure and bleeding feet. He
went AWOL because an automobile rental agent threatened to have him
placed in the brig. He was absent from the Marines for three years.
At his court-martial, he received a sentence of Bad Conduct Discharge
and nine months imprisonment. He has served approximately ten months
in prison, including pretrial confinement. He has ten months of cre-
ditable service.
Disposition: Executive Clemency, 3 months alternate service.
Upon completion of alternate service, Clemency
Discharge and Pardon.
112-M
M13
This applicant is white, in his early twenties, and grew up in an
economically-deprived midwestern family. He has completed only
two years of high school. He enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps at
the behest of his stepfather, but with the reluctant consent of his
natural mother. He served honorably for 18 months before going
AWOL because of an overwhelming family crisis. During his
absence, he became a religious convert. Finding that his religious
conscience could no longer cope with his disregard of his legal
obligations, he surrendered to the military authorities. He was
prosecuted before a general court-martial and sentenced to a Bad
Conduct Discharge and imprisonment for five months. The applicant
was successful in rehabilitating himself upon release from confinement
by finding employment in industry.
Disposition: Executive Clemency, 3 months alternate service.
Upon completion of alternate service, Clemency
Discharge and Pardon.
21a-m
M14
This applicant is white and the oldest of two children. He has only a
7th grade education. Enlisting in the Army, he was trained as an
armor crewman and assigned to Germany. He served for over one
year until he went AWOL to attend to some marital problems. His
emotional distress caused him to commit two other unauthorized
absences. His second and third absences lasted for four years and
eight months. After apprehension, he was sentenced by a court-
martial, given a Dishonorable Discharge and imprisoned for eight
months. He has served over six months of confinement. He has over
one year and four months creditable service.
Disposition: Executive Clemency, 3 months alternate service.
Upon completion of alternate service, Clemency
Discharge and Pardon.
242-m
M15
This applicant is black, married and has two children. He was born
and raised in a large city in the Midwest and is the second of three
children. His parents were separated when applicant was ten years
old. Because his mother suffered from heart trouble, applicant began
working part-time at the age of twelve and eventually quit school after
completing the 10th grade to support his family. At the time of his
induction into the Army, applicant was married, had a child and was
the sole support of his invalid mother. Applicant's AWOL was preci-
pitated by the medical and financial problems suffered by his family.
He was absent six and one-half years. He was sentenced to a Bad
Conduct Discharge, to forfeit all pay and allowances and to be confined
at hard labor for five months. He served four months of the sentence.
He has five months creditable service.
Disposition: Executive Clemency, 3 months alternate service.
Upon completion of alternate service, Clemency
Discharge and Pardon.
175m
M16
This applicant is black and grew up as one of ten children in a low-
income family in the South. His father is a disabled farm laborer.
He quit school after the 8th grade to work as a farm laborer also.
He was drafted into the Army, where he has received excellent conduct
and proficiency ratings. He served over one and one-half years of
creditable service, including a full tour of duty in Vietnam. He then
went AWOL and he worked as a farm laborer to support his family
during his six and one-half year absence. In a court-martial, he was
given a Bad Conduct Discharge and sentenced to two and one-half
months in confinement. He was confined over four months, including
48 days or pretrial confinement.
Disposition: Executive Clemency, 3 months alternate service.
Upon completion of alternate service, Clemency
Discharge and Pardon.
113-M
M17
Applicant is white and the product of a low-income background and
family instability; his formal education is limited. He withdrew
from school to become self-sustaining because his relatives were
unable to help him. After enlisting in the Marine Corps, he volunteered
for service in Vietnam. He then married and encountered financial
problems. He returned home on emergency leave to discover his
pregnant wife could no longer live with her sister. He then absented
himself for almost five years to provide her support and a home.
After apprehension, he was sentenced to a Dishonorable Discharge
and six months confinement. At his trial, numerous associates attested
to his outstanding character and reputation in his community. In con-
finement, he was a model prisoner. He has served four months of his
sentence and has completed approximately six months of creditable
service.
Disposition: Executive Clemency, 6 months alternate service.
Upon completion of alternate service, Clemency
Discharge and Pardon.
232-M
M18
This black applicant was born and raised in Texas in a stable home
environment. He completed one year of college. He is married and
has two children. He was drafted into the Marines in 1969. Prior to
being drafted he worked as a truck driver. He states that he went
AWOL in 1971 to be with his family and help them resolve several
serious problems. One of his children died in 1972, and his father
is in poor health. He was employed during his unauthorized absence.
Apprehended in 1974, he was sentenced to a Bad Conduct Discharge and
imprisonment for nine months. He has seven months of creditable
service and has served three months of confinement.
Disposition: Executive Clemency, six months alternate service.
Upon completion of alternate service, Clemency
Discharge and Pardon.
106-m
M19
Born in a stable midwestern Caucasian family, applicant is the oldest
of three children. His formal education is very limited. Inducted
into the Army, applicant was trained as an infantryman. On leave,
pending assignment overseas, applicant discovered that his wife was
contemplating divorce. Emotionally disturbed, he overstayed his
leave. Applicant remained AWOL for four years and eleven months.
He was court-martialed, sentenced to a Bad Conduct Discharge, and
ten months confinement. He has served over three months of that
sentence. He has nearly five months of creditable military service.
Disposition: Executive Clemency, 6 months alternate service.
Upon completion of alternate service, Clemency
Discharge and Pardon.
170-m
M 20
This applicant, who is white and 26 years old, was born and raised
in*the Northeast in a family of poor financial circumstances. After
the 11th grade, he dropped out of school to get a job. The following
year he enlisted in the Army and obtained his GED. During his
first year he had two lengthy periods of AWOL for which he was
sentenced to six months confinement. The third time he remained
absent for over seven years. During this time both his father and
his brother had health problems and he worked in a factory to help
support the family. After turning himself in, he was convicted and
sentenced to a Bad Conduct Discharge and three months confinement.
Including pretrial detention, he has served four months and ten days
in confinement.
Disposition: Executive Clemency, 6 months alternate service.
Upon completion of alternate service, Clemency
Discharge and Pardon.
162-111
M 21
This applicant is black, in his mid-twenties, and grew up in an
intact family with seven children. He dropped out of high school in
the 11th grade and thereafter enlisted in the Army. He has nine months,
20 days of creditable military service, during which his conduct and
efficiency were rated excellent. He went AWOL after injuring his arm in
a parachute jump and being unable to relieve the pain. He married while
AWOL and now has three children. He was convicted for two months of
AWOL; he received a Bad Conduct Discharge and six months confinement.
He has served three months of his sentence.
Disposition: Executive Clemency, 6 months alternate service.
Upon completion of alternate service, Clemency
Discharge and Pardon.
120-m
M 22
This applicant is white, in his early twenties, and was raised in a
stable home environment in the South. After completing nine years
of education he went to work for a construction company and later
enlisted in the Marine Corps. He has over five months creditable
service. During Infantry Training School he experienced back
problems, and, unable to obtain satisfactory medical treatment, he
went AWOL. Thirteen months later he surrendered but again went
AWOL during his trial. He was sentenced in absentia to a Bad Conduct
Discharge and six months confinement. He later surrendered and has
served two months of his sentence.
Disposition: Executive Clemency, 6 months alternate service.
Upon completion of alternate service, Clemency
Discharge and Pardon.
125-M
M23
The applicant is white and lived in a large New England family. His
family was on welfare, and he completed only eight years of school.
He is now married and has two children. After enlisting in the Marine
Corps, he had eight months of creditable service. His two incidents
of AWOL totaled almost fifteen months. The first time, he and a friend
went on leave, and he was afraid to return when his friend went AWOL.
The second offense occurred when he was having marital troubles. At
his court-martial he received a Bad Conduct Discharge and a seven
month sentence. He has served over five months of that sentence.
Disposition: Executive Clemency, seven months alternate service. Upon
completion of alternate service, Clemency Discharge and
Pardon.
176-m
M24
This applicant is black, is the youngest of nine children, and was raised
by his mother in a stable but low-income midwestern home. He gradu-
ated from high school and worked as a laborer and painter until he was
drafted. After almost six months service, he went AWOL rather than
report to an overseas replacement station because of his opposition to
the Vietnam War. He had never applied for conscientious objector
status because he had no religious justification for doing SO. He returned
but went AWOL again, making him absent for a total of over four and one-
half years. After a court-martial and sentence review, he was given a
Bad Conduct Discharge and sentenced to four months confinement. He has
served that sentence, plus two months of pretrial confinement.
Disposition: Executive Clemency, nine months alternate service. Upon
completion of alternate service, Clemency Discharge and
Pardon.
221-M
M 25
This applicant, in his early thirties, is the third of five children born to
a stable but low-income white family in the South. He dropped out of
school in the 10th grade. After being drafted into the Army, he enlisted
for a regular term of service. His total creditable service is two years
and four months. He went AWOL shortly before the termination of his
enlistment because of frustration about his inability to ascertain his pro-
jected date of discharge, his concern for his ailing father, and the finan-
cial plight of his family. During his absence he worked in construction.
After an absence of five years and nine months, he was sentenced to a
Dishonorable Discharge and imprisonment for four months. He has served
over three months of that sentence.
Disposition: Executive Clemency, nine months alternate service. Upon
completion of alternate service, Clemency Discharge and
Pardon.
196-M
M 26 M 26
This applicant is white, in his mid-twenties, and was raised in
a large family in the West. Although the family was not well off
financially, a very good family relationship existed. This
applicant completed one year of college before leaving because
of a drug problem. He married and with his wife's help stopped
taking drugs. He was subsequently drafted and, due to the avail-
ability of drugs in the Army and the pressure that he was under,
he began taking them again. To receive treatment for his drug
problem and to be with his wife who was eight months pregnant,
this applicant went AWOL. After being AWOL for over 2 1/2 years,
he was court-martialed and sentenced to a Bad Conduct Discharge
with eight months confinement. He has served four months in
prison. He has four and a half months creditable service.
Disposition: Executive Clemency, eleven months alternate service.
Upon completion of alternate service, Clemency
Discharge and Pardon.
111-M
M 27
This applicant, in his early twenties, is white and the third of
five children born to a low-income and very unstable family. He
only completed the eighth grade. When he was young, his mother
divorced his father because of physical cruelty. He continued
to live with his natural father, a farm laborer. At the age of
twelve, he resumed living with his mother who had remarried. He
lived with this family unit until age fifteen when he separated
because of conflict with his stepfather. At the age of eighteen,
he enlisted in the USMC. Although achieving satisfactory
proficiency and conduct ratings during his four months of creditable
service, he went AWOL twice for a total of over two years. He was
sentenced to a Bad Conduct Discharge and imprisonment for 8 months,
two months of which he has served.
Disposition: Executive Clemency, eleven months alternate service.
Upon completion of alternate service, Clemency
Discharge and Pardon.
256-m
M 28
This applicant, in his mid-twenties, is of Hawaiian ancestry. He
was drafted into the Army after leaving high school, but he claimed
to be unfit for military service because of his bad back. His
claim was rejected, and he later went AWOL to get medical treatment
for his back problem. After 3 1/2 years of AWOL, he surrendered to
civil authorities. He has nine months of creditable service. In
a court-martial, he was sentenced to a Bad Conduct Discharge and
confinement for ten months. He was incarcerated for nearly six
months.
Disposition: Executive Clemency, ten months alternate service.
Upon completion of alternate service, Clemency
Discharge and Pardon.
205 m
M 29
This applicant, who is white and in his late twenties, was born and
raised in New England. He dropped out of high school prior to gradu-
ation due to his marriage and the birth of a child, and joined the
National Guard. Two years later, he was discharged for failure to
attend meetings and, two years after that, was ordered to active duty.
In the meantime, he had obtained his GED Certificate and worked as a
truckdriver, accountant, salesman, and sales manager. He explains
his AWOL was because he was unable to obtain a medical discharge for
a back problem. He was apprehended after six months, but three weeks
later again went AWOL and this time remained absent over four and one-
half years. Part of the time, he was in a Canadian prison for a bigamy
conviction, due to his mistaken belief that his first marriage had been
annulled. After being released to U. S. authorities, he was convicted
and sentenced to ten months confinement and a Bad Conduct Discharge.
The applicant has served eight months and twenty days in prison. He has
almost ten months creditable service.
Disposition: Executive Clemency, twelve months alternate service.
Upon completion of alternate service, Clemency Discharge
and Pardon.
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 24, 1975
ACTION
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
FROM:
CHARLES E. GOODELL
SUBJECT:
Three Decisions on Your Clemency Program
This memorandum forwards, on behalf of a unanimous Presidential
Clemency Board, three recommendations for decision by you. Each
issue has been discussed with Jack Marsh, Martin Hoffmann, and
representatives of the Justice Department and of the White House Counsel's
office in a meeting last Thursday afternoon. The questions for decision,
your options, and the positions of the parties involved are presented
below.
I.
Should you issue military discharges "under honorable conditions,"
upon recommendation by the Presidential Clemency Board, to ex-
servicemen whom the Board believes to be particularly meritorious?
BACKGROUND
The Clemency Board has, in its review of applications before it,
discovered that some of the veterans seeking upgrading of bad discharges
had meritorious Vietnam combat experience. The Board recommends
that you order General Discharges for these cases.
Since your Counsel believes that such an order requires amendment of
the Executive Order which created the Board, the Board further recommends
that you direct that the Executive Order be amended to specify that the
Board may, in exceptional cases, recommend that you order a discharge
"under honorable conditions."
DISCUSSION
Jack Marsh, Martin Hoffmann, and I agree that you have a political
decision to make: If you choose to follow the Clemency Board's
recommendation, should you openly and publicly grant better than
- 2 -
Clemency Discharges to particularly meritorious cases, or should
the Department of Defense upgrade these discharges quietly through
its normal processes?
In the Thursday meeting, the Defense Department--while maintaining
its official opposition to the Board's recommendation on the grounds
that such upgrading would be inconsistent with the Department's treatment
of clemency applicants--stated that your upgrading of these discharges
would cause no problem of precedent. The Department has itself granted
33 such upgradings in cases under its jurisdiction, by removing those
particularly meritorious cases from normal clemency processing at
Fort Benjamin Harrison and sending them to other military bases for
upgraded discharge processing.
The Board believes that you should order the recommended upgradings,
and do so publicly, because of the merits of the cases themselves and
because of the political impact which will follow. Each of the five
veterans whose cases we have commended to you have served gallantly
in combat in Vietnam, and have clearly extenuating circumstances for
their AWOL. Taken as a whole, their records support the grant of an
upgraded discharge.
General Walt and Jim Maye have discussed these cases with veterans
and with representatives of the various veterans groups. They have re-
ceived an unofficial, but unanimous, impression of support from the
veterans' groups leaders, although those leaders feel that they cannot
publicly reverse their opposition to the clemency program as a whole.
The Vietnam veterans on the Board felt so strongly about these cases that
they asked to write a separate memorandum to you. That memorandum,
which eloquently expresses their views, is attached.
The most important reason for you to make this decision, and to do so
openly, is because equity clearly suggests that these particular cases,
and exceptional ones like them which the Board may discover in the
future, deserve veterans benefits and public recognition of their service
to the country. Your emphasizing that that is your feeling will increase
the growing public awareness that there is much more to your clemency
program than people returning from Canada--indeed, that the program has
critical value for Vietnam veterans. Veterans around the country, as
they begin to understand the Presidential Clemency Board's part of the
- 3 -
program have been increasingly sympathetic to it. Your public
announcement will further increase public understanding of the
program.
OPTIONS
(a) Issue discharges "under honorable conditions" for the five
cases recommended by the Board, amend the Executive Order
in order to explicitly grant the Board authority to make such
recommendations in the future, and announce to the public
your action in the five cases.
(b) Direct the Department of Defense to issue quietly the five
upgraded discharges, do not amend the Executive Order, and
make no public announcement.
(c) Do not upgrade these five discharges to "under honorable
conditions."
DECISION: (a)
(b)
(c)
II. Should you direct the Department of Defense that its discharge
review boards not consider pardoned AWOL offenses as part of
a serviceman's record if he has received clemency from you
upon recommendation by the Presidential Clemency Board?
BACKGROUND
Each military department has a discharge review board to which all
veterans have the right to apply for review and upgrading of their
discharges. A veteran retains this right after he has received clemency
under your clemency program upon recommendation of the Board--
he may still apply to have his Clemency Discharge upgraded to a
General or an Honorable Discharge. The question is whether, when
he applies to the military review board, that board should treat the
offense which you have pardoned as if the offense were not in the file
at all.
- 4 -
DISCUSSION
The Clemency Board feels, as a matter of equity, that the offense
pardoned should no longer be considered by the military discharge
review board. The Defense Department and the Counsel's office
oppose the Board's recommendation. At Thursday's meeting, the
Justice Department representative indicated that as a matter of law
that probably has to be done even absent any action by you. We feel,
therefore, that what we are asking you to do is to make explicit, in
the perception of the military review boards and of potential clemency
applicants, what the law already probably requires if you are silent
on the question.
You may, of course, decide that your pardon should provide that the
pardoned offense explicitly should be considered in the military review
process. We feel that it is that position--and not the Board's recommenda-
tion--which would be a significant change in the program as you created
it. We note, moreover, that you have already granted 28 irrevocable
unconditional pardons.
There is certainly no danger of this procedure opening the floodgates
and resulting in most Clemency Discharges being upgraded further,
since the military itself will implement the discharge review process,
and is by no means disposed to grant upgrades in large numbers.
If military review boards do not give full effect to your pardon, there
inevitably will be lawsuits on this issue during 1976. We believe it
preferable to avoid judicial consideration of this issue, much less
adverse judicial decision, next year.
OPTIONS
(a) Direct that military discharge review boards not consider AWOL
offenses pardoned under your clemency program as part of the
serviceman's record.
(b) Remain silent on the issue.
(c) Require that the military review boards consider such pardoned
offenses as part of the record.
DECISION: (a)
(b)
(c)
- 5 -
III.
Should you extend the Presidential Clemency Board's application
deadline for two months?
BACKGROUND
Since the Board began its information program, its applications have
risen from 850 in early January to 8, 000 by mid-February. The surge
in applications has continued unabated after January 31, at a constant
rate of nearly 1, 500 per week. Board members traveling the country,
the reaction of the media, and the letters we receive all make it un-
questionably clear that the public is just now learning that exiled draft
evaders and deserters are not the only people eligible for clemency.
Until this week, many veterans' groups did not even realize that Vietnam
veterans with later AWOL discharges could apply.
The Board recommends that you extend its phase of the program an
additional two months, and the Departments of Justice and Defense
recommend that their phases of the program not be extended.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to your order, the Department of Defense mailed over 20, 000
notices to eligible veterans about a week ago. Many responses from this
notice will not come in until after the March 1 deadline. Defense has
indicated that they cannot reach the other 90, 000 eligible veterans by
mail, and we therefore need increased time to get the word to them
through local media and grass-roots veterans counseling groups.
Should you approve the Board's recommendation on upgraded discharges
in exceptionally meritorious cases, you should allow time for the media
to make this decision known to potential applicants before the program ends.
Moreover, the several hundred grass-roots veterans' counseling groups
have indicated that they will help spread the word on your decision if
they have the time. Veterans with meritorious Vietnam service should
have the opportunity to respond to the decision you make.
Terminating the program and announcing the upgradings thereafter,
without giving Vietnam veterans a chance to accept your offer of clemency,
will be subject to serious criticism from the public and from veterans
groups.
Whatever your decision on deadline extension, it should be announced
before March 1.
- 6 -
OPTIONS
(a) Extend the application deadline for two months for the
Clemency Board only.
(b) Extend the application deadline for all phases of the program.
(c) Announce that there will be no extension beyond March 1, 1975.
DECISION: (a)
(b)
(c)
Attachment
WITHDRAWAL SHEET (PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARIES)
FORM OF
CORRESPONDENTS OR TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
DOCUMENT
Report
Presidential Clemency Boad case summaries and dispositions, 5
N.D.
C
pages
File Location:
Charles Goodell Papers, Box 8, "Memoranda - President and White House Staff" SMD - 6/22/2015
RESTRICTION CODES
(A) Closed by applicable Executive order governing access to national security information.
(B) Closed by statute or by the agency which originated the document.
(C) Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in the donor's deed of gift.
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
NA FORM 1429 (1-98)
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
February 6, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
LEWIS W. WALT
JAMES DOUGOVITO
JAMES MAYE
In reference to those cases of Vietnam veterans, being recommended
by the Presidential Clemency Board for upgrading to a general dis-
charge with veterans' benefits, we, as active participants of the
Vietnam War and as Members of the Presidential Clemency Board,
would like to express our views.
We are in favor of the upgrading for the following reasons:
(1) These men served our Country well in Vietnam, some
of them distinguished themselves on the battlefield
and suffered wounds in combat.
(2) Upon their return home, they were confronted by an
anti-war - anti-military atmosphere in which they
were not recognized as heros but as individuals who
had committed crimes. Their service to our Country
was not appreciated.
(3) It is always difficult for a man to adjust when he
returns home from war. The general attitude of our
American public made this adjustment even more diffi-
cult for these young Americans, and peer pressure
forced them to do things which under normal conditions
they would not have done.
We earnestly believe that an act of compassion and an expression of
appreciation for their combat service in Vietnam is justified.
Mr. President, it may be helpful to you to know that each of us has
spoken of these cases at various meetings with veterans and press
groups around the Country. We outlined the cases and stated our
recommendations. In every case, the response was very favorable.
In view of the aforementioned facts, we recommend, in these specific
cases, a Presidential Pardon, an upgrading to a general discharge,
and the granting of appropriate veterans' benefits,
Leurs Walt
Dame Q Maga
P. Dougovito
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
February 24, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
CHARLES E. GOODELL
Charles E. Hoodell
SUBJECT:
CLEMENCY BOARD FUNDING ESTIMATES
The following are my estimates of what resources would be required
for the Presidential Clemency Board to review 10,500 to 12,000 cases
by June 30, 1975 (Alternative A), December 31, 1975 (Alternative B),
and September 30, 1975 (Alternative C). You will note that our re-
source estimates are seven times greater than the estimates made by
your Counsel's office. You should also be aware that the Board has
not yet approved any of the procedural alternatives mentioned below:
Alternative A: (Completion by June 30, 1975)
Assumptions:
(1) The total number of cases will be between 10,500 and
12,000 by March 1, 1975. (This is a minimum figure. Actual
applications could amount to as many as 12,000).
(2) The Board drastically revised its current procedures of
reviewing cases. The drastic change means near abandonment of the
case-by-case approach. Several Board Members would object to this
blanket approach, and other Board Members might consider it an abridg-
ment of due process.
(3) Two hundred and eighty (280) additional unreimbursible
detailees are provided, (185 professionals and 95 secretarial/
clerical). Detailees would continue and unanticipated funds would
be used until June 30, the end of FY 1975. After that date, non-
reimbursible detailees would be provided immediately. Appropriations
for FY 76 would be requested from the Congress.
(4) Five additional Board Members are named.
(5) Board Member-days per month are increased to 90, and case
review is increased to 3,500 cases per month by April 1.
- 2 -
Estimated Cost: $95,000 + (Extra detailees may involve
additional overhead.)
Sources:
Unanticipated personnel needs fund.
Alternative B:
(Completion by December 31, 1975)
Assumptions:
(1) Same as A above (10,500 to 12,000 cases).
(2) The Board partially revises its current procedures of
reviewing cases.
(3) One hundred and five (105) additional paid staff are
provided (70 professionals and 35 secretarial/clerical).
(4) One new Board member is named.
(5) Board member-days per month are increased to 55, and case
review is increased to 1100 cases per month by April 1.
Estimated Cost: $1,365,000
Sources:
$95,000 for the remainder of FY 1975 from
unanticipated personnel needs fund, plus
$1,270,000 from Congress for FY 1976.
Alternative C:
(Completion by September 30, 1975)
Assumptions:
(1) Same as A above (10,500 to 12,000 cases).
(2) Same as B above (partial revision of current Board procedures).
(3) One hundred-eighty (180) additional paid staff are provided
(120 professionals and 60 clerical).
(4) Five additional Board members are named.
(5) Board member-days per month are increased to 90, and case
review is increased to 1800 per month by April 1.
Estimated Cost: $170,000
Sources:
Unanticipated personnel needs fund. (Technically, OMB
counsel says that unanticipated reserve funds cannot be obligated beyond
June 30; however, this alternative anticipates completion by June 30 with a
spillover of three months).
Chairman Goodell
February 24, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JOHN O. MARSH, JR.
FORD & LIBRARY QERALD
FROM:
JAY T. FRENCH
SUBJECT:
Recommendations of Presidential
Clemency Board
ISSUE A - Recommendation that the Board be permitted to
recommend the issuance of honorable discharges
in meritorious cases.
1. (a) The problem that the Board wants to have
expanded authority to correct is a larger
and different problem than that problem
which the Board and the program were
designed to correct.
(b) Each Military Department has existing
civilian and military records review
boards which are capable of rectifying
any wrongs in these cases.
(c) This action is a significant departure
from the program.
(d) Counsel takes no position on the merits
but points out that the Secretary of the
Army does not believe these cases are
meritorious.
2.
(a)
White House Counsel and Justice believe
that the Executive Order establishing
the Clemency Board would have to be
amended. See Section 3 of the Executive
Order.
(b) Justice points out that such authority
was considered and rejected by those who
drafted the original documents of the
program.
2
3.
(a) The Board wants to publicize the fact
of this expanded authority, if you
concur. We believe this is unwise
politically.
(b) Also, these five (5) cases were
selected from the first 60 cases.
It is estimated, by the Board, that
it may deal with 6,000 military cases;
therefore 500 cases would ultimately
be given honorable discharges. This
is a significant broadening of the
Board's authority.
(c) If honorable discharges are issued
under the program, the recipients
will be able to obtain veterans
benefits. Publication of this fact
will be misunderstood by the public.
Also, it will appear that you are
enticing applicants.
(d) Another extension may be required
merely to allow time for the board
to inform servicemen of this new
authority.
ISSUE B - Extension of the Clemency Board's Application Date
1.
The first extension really aided the Clemency
Board because there was no great increase in
Defense's or Justice's applications after the
first extension. Another extension, however,
is simply not necessary for the Board. It
began its information campaign in mid January
and we believe by March 1st that ample time
has been allowed.
2.
Existing clemency avenues remain available at
the Department of Justice after the program
concludes.
3
ISSUE C - What legal effect should be given to the pardon
for the purpose of further review of cases by
the Defense Department review boards.
1.
(a) The White House Counsel agrees with the
Clemency Board that further review of
military cases, which have been processed
by the Board, should be permitted by ex-
isting review boards at Defense.
(b) However, these review boards should consider
the entire record of the serviceman. If the
pardon "wipes out" the offenses of unauthorized
absence, then the boards at Defense will have
to upgrade the Clemency Discharge (which you
have just given) to an honorable discharge
which will allow veterans benefits in about
30% of the cases.
(c) The Board's request is that you permit
"boot strapping" by which 308 of those
servicemen who apply to the Board use
your pardon to get the Clemency Discharge
changed to an honorable one. This defeats
the purpose of your program.
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
February 24, 1975
&
FORD
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
GERALD
FROM:
CHARLES E. GOODELL
SUBJECT:
CLEMENCY BOARD FUNDING ESTIMATES
The following are my estimates of what resources would be required
for the Presidential Clemency Board to review 10,500 to 12,000 cases
by June 30, 1975 (Alternative A), December 31, 1975 (Alternative B),
and September 30, 1975 (Alternative C). You will note that our re-
source estimates are seven times greater than the estimates made by
your Counsel's office. You should also be aware that the Board has
not yet approved any of the procedural alternatives mentioned below:
Alternative A: (Completion by June 30, 1975)
Assumptions:
(1) The total number of cases will be between 10,500 and
12,000 by March 1, 1975. (This is a minimum figure. Actual
applications could amount to as many as 12,000).
(2) The Board drastically revised its current procedures of
reviewing cases. The drastic change means near abandonment of the
case-by-case approach. Several Board Members would object to this
blanket approach, and other Board Members might consider it an abridg-
ment of due process.
(3) Two hundred and eighty (280) additional unreimbursible
detailees are provided, (185 professionals and 95 secretarial/
clerical). Detailees would continue and unanticipated funds would
be used until June 30, the end of FY 1975. After that date, non-
reimbursible detailees would be provided immediately. Appropriations
for FY 76 would be requested from the Congress.
(4) Five additional Board Members are named.
(5) Board Member-days per month are increased to 90, and case
review is increased to 3,500 cases per month by April 1.
- 2 -
Estimated Cost:
$95,000 + (Extra detailees may involve
additional overhead.)
Sources:
Unanticipated personnel needs fund.
Alternative B:
(Completion by December 31, 1975)
Assumptions:
(1) Same as A above (10,500 to 12,000 cases).
(2) The Board partially revises its current procedures of
reviewing cases.
(3) One hundred and five (105) additional paid staff are
provided (70 professionals and 35 secretarial/clerical).
(4) One new Board member is named.
(5) Board member-days per month are increased to 55, and case
review is increased to 1100 cases per month by April 1.
Estimated Cost: $1,365,000
Sources:
$95,000 for the remainder of FY 1975 from
unanticipated personnel needs fund, plus
$1,270,000 from Congress for FY 1976.
Alternative C:
(Completion by September 30, 1975)
Assumptions:
(1) Same as A above (10,500 to 12,000 cases).
(2) Same as B above (partial revision of current Board procedures).
(3) One hundred-eighty (180) additional paid staff are provided
(120 professionals and 60 clerical).
(4) Five additional Board members are named.
(5) Board member-days per month are increased to 90, and case
review is increased to 1800 per month by April 1.
Estimated Cost: $170,000
Sources:
Unanticipated personnel needs fund. (Technically, OMB
counsel says that unanticipated reserve funds cannot be obligated beyond
June 30; however, this alternative anticipates completion by June 30 with a
spillover of three months).
extra
CEG
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
ACTION
April 18, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Cherles c? Hoodell
FROM:
CHARLES E. GOODELL
GERALD R. FORD
SUBJECT:
Case #041
At the request of the members of the Presidential Clemency Board,
I am transmitting to you by special memorandum Case #041. The
Board has considered this case a number of times and is divided
on the proper recommendation. They ask that you consider the
case personally.
The Board, by a divided vote of 4 - 3, recommends a full and
immediate pardon. The majority believes that this applicant was
so mentally ill that he was not responsible for his action. They
also believe that his continuing psychological problems are such
as to make him unable to perform any alternative service. In
effect, a requirement to do service would be tantamount to a denial
of clemency. The minority believes that a period of alternative
service of at least three months is proper. They are not persuaded
by the evidence of mental infirmity. It is quite clear that absent
this infirmity the Board would have recommended that this particular
individual perform a term of service.
The summary prepared for the Board's use is attached.
OPTIONS:
(a) Approve an immediate pardon for Case #041.
(b) Approve a pardon conditioned on 3 months
alternative service.
DECISION:
(a)
(b)
Attachment
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
Case Summary
Case No. 74-041
-C
Sentence: 2 years; no jail time
Present Status: PCB furlough
Time Served: 8 months, 2 days
Offense: Failure to report for
civilian duty
Background
Applicant was born on 20 Oct 1946 in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. He is the
younger of two children. The applicant's father reportedly (presentence
report) is an alcoholic and thrice married. The second marriage followed
a period of four to five years during which the applicant lived with his pater-
nal grandparents. The second wife of applicant's father reportedly was such
a poor housekeeper (prison report) that a half-sister was hospitalized due
to living conditions. The third marriage is reportedly a happy one and the
applicant's stepmother took a strong interest in him. During high school
the applicant was seen as an "All American Boy". He was in the upper 15%
of his class, played football for two years, and was president of his senior
class. Upon graduation in 1965 the applicant entered the University of
Cincinnati. He continued there until spring of 1968 where he accumulated
142 quarter hours. Following a short period of work and another semester
of school, the applicant left the country to travel in Europe, Africa and
Lebanon. He was arrested and sentenced in Beirut, Lebanon, to a three year
prison term for smuggling hashish. A panel of medical experts found his
medical condition unstable and the sentence was reduced to nine months (pre-
sentence report). Subsequently the applicant appeared in Holland where he
joined a society that advocated the benefits of trephination. The applicant
performed this operation on himself (drove a hole in his skull), was sub-
sequently hospitalized for infection, returned to the United States and hos-
pitalized in Cincinnati, Ohio. The report of a prison psychiatrist indicates
the applicant is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia (prison report).
Circumstances of Offense
The applicant registered for the draft, received a student deferment, and
in 1967 was granted conscientious objector status. In July 1969 the appli-
cant was authorized civilian work at Citizens Hospital in Ohio but failed
to report.
Done - Council
Judy 456-2219 Johnson
nudo comments
9/8-3:30pm. -
9/8/75
3:3pm
Lany-
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
Judy Johnson of the
Domestic Cauncil
whedt have our
called To say she was
Commens For the
stord her may he
Lynn Exce. Ordn today.
tomorrow.
< Evelyn
R U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1969-339-156
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.: 7500127
Date: September 4
Time: 1230pm
Charles Goodell
FOR ACTION:
Max Friedersdorf
CC (for information):
Jim Cavanaugh
Ken Lazarus/Jay French
Jack Marsh
Paul Theis
Warren Hendriks
Dick Parsons
NSC/S
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date: September 5
Time: 200pm
SUBJECT:
Executive Order - Termination of Clemency Board
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
X
For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
cace comments to
Please return to Judy Johnston, Ground Floor West Wing
456-2219
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
Janes R. Covernment
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
SEP
3 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Subject: Termination of Clemency Board
The attached Executive Order was prepared in this office
and its substantive provisions have been coordinated with
the Departments of Defense, Justice and the Selective
Service System. It has the approval of the Attorney
General.
The Executive Order specifically:
Terminates the Presidential Clemency Board on
September 15, 1975, in accordance with your
decision of February 27, 1975.
Delegates carry-over workload to the Department
of Justice and requires DOJ to complete these
carry-over activities by March 31, 1976.
Delegates authority to OMB to take the necessary
action to ensure the orderly and prompt termina-
tion of the PCB.
Directs the DOJ to report to the President their
findings and recommendations.
In addition to the above, I have taken the following actions
to assure an orderly transition of the PCB activities to the
DOJ.
A high level joint transitional oversight committee
has been established to review PCB functions that
will require action after September 15, 1975. This
oversight committee is chaired by DOJ, and includes
staff from DOD, SSS, GSA, PCB and OMB.
2
DOD/GSA have begun work with PCB for orderly return
of records to appropriate centers.
GSA will assist DOJ in meeting any transitional poten-
tial problems concerning space or logistical support,
etc.
Selective Service/DOJ have agreed on an alternative
service procedure after September 15, 1975.
I recommend you sign the Executive Order. We will continue to
report to you on Clemency Board activities on a weekly basis.
Jan Justif Director T. Lynn
Attachment
ASSIGNING RESPONSIBILITIES RELATING TO ACTIVITIES
OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
By virtue of the authority vested in me by
the Constitution of the United States of America,
and as President of the United States of America,
it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Section 9 of Executive Order
No. 11803 of September 16, 1974, as amended, is
amended to read:
"The Board shall submit its final recom-
mendations to the President not later than
September 15, 1975, at which time it shall
cease to exist."
Sec. 2. Any applications for Executive
clemency, as to which the Presidential Clemency
Board (established by Executive Order No. 11803)
has not taken final action shall be transferred,
together with the files related thereto, to
the Attorney General.
Sec. 3. The Attorney General, with respect
to the applications and related files transferred
to him by Section 2 of this Order, shall take all
actions appropriate or necessary to complete the
clemency process and shall expeditiously report
to the President his findings and recommendations
as to whether Executive clemency should be granted
or denied in any case. In performing his responsi-
bilities under this Order, the Attorney General
shall apply the relevant criteria and comply with
the appropriate and applicable instructions and
procedures established by Executive Order No. 11803
2
No. 4313 of September 16, 1974, as amended, Exec-
utive Order No. 11804 of September 16, 1974, and,
to the extent that he deems appropriate, the
regulations of the Presidential Clemency Board and
the Selective Service System issued pursuant to the
foregoing Executive orders.
Sec. 4. The Director of the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget is hereby designated and empowered
to take such action as he deems necessary to ensure
the orderly and prompt termination of the activ-
ities of the Presidential Clemency Board and the
assignment of responsibilities directed by this
Order.
Sec. 5. Departments and agencies in the Exec-
utive branch shall, to the extent permitted by law,
cooperate with and assist the Attorney General, the
Director of the Selective Service, and the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget in the per-
formance of their responsibilities under this Order.
Sec. 6. The responsibilities assigned under
this Order are to be completed no later than
March 31, 1976, at which time the Attorney General
shall submit his final recommendations to the President.
THE WHITE HOUSE
1975
Draft Statement for the President
I am today signing an Executive Order terminating the Presidential
Clemency Board, which has completed its consideration of all
applications for clemency made to it. The Board has worked day
and night for the past 5 months in order to meet the target of
September 15 which I set for it, and it has made recommendations
to me on approximately 15,500 cases. 5, 000 applications to it
proved to be from people ineligible for consideration under the
Proclamation which established the clemency program.
One year ago tomorrow, I established the Presidential Clemency
Board as a temporary organization within the White House, in order
to carefully consider on a case-by-case basis whether applicants
to it ought to be granted clemency, and on what terms. As I had
intended, the Board gave careful attention to each individual case,
and did not simply recommend blanket amnesty for whole categories
of applicants.
I am proud that the Board is breaking governmental precedent by
getting its job done and going out of existence within the deadline
Each (ane revraued individually. consistent realts. tustice in each are
set for it. They did an dine jeb F the sublic service.
It seems to me critical that the American people understand that
although there are cases of clemency which have been granted to
those who conscientiously opposed the war in Vietnam, most of the action
clemency cases have turned out to have nothing to do with opposition
to the war. By and large, they involve family hardship cases and
cases in which former servicemen fought well in Vietnam, and then
cracked under the strain after they had completed their duty in the
combat zone. They were generally unsophisticated, uneducated,
inarticulate people who just did not know the proper channels when
they ran into dying parents, sick children, deserting spouses, or
just plain emotional problems.
These are not at all the kind of people whom we, as a nation, pictured
as the stereotype draft evader or deserter. These are, rather,
unfortunates who have shown that they are willing to fulfill their
obligation to their country by doing alternative service, and whom
we should accept back into their communities. Where they are
former servicemen with a Clemency Discharge, I hope that
neighbors and employers will treat them as ordinary people
who GERALD FORD LIBRARY
have earned their re-entry into their community, who have earned
the privilege of being treated just the same as anyone else.
Full and to eizhty citizens. to
recognition of there who servid unliants,
fought, inconsiblent. chied santical May not
2
I ask the business community, particularly the small businessmen
and the manufacturers who will employ most of these people, for
their help in this.
I am gratified to note that the recent Gallup Poll shows, consistently
with other surveys, that 85% of the American people will welcome
back into their communities those who have earned re-entry under
the clemency program. I am especially pleased to note that veterans
in general, and Vietnam veterans in particular, have overwhelmingly
indicated that they intend to accept clemency recipients back.
It is this generous reaction of the American people, and particularly
of those most intimately acquainted with the Vietnam war, which
will make the clemency program a success in healing the divisions
generated by the wary and in consigning the elemency /ammosty issue
to the pages of history.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 15, 1975
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The enclosed copy of an Executive Order by the
President, entitled "Assigning Responsibilities
Relating to Activities of the Presidential
Clemency Board," is transmitted for the files
of the Presidential Clemency Board.
Sincerely,
Robert D. Linded
Robert D. Linder
Chief Executive Clerk
The Honorable Charles E. Goodell
Chairman
Presidential Clemency Board
Washington, D. C. 20500
Enclosure
GERALD R. FORD
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SEPTEMBER 15, 1975
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
EXECUTIVE ORDER
ASSIGNING RESPONSIBILITIES RELATING TO ACTIVITIES
OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
By virtue of the authority vested in me by the
Constitution of the United States of America, and as
President of the United States of America, it is hereby
ordered as follows:
Section 1. Section 9 of Executive Order No. 11803
of September 16, 1974, as amended, is amended to read:
"The Board shall submit its final recommendations
to the President not later than September 15, 1975,
at which time it shall cease to exist."
Sec. 2. Any applications for Executive clemency, as
to which the Presidential Clemency Board (established by
Executive Order No. 11803) has not taken final action shall
be transferred, together with the files related thereto, to
the Attorney General.
Sec. 3. The Attorney General, with respect to the
applications and related files transferred to him by Section 2
of this Order, shall take all actions appropriate or necessary
to complete the clemency process and shall expeditiously re-
port to the President his findings and recommendations as to
whether Executive clemency should be granted or denied in any
case. In performing his responsibilities under this Order,
the Attorney General shall apply the relevant criteria and
comply with the appropriate and applicable instructions and
procedures established by Executive Order No. 11803 of
September 16, 1974, as amended, Proclamation No. 4313 of
September 16, 1974, as amended, Executive Order No. 11804
of September 16, 1974, and, to the extent that he deems
appropriate, the regulations of the Presidential Clemency
Board and the Selective Service System issued pursuant to
the foregoing Executive orders.
Sec. 4. The Director of the Office of Management and
Budget is hereby designated and empowered to take such
action as he deems necessary to ensure the orderly and
prompt termination of the activities of the Presidential
Clemency Board and the assignment of responsibilities
directed by this Order.
Sec. 5. Departments and agencies in the Executive
branch shall, to the extent permitted by law, cooperate
with and assist the Attorney General, the Director of the
Selective Service and the Director of the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget in the performance of their responsibilities
under this Order.
more
2
Sec. 6. The responsibilities assigned under this Order
are to be completed no later than March 31, 1976, at which
time the Attorney General shall submit his final recommendations
to the President.
GERALD R. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE,
SEPTEMBER 10, 1975
# # # # # #
THE WHITE HOUSE
The Honorable Charles E. Goodell
Chairman
Presidential Clemency Board
Executive Office Building
Room 360
WHITE HOUSE MAIL
Washington, D. C. 20500
RECEPTION & SECURITY
SEP If ITS
Processed by,
September 22, 1975
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
FORD i 078870 LIBRARY
Dear Mr. President:
We are concerned that a public airing of the understandable differences
of opinion among the eighteen members of the Board will do unnecessary
damage to the success your program has had in healing the divisions
in our country. We are especially disturbed at the unwarranted attacks
that have been leveled at the Chairman, the Board, and the executive
staff.
On behalf of the undersigned members, we wish to commend you in
your choice of Charles E. Goodell 8.5 our Chairman. Overwhelmingly,
the majority of these you appointed support your choice. He was an
extremely competent. dedicated, ethical. and tireless leader.
The Guidelines and procedures established by Chairman Goodell and
The Board assured each applicant a democratic hearing with just and
due process. The Board recommended to you clemency only for the
qualifying military and draft evasion offenses of a given applicant in
accordance with our charter.
Chairman Goodell and the Board carried out the intent of your program
both with healing compassion and within the legal parameters you set.
He, in turn, directed a highly professional and competent staff that
exhibited the highest moral and ethical values and judgment. The Chairman
did an excellent job in mediating extremely opposite views and proved
to be a moderating force. We wish the minority members of the Board
had given to us and the Chairman the opportunity to 800 their report
before. it was released to the public.
We feel the clemency program initiated by a courageous President
has contributed toward healing the wounds of Vietnam. We are honored
to have been asked by you to serve with Chairman Goodell in this
important task.
-2-
Although we did not have the opportunity to obtain the signatures of all
the people listed below, each has been contacted, and all of them
personally subscribe to the contents of this letter.
Sincerely,
Robert S. Carter
John H Kauffmann
Timothy L. Craig
James A. Maye
John Everhard
E. Frederic Morrow
W. Antoinette Ford
Lewis B. Puller
Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh Aida Casanas 'Connor
Vernon E. Jordan
Joan Vinson
Rev. Francis J. Lally
September 23, 1975
Honorable Gerald R. Ford
FORD is LIBRARY
The White House
Washington, D. C.
Dear President Ford:
While there were times during the year when I
regretted having said "yes" when invited to serve on the
Presidential Clemency Board, especially when problems
mounted and decisions became very difficult, I must say
in retrospect that it has been a great experience and I
am grateful to you for making it possible. I have high
hopes that during the year ahead we will be able to stand
back and take a longer look at the great mass of facts
that have been compiled and see emerging from them great
public policies that will make for a stronger and better
America. None of this would have been possible without
your having initiated the program in the first place.
While all of us, like you yourself, received many nasty
letters from the right and the left, I am sure in retro-
spect and, especially in historical perspective, this will
emerge as one of the most generous and responsible programs
in national clemency. There may well be more tasks yet to
perform, but at least you should take some pride and satis-
faction from the thought that many thousands of young men
do indeed have a new lease on life, thanks to your
imitiative.
All best wishes and prayers from here.
Cordially yours,
(Rev.) Theodore M. Hesburgh, C.S.C.
President
cc: Mr. Bundy
Mr. Goodell
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 18, 1975
Dear Father Ted:
It is a special pleasure for me to thank
you for your dedicated service during the
past year as a member of the Presidential
Clemency Board.
This Administration, your country and
several thousand young Americans are in-
debted for your unselfish assistance and
inexhaustible concern as a member of the
Board. By your skillful and sensitive at-
tention to the personal problems of these
young people, you have made a valuable
contribution toward healing our country's
wounds.
You have earned the lasting gratitude of
your fellow citizens and you have my best
wishes for the future.
Sincerely,
Jury Fork
The Reverend Theodore H. Hesburgh, C.S.C.
Corby Hall
University of Notre Dame
South Bend, Indiana 46556
DRAFT
December 3, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
&
FORD
FROM:
Charles E. Goodell
GERALD
Subject: Unfinished Clemency Business: ACTION
When the Presidential Clemency Board disbanded last year, we
left on your desk a number of recommendations on which you have
not taken action. I propose that you implement those recommendations
and an additional one now, in an act of Christmas clemency
reminiscent of that which President Truman took when he was
about to leave office in 1952.
ISSUE 1
Should you direct the Secretary of Defense to issue military
discharges under honorable conditions to 253 Vietnam veterans
whom the Board found to be particularly deserving of more
than a Clemency Discharge?
BACKGROUND and DISCUSSION
The Clemency Board was appalled to find that a significant
number of the veterans who received "bad paper" discharges,
and then applied to us for clemency, were cashiered from the
services after establishing outstanding records in combat in
Vietnam. Some of our military applicants had wounds from
Vietnam service, decorations for unusual valor in combat,
multiple tours of honorable military service in the combat
zone, and a record of volunteering for hazardous duty.
These exceptional veterans typically came home to garrison
duty, couldNt take the boring duty or ran into a spit-and-polish
junior officer who had never been in combat, and simply cracked
up. Often they had suffered severe psychological injuries in
Vietnam, and went untreated until they went AWOL. Sometimes
they found unanticipated family problems at home, and that
extra pressure caused them to desert. In a striking number
of these cases, they cracked up and went AWOL after they
had made requests to return to combatfor a second or a third
tour, and had been turned down.
We owe these men a special debt of gratitude, both because they
are the most poignant emotional wreckage of the Vietnam war
and because they served their country with unusual courage
before they cracked up, went AWOL, and were cashiered with
a bad discharge.
The Vietnam veterans who sat on the Board with me, particularly
General Lew Walt and Jim Maye, felt especially strongly that
these 253 cases should be treated very differently from the
rest of our clemency applicants. The Board members who were
Vietnam veterans took pains to discuss these cases with leaders
of the various veterans organizations, and received from those
leaders unanimous support that these special cases deserve a
special remedy over and above the benefits which we offered
on your behalf to all clemency applicants.
- 2 -
Our Vietnam veteran Board members, led by General Walt, felt
so strongly about these cases that they wrote a memorandum
to you on February 6, 1975, recommending that you upgrade
the discharges of these types of cases to a discharge "under
honorable conditions" (either General or Honorable, depending
on the facts of the individual case), with automatic entitlement
to veterans' benefits.
The Board made directly to you 103 recommendations for
immediate discharge upgrading, and another 150 recommendations
for upgrading by the military discharge review boards. We saw
the priority 103 cases as being combat heroes, about whom there
could be no possible doubt. For all 253 cases, a Clemency Discharge
does not reflect what the country owes them, and does not confer
entitlement to veterans' benefits which we feel that they have
earned.
When we recommended the first of these cases to you in December
1974, the Department of the Army protested on the ground that
your directing the issuance of upgraded discharges would be
going outside the established process for reviewing upgrade
applicants. We noted that your directing an immediate upgrade
in unusual cases is within your authority as Commander-in-Chief,
permissible under applicable law, and consistent with the
spirit of your clemency proclamation.
It is interesting that the Department of Defense, having
protested against the granting of discharges under honorable
conditions to clemency applicants, found themselves faced
with exactly the same problem we discovered: a number of
deserters who had served exceptionally well in Vietnam before
their offense, and who deserved a General or an Honorable
Discharge on the strength of their whole records. For the
first 4 months of the clemency program, the Department granted
3 dozen upgradings by removing the exceptional cases from its
normal clemency processing at Fort Benjamin Harrison and sending
them to other military bases for upgraded discharge processing.
The Department then decided that the commandant of "Fort Ben"
had the authority to issue upgraded discharges himself in
unusual cases, and he proceeded to do so in at least 5 dozen
General Discharges and up to a dozen Honorable Discharges,
all entitled to full veterans' benefits.
Faced with the same problem, the military services responded
with exactly the same remedy which we have recommended to you
in connection with the Board's cases.
These 253 exceptional clemency cases are not at all the kinds
of people who fled to Canada or Sweden. They served courageously
in combat, cracked, and then were stigmatized despite their
unusually valorous records by military discharges under "other
than honorable conditions." As an act of Christmas clemency,
I propose that you direct that their discharges be upgraded
immediately.
- 3 -
ISSUE 2
Should you direct the Veterans Administration to offer medical
benefits to 400 deserters who are permanently disabled as a
consequence of wounds suffered in Vietnam?
BACKGROUND and DISCUSSION
Led by the Vietnam veterans on the Board, we recommended to
you that you direct the Veterans Administration to offer
medical benefits to 400 deserters with bad discharges who are
permanently disabled from Vietnam wounds. We did not feel
that these cases deserved upgraded discharges beyond the
Clemency Discharge, but we concluded that the nation owes
them treatment for their disabling wounds suffered in
Vietnam combat despite the fact that they subsequently deserted.
These cases are not otherwise eligible for veterans benefits,
and many of them have not served the requisite 180 days which
would make veterans benefits an issue. We recommend that
you grant them medical benefits as a special form of clemency,
not entitling them to any other kind of benefits.
ISSUE 3
Should you direct the Department of Defence and the Veterans
Administration to cease treatment of the Clemency Discharge
as presumptively "other than honorable"? Three questions arise.
ISSUE 3a
Should you direct the Secretary of Defence to amend the
discharge papers issued to military clemency recipients so
as to indicate that a Clemency Discharge is not issued "under
other than honorable conditions"?
BACKGROUND and DISCUSSION
Your clemency proclamation directed a Clemency Discharge be
issued "in lieu of" a prior discharge under other than honorable
conditions, and your executive order establishing the Clemency
Board directed that a Clemency Discharge be issued to cases
under the Board's jurisdiction "substituted for" a prior discharge
under other than honorable conditions.
We have interpreted your intent as being that a Clemency Discharge
be a truly neutral discharge, removing from the clemency recipient
the stigma of being discharged "under other than honorable
conditions", but not conferring upon him the distinction of
being discharged under honorable conditions.
The Department of Defence, however, has officially taken the
view that a Clemency Discharge is not intended, in any way,
to effect a recharacterization of the recipients under-other-
than-honorable-conditions discharge, and that a Clemency Discharge
is considered by the Department to be "equal to, and on a par
with, an undesirable discharge".
- 4 -
The Department has implemented its perception of the Clemency
Discharge in two ways which effectively continue to stigmatize
the recipient of the Clemency Discharge:
(i) The recipient's DD Form 214 (discharge form) is not amended,
when he receives a Clemency Discharge to replace his bad
discharge, in either the "type of discharge" box or the
"character of service" box. He is issued a DD Form 215
("Correction to DD Form 214") which notes that he has
received a Clemency Discharge for satisfactory completion
of alternative service, but he is not issued a new discharge
form--a new DD Form 214--to show potential employers.
Even after you have given him clemency, his DD Form 214
continues to indicate that his character of service was
unsatisfactory and that he received a Dishonorable Discharge,
a Bad Conduct Discharge, or an Undesirable Discharge
"under conditions other than honorable". That is what a
potential employer sees when the clemency recipient applies
for a job.
We cannot believe that you intended that, and the Board
has recommended that you direct the Secretary of Defence
to issue to recipients of a Clemency Discharge a new
DD Form 214 which characterizes their service neutrally
(though not necessarily with the term "satisfactory") and
does not indicate the prior discharge which the Clemency
Discharge has replaced.
(ii) The clemency recipient's record, open to potential employers
and others, continues to indicate that he once received
a Dishonorable Discharge, a Bad Conduct Discharge, or an
Undesirable Discharge, and that his service has been
characterized as "unsatisfactory". When a potential
employer checks that record, the clemency recipient's
probability of getting a job will be nil.
This, too, is an outcome which we do not believe you
intended when you signed the clemency proclamation.
We have recommended to you that, in addition to issuing
a new, neutral DD Form 214, the Department of Defence seal,
except for security check purposes, the prior discharge
record of persons to whom you have granted a Clemency Discharge.
I propose that now, in an act of Christmas clemency sealing a
major unintended gap in your clemency program, you direct the
Secretary of Defence to issue to all military clemency recipients
a new, neutral DD Form 214, and to seal their prior discharge
records except for security checks. I propose also that in your
directive to the Secretary, you emphasize your original intent
that
the Clemency Discharge replaces a prior discharge
"under other than honorable conditions", instead of being just
another name for that class of discharge.
- 5 -
ISSUE 3b
Should you direct the Secretary of Defence to instruct military
discharge review boards to treat desertion offenses which you
have pardoned, under your clemency program, as if those offenses
are not in a serviceman's record at all?
BACKGROUND and DISCUSSION
Each military department has a discharge review board, to
which veterans have a right to apply for review and upgrading
of their military discharge. Veterans who have received clemency
from you for AWOL and desertion offenses retain the right to
apply for upgrading of their Clemency Discharge to a General
or an Honorable Discharge.
By the terms of your Proclamation, the Clemency Discharge does
not bestow entitlement to Veterans Administration benefits.
Holders of a General or an Honorable Discharge do gain entitle-
ment to those benefits.
The Clemency Board unanimously recommended to you that when
veterans to whom you have granted clemency apply to a discharge
review board, the board treat the offense which you have
pardoned as if it were not in the applicant's file at all.
If the applicant's record as a whole, aside from the pardoned
AWOL or desertion, does not merit upgrading, the discharge
review boards would remain free to deny upgrading to applicants
with a Clemency Discharge. It seemed to the Clemency Board
inequitable and perverse, however, that a discharge review
board is able to deny upgrading to a veteran with a Clemency
Discharge because of an AWOL or desertion offense which you
have pardoned.
I propose that you direct the Secretary of Defence to instruct
the discharge review boards to give full effect to your grants
of clemency by treating an offense which you have pardoned as
if that offense were not in an applicant's record.
ISSUE 3c
Should you direct the Veterans Administration to treat
requests for veterans' benefits by clemency recipients as
if the offenses which you have pardoned are not in the
applicants' records at all?
BACKGROUND and DISCUSSION
Your clemency proclamation stipulates that a Clemency Discharge
"shall not bestow entitlement to benefits administered by the
Veterans Administration". Where the recipient of a Clemency
Discharge was previously ineligible for VA benefits by virtue
of his Bad Conduct Discharge or Dishonorable Discharge, he
therefore remains ineligible for VA benefits even after that
discharge has been replaced by a Clemency Discharge.
If the recipient of a Clemency Discharge previously had an
- 6 -
Undesirable Discharge, his eligibility for VA benefits remains
exactly as it was before he received clemency: the VA may
bestow benefitsupon him at its discretion as a matter of
privilege, but he has no legal right to any benefits.
As a practical matter, the VA bestows benefits upon only a
marginal number of applicants with Undesirable Discharges.
Like discharge review boards, the VA has treated the Clemency
Discharge as basis for a presumption against granting appli-
cations for benefits. I am unaware of any holder of a Clemency
Discharge who has received VA benefits.
The Clemency Board has recommended to you that you give full
effect to your grant of clemency to veterans by directing the
VA to treat requests for benefits by Clemency Discharge holders
as if the offense which you have pardoned is not in the record.
The VA may then determine on a case by case basis whether a
veteran's record, absent the pardoned AWOL or desertion, merits
a grant of veterans' benefits.
The VA may still elect to deny benefits to many applicants with
Clemency Discharges on the basis of their whole record, but
surely you could not have intended that the VA treat the
Clemency Discharge exactly like an Undesirable Discharge which
it has replaced, by denying benefits to a veteran on the basis
of an AWOL or desertion offense which you have pardoned.
I propose that you direct the VA in accordance with the Clemency
Board's unanimous recommendation.
ISSUE 4
Should you grant clemency to approximately 1000 applicants
who have committed another crime in addition to the draft
evasion or AWOL/desertion offense for which clemency has been
recommended by the Clemency Board?
BACKGROUND and DISCUSSION
Your clemency proclamation contemplated that some persons
will be eligible for clemency who "have other criminal charges
outstanding" or have "additional outstanding charges
under
the Uniform Code of Military Justice", and suggested that such
persons would remain eligible for clemency whatever the final
disposition of such charges.
Moreover, your executive order establishing the Presidential
Clemency Board stipulated that the Board give priority consi-
deration to applicants then confined for an evasion or AWOL/desertion
offense, "and who have no outstanding criminal charges". The
language suggests that after that priority has been attended to,
it is implicitly contemplated that the Board consider the cases
of those with outstanding criminal charges or criminal records.
Pursuant to these inferences from the clear language of the
proclamation and the executive order, the Board in its final
weeks considered the cases of applicants with records of
civilian or military offenses in addition to the offense
for which they sought clemency. We recommended that about
- 7 -
1000 of these applicants be granted some form of clemency for
their evasion or AWOL/desertion offense. We did not contemplate
that your pardon reach their other offenses, nor that prison
sentences for other offences be affected by clemency for the
draft or AWOL/desertion offense.
Bds standards felenicar
on
We did feel, however, that where someone with another offense
deserved clemency--in comparison with our other cases--just
for his draft or absentee offense, you should treat him equitably
by granting him clemency for that offense only.
Your Counsel's Office has held up the Board's recommendations
to you on these cases for over a year, and these 1000 applicants
have been left in limbo during that time. With Christmas
approaching, this seems an appropriate moment to repeat to you
the Board's recommendations on these cases, and to urge you
to finally dispose of these cases after the protracted delay.
It is cruel, particularly as you leave office, to leave these
1000 persons in an indefinite limbo.
ISSUE 5
Should you grant temporary visas to exile draft evaders and
deserters to permit them to visit their families during this
Christmas season for 30 days?
BACKGROUND and DISCUSSION
On the first four issues I have represented the Board's recom-
mendations to you. The Board has not considered this last
issue, and I therefore make this recommendation on my own motion.
As a practical matter, the Justice Department has not chosen
to spend its resources in going after fugitive draft evaders
and AWOLs/deserters. Most of those persons can visit their
families over Christmas if they so choose without fear of
arrest, although it would be a generous gesture if you formalized
what is already happening with an order to the Department to
leave them alone for 30 days in order to enable them to make
carter
those visits without a trace of fear.
Those fugitives who have gone into exile abroad, however, are
barred by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) from
returning at any time.
As a Christmas gesture, I propose that you direct INS to grant
temporary visas for 30 days to anyone who wants to visit his
family in the Christmas season and who would otherwise be denied
entry to the country by INS by reason of draft evasion or of
a military absence offence, and that you direct the Justice
Department to leave them alone during that visit.
CONCLUSION
At Christmas 1952, President Truman granted amnesty to 9000
Korean War deserters, who had not been covered under his previous
clemency program.
- 8 -
Those deserters were probably much like the cases which came
to the Clemency Board, most of which turned out to have nothing
to do with opposition to the Vietnam war. Most of the offences
were generated by some kind of family hardship--a wife who was
leaving the serviceman in Vietnam, a father who had died leaving
a family without any means of support, an acutely ill mother,
wife, or child. Many or most of our applicants should have
received hardship or other deferments, or compassionate
reassignments, emergency leaves, or hardship discharges from
the military.
Over half of the applicants to the Board never completed high
school, however. They were generally unsophisticated, inarti-
culate people who were unable to pursue within the legal system
the remedies which they deserved. They were too uneducated to
weave their way through the maze of regulations and hearings,
nobody on the draft boards and in the military offered them
any help, SO they wound up with criminal records for draft
evasion and military absence offences.
More clever and articulate people with exactly the same family
problems were able to get a better shake out of the system,
often with expensive legal help, and emerged without criminal
records.
7
Four thousand applicants to the Board were actually Vietnam combat
veterans, many of them with multiple tours in the war zone,
wounds, and decorations. They had emotional problems in the
war zone or when they got home, received inadequate medical
assistance from the services, and just cracked up.
These kinds of people deserve our compassion, and are quite
different from the popular stereotype of the Vietnam draft
evader or deserter. They are inconsistent with the image
which the Board members had of the typical evader or resister
before we started examining the cases, and I believe that they
are very different from the perception you had of the typical
evader or deserter when you initiated the clemency program.
These unfortunate orphans of our complicated draft and military
administrative systems need every last bit of help which you
can give to make your clemency program meet its promise to them.
It is for these reasons, and in the spirit of the Christmas
season, that I urge you now to approve the recommendations in
this memorandum.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Direct the Secretary of Defence to issue discharges under
honorable conditions, pursuant to the Board's recommendations
to you, to 253 Vietnam veterans with especially meritorious
records.
Approve
Disapprove
2. Direct the Veterans Administration to offer medical benefits,
pursuant to the Board's recommendations to you, to 400
- 9 -
deserters who are permanently disabled as a consequence of
wounds suffered in Vietnam, and who are not otherwise eligible
for any VA benefits.
Approve
Disapprove
3a. Direct the Secretary of Defence to issue to all Clemency
Discharge recipients a new DD Form 214 which does not
indicate "unsatisfactory" character of service and which
indicates in the "type of discharge" box only that they have
received a Clemency Discharge.
Approve
Disapprove
Direct the Secretary of Defence to give full effect to that
new DD Form 214 by sealing, except for security check purposes,
the prior discharge record of persons who have received a
Clemency Discharge.
Approve
Disapprove
3b. Direct the Secretary of Defence to instruct military discharge
review boards to give full effect to your grants of clemency
by treating an offense which you have pardoned, under your
clemency program, as if that offense were not in the record
of an applicant for discharge review who holds a Clemency
Discharge.
Approve
Disapprove
3c. Direct the Veterans Administration to give full effect to
your grants of clemency by treating an offense which you
have pardoned, under your clemency program, as if that offense
were not in the record of an applicant for VA benefits who
holds a Clemency Discharge.
Approve
Disapprove
4. Grant clemency, pursuant to the Board's recommendations,
to approximately 1000 applicants who have committed another
crime in addition to the draft evasion or military absence
offense with respect to which the Board has recommended clemency.
Approve
Disapprove
5a. Direct the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to
grant temporary visas for 30 days to exile draft evaders
and deserters who seek entry into the United States not
later than January 3, and who would otherwise be denied
entry by reason of a draft evasion or military absence offense.
Approve
Disapprove
5b. Direct the Department of Justice to initiate no new inves-
tigation or arrest of an alleged draft evader or military
absentee prior to February 7, and to assign lowest priority
thereafter to follow-up on information about such a person
gained by reason of a Christmas visit under a temporary
Christmas visa.
Approve
Disapprove
DRAFT
December 3, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
&
FORD
FROM:
Charles E. Goodell
Subject: Unfinished Clemency Business: ACTION
GERALD
LIBRARY
When the Presidential Clemency Board disbanded last year, we
left on your desk a number of recommendations on which you have
not taken action. I propose that you implement those recommendations
and an additional one now, in an act of Christmas clemency
reminiscent of that which President Truman took when he was
about to leave office in 1952.
ISSUE 1
Should you direct the Secretary of Defense to issue military
discharges under honorable conditions to 253 Vietnam veterans
whom the Board found to be particularly deserving of more
than a Clemency Discharge?
BACKGROUND and DISCUSSION
The Clemency Board was appalled to find that a significant
number of the veterans who received "bad paper" discharges,
and then applied to us for clemency, were cashiered from the
services after establishing outstanding records in combat in
Vietnam. Some of our military applicants had wounds from
Vietnam service, decorations for unusual valor in combat,
multiple tours of honorable military service in the combat
zone, and a record of volunteering for hazardous duty
These exceptional veterans typically came home to garrison
duty, couldNt take the boring duty or ran into a spit-and-polish
junior officer who had never been in combat, and simply cracked
up. Often they had suffered severe psychological injuries in
Vietnam, and went untreated until they went AWOL. Sometimes
they found unanticipated family problems at home, and that
extra pressure caused them to desert. In a striking number
of these cases, they cracked up and went AWOL after they
had made requests to return to combatfor a second or a third
tour, and had been turned down.
We owe these men a special debt of gratitude, both because they
are the most poignant emotional wreckage of the Vietnam war
and because they served their country with unusual courage
before they cracked up, went AWOL, and were cashiered with
a bad discharge.
The Vietnam veterans who sat on the Board with me, particularly
General Lew Walt and Jim Maye, felt especially strongly that
these 253 cases should be treated very differently from the
rest of our clemency applicants. The Board members who were
Vietnam veterans took pains to discuss these cases with leaders
of the various veterans organizations, and received from those
leaders unanimous support that these special cases deserve a
special remedy over and above the benefits which we offered
on your behalf to all clemency applicants.
- 2 -
Our Vietnam veteran Board members, led by General Walt, felt
so strongly about these cases that they wrote a memorandum
to you on February 6, 1975, recommending that you upgrade
the discharges of these types of cases to a discharge "under
honorable conditions" (either General or Honorable, depending
on the facts of the individual case), with automatic entitlement
to veterans' benefits.
The Board made directly to you 103 recommendations for
immediate discharge upgrading, and another 150 recommendations
for upgrading by the military discharge review boards. We saw
the priority 103 cases as being combat heroes, about whom there
could be no possible doubt. For all 253 cases, a Clemency Discharge
does not reflect what the country owes them, and does not confer
entitlement to veterans' benefits which we feel that they have
earned.
When we recommended the first of these cases to you in December
1974, the Department of the Army protested on the ground that
your directing the issuance of upgraded discharges would be
going outside the established process for reviewing upgrade
applicants. We noted that your directing an immediate upgrade
in unusual cases is within your authority as Commander-in-Chief,
permissible under applicable law, and consistent with the
spirit of your clemency proclamation.
It is interesting that the Department of Defense, having
protested against the granting of discharges under honorable
conditions to clemency applicants, found themselves faced
with exactly the same problem we discovered: a number of
deserters who had served exceptionally well in Vietnam before
their offense, and who deserved a General or an Honorable
Discharge on the strength of their whole records. For the
first 4 months of the clemency program, the Department granted
3 dozen upgradings by removing the exceptional cases from its
normal clemency processing at Fort Benjamin Harrison and sending
them to other military bases for upgraded discharge processing.
The Department then decided that the commandant of "Fort Ben"
had the authority to issue upgraded discharges himself in
unusual cases, and he proceeded to do so in at least 5 dozen
General Discharges and up to a dozen Honorable Discharges,
all entitled to full veterans' benefits.
Faced with the same problem, the military services responded
with exactly the same remedy which we have recommended to you
in connection with the Board's cases.
These 253 exceptional clemency cases are not at all the kinds
of people who fled to Canada or Sweden. They served courageously
in combat, cracked, and then were stigmatized despite their
unusually valorous records by military discharges under "other
than honorable conditions." As an act of Christmas clemency,
I propose that you direct that their discharges be upgraded
immediately.
3
ISSUE 2
Should you direct the Veterans Administration to offer medical
benefits to 400 deserters who are permanently disabled as a
consequence of wounds suffered in Vietnam?
BACKGROUND and DISCUSSION
Led by the Vietnam veterans on the Board, we recommended to
you that you direct the Veterans Administration to offer
medical benefits to 400 deserters with bad discharges who are
permanently disabled from Vietnam wounds. We did not feel
that these cases deserved upgraded discharges beyond the
Clemency Discharge, but we concluded that the nation owes
them treatment for their disabling wounds suffered in
Vietnam combat despite the fact that they subsequently deserted.
These cases are not otherwise eligible for veterans benefits,
and many of them have not served the requisite 180 days which
would make veterans benefits an issue. We recommend that
you grant them medical benefits as a special form of clemency,
not entitling them to any other kind of benefits.
ISSUE 3
Should you direct the Department of Defence and the Veterans
Administration to cease treatment of the Clemency Discharge
as presumptively "other than honorable"? Three questions arise.
ISSUE 3a
Should you direct the Secretary of Defence to amend the
discharge papers issued to military clemency recipients so
as to indicate that a Clemency Discharge is not issued "under
other than honorable conditions"?
BACKGROUND and DISCUSSION
Your clemency proclamation directed a Clemency Discharge be
issued "in lieu of" a prior discharge under other than honorable
conditions, and your executive order establishing the Clemency
Board directed that a Clemency Discharge be issued to cases
under the Board's jurisdiction "substituted for" a prior discharge
under other than honorable conditions.
We have interpreted your intent as being that a Clemency Discharge
be a truly neutral discharge, removing from the clemency recipient
the stigma of being discharged "under other than honorable
conditions", but not conferring upon him the distinction of
being discharged under honorable conditions.
The Department of Defence, however, has officially taken the
view that a Clemency Discharge is not intended, in any way,
to effect a recharacterization of the recipient's under-other-
than-honorable-conditions discharge, and that a Clemency Discharge
is considered by the Department to be "equal to, and on a par
with, an undesirable discharge".
- 4 -
The Department has implemented its perception of the Clemency
Discharge in two ways which effectively continue to stigmatize
the recipient of the Clemency Discharge:
(i) The recipient's DD Form 214 (discharge form) is not amended,
when he receives a Clemency Discharge to replace his bad
discharge, in either the "type of discharge" box or the
"character of service" box. He is issued a DD Form 215
("Correction to DD Form 214") which notes that he has
received a Clemency Discharge for satisfactory completion
of alternative service, but he is not issued a new discharge
form--a new DD Form 214--to show potential employers.
Even after you have given him clemency, his DD Form 214
continues to indiçate that his character of service was
unsatisfactory and that he received a Dishonorable Discharge,
a Bad Conduct Discharge, or an Undesirable Discharge
"under conditions other than honorable". That is what a
potential employer sees when the clemency recipient applies
for a job.
We cannot believe that you intended that, and the Board
has recommended that you direct the Secretary of Defence
to issue to recipients of a Clemency Discharge a new
DD Form 214 which characterizes their service neutrally
(though not necessarily with the term "satisfactory") and
does not indicate the prior discharge which the Clemency
Discharge has replaced.
(ii) The clemency recipient's record, open to potential employers
and others, continues to indicate that he once received
a Dishonorable Discharge, a Bad Conduct Discharge, or an
Undesirable Discharge, and that his service has been
characterized as "unsatisfactory". When a potential
employer checks that record, the clemency recipient's
probability of getting a job will be nil.
This, too, is an outcome which we do not believe you
intended when you signed the clemency proclamation.
We have recommended to you that, in addition to issuing
a new, neutral DD Form 214, the Department of Defence seal,
except for security check purposes, the prior discharge
record of persons to whom you have granted à Clemency Discharge.
I propose that now, in an act of Christmas clemency sealing a
major unintended gap in your clemency program, you direct the
Secretary of Defence to issue to all military clemency recipients
a new, neutral DD Form 214, and to seal their prior discharge
records except for security checks. I propose also that in your
directive to the Secretary, you emphasize your original intent
that
the Clemency Discharge replaces a prior discharge
"under other than honorable conditions", instead of being just
another name for that class of discharge.
- 5 -
ISSUE 3b
Should you direct the Secretary of Defence to instruct military
discharge review boards to treat desertion offenses which you
have pardoned, under your clemency program, as if those offenses
are not in a serviceman's record at all?
BACKGROUND and DISCUSSION
Each military department has a discharge review board, to
which veterans have a right to apply for review and upgrading
of their military discharge. Veterans who have received clemency
from you for AWOL and desertion offenses retain the right to
apply for upgrading of their Clemency Discharge to a General
or an Honorable Discharge.
By the terms of your Proclamation, the Clemency Discharge does
not bestow entitlement to Veterans Administration benefits.
Holders of a General or an Honorable Discharge do gain entitle-
ment to those benefits.
The Clemency Board unanimously recommended to you that when
veterans to whom you have granted clemency apply to a discharge
review board, the board treat the offense which you have
pardoned as if it were not in the applicant's file at all.
If the applicant's record as a whole, aside from the pardoned
AWOL or desertion, does not merit upgrading, the discharge
review boards would remain free to deny upgrading to applicants
with a Clemency Discharge. It seemed to the Clemency Board
inequitable and perverse, however, that a discharge review
board is able to deny upgrading to a veteran with a Clemency
Discharge because of an AWOL or desertion offense which you
have pardoned.
I propose that you direct the Secretary of Defence to instruct
the discharge review boards to give full effect to your grants
of clemency by treating an offense which you have pardoned as
if that offense were not in an applicant's record.
ISSUE 3c
Should you direct the Veterans Administration to treat
requests for veterans' benefits by clemency recipients as
if the offenses which you have pardoned are not in the
applicants' records at all?
BACKGROUND and DISCUSSION
Your clemency proclamation stipulates that a Clemency Discharge
"shall not bestow entitlement to benefits administered by the
Veterans Administration". Where the recipient of a Clemency
Discharge was previously ineligible for VA benefits by virtue
of his Bad Conduct Discharge or Dishonorable Discharge, he
therefore remains ineligible for VA benefits even after that
discharge has been replaced by a Clemency Discharge.
If the recipient of a Clemency Discharge previously had an
- 6 -
Undesirable Discharge, his eligibility for VA benefits remains
exactly as it was before he received clemency: the VA may
bestow benefitsupon him at its discretion as a matter of
privilege, but he has no legal right to any benefits.
As a practical matter, the VA bestows benefits upon only a
marginal number of applicants with Undesirable Discharges.
Like discharge review boards, the VA has treated the Clemency
Discharge as basis for a presumption against granting appli-
cations for benefits. I am unaware of any holder of a Clemency
Discharge who has received VA benefits.
The Clemency Board has recommended to you that you give full
effect to your grant of clemency to veterans by directing the
VA to treat requests for benefits by Clemency Discharge holders
as if the offense which you have pardoned is not in the record.
The VA may then determine on a case by case basis whether a
veteran's record, absent the pardoned AWOL or desertion, merits
a grant of veterans' benefits.
The VA may still elect to deny benefits to many applicants with
Clemency Discharges on the basis of their whole record, but
surely you could not have intended that the VA treat the
Clemency Discharge exactly like an Undesirable Discharge which
it has replaced, by denying benefits to a veteran on the basis
of an AWOL or desertion offense which you have pardoned.
I propose that you direct the VA in accordance with the Clemency
Board's unanimous recommendation.
ISSUE 4
Should you grant clemency to approximately 1000 applicants
who have committed another crime in addition to the draft
evasion or AWOL/desertion offense for which clemency has been
recommended by the Clemency Board?
BACKGROUND and DISCUSSION
Your clemency proclamation contemplated that some persons
will be eligible for clemency who "have other criminal charges
outstanding" or have "additional outstanding charges under
the Uniform Code of Military Justice", and suggested that such
persons would remain eligible for clemency whatever the final
disposition of such charges.
Moreover, your executive order establishing the Presidential
Clemency Board stipulated that the Board give priority consi-
deration to applicants then confined for an evasion or AWOL/desertion
offense, "and who have no outstanding criminal charges". The
language suggests that after that priority has been attended to,
it is implicitly contemplated that the Board consider the cases
of those with outstanding criminal charges or criminal records.
Pursuant to these inferences from the clear language of the
proclamation and the executive order, the Board in its final
weeks considered the cases of applicants with records of
civilian or military offenses in addition to the offense
for which they sought clemency. We recommended that about
- 7 -
1000 of these applicants be granted some form of clemency for
their evasion or AWOL/desertion offense* We did not contemplate
that your pardon reach their other offenses, nor that prison
standed
sentences for other offences be affected by clemency for the
draft or AWOL/desertion offense.
Bds
on
fels
We did feel, however, that where someone with another offense
deserved clemency--in comparison with our other cases--just
for his draft or absentee offense, you should treat him equitably
by granting him clemency for that offense only.
Your Counsel's Office has held up the Board's recommendations
to you on these cases for over a year, and these 1000 applicants
have been left in limbo during that time. With Christmas
approaching, this seems an appropriate moment to repeat to you
the Board's recommendations on these cases, and to urge you
to finally dispose of these cases after the protracted delay.
It is cruel, particularly as you leave office, to leave these
1000 persons in an indefinite limbo.
ISSUE 5
Should you grant temporary visas to exile draft evaders and
deserters to permit them to visit their families during this
Christmas season for 30 days?
BACKGROUND and DISCUSSION
On the first four issues I have represented the Board's recom-
mendations to you. The Board has not considered this last
issue, and I therefore make this recommendation on my own motion.
As a practical matter, the Justice Department has not chosen
to spend its resources in going after fugitive draft evaders
and AWOLS/deserters. Most of those persons can visit their
families over Christmas if they so choose without fear of
arrest, although it would be a generous gesture if you formalized
what is already happening with an order to the Department to
leave them alone for 30 days in order to enable them to make
carter
those visits without a trace of fear.
Those fugitives who have gone into exile abroad, however, are
barred by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) from
returning at any time.
As a Christmas gesture, I propose that you direct INS to grant
temporary visas for 30 days to anyone who wants to visit his
family in the Christmas season and who would otherwise be denied
entry to the country by INS by reason of draft evasion or of
a military absence offence, and that you direct the Justice
Department to leave them alone during that visit.
CONCLUSION
At Christmas 1952, President Truman granted amnesty to 9000
Korean War deserters, who had not been covered under his previous
clemency program.
- 8 -
Those deserters were probably much like the cases which came
to the Clemency Board, most of which turned out to have nothing
to do with opposition to the Vietnam war. Most of the offences
were generated by some kind of family hardship--a wife who was
leaving the serviceman in Vietnam, a father who had died leaving
a family without any means of support, an acutely ill mother,
wife, or child. Many or most of our applicants should have
received hardship or other deferments, or compassionate
reassignments, emergency leaves, or hardship discharges from
the military.
Over half of the applicants to the Board never completed high
school, however. They were generally unsophisticated, inarti-
culate people who were unable to pursue within the legal system
the remedies which they deserved. They were too uneducated to
weave their way through the maze of regulations and hearings,
nobody on the draft boards and in the military offered them
any help, so they wound up with criminal records for draft
evasion and military absence offences.
More clever and articulate people with exactly the same family
problems were able to get a better shake out of the system,
often with expensive legal help, and emerged without criminal
records.
7
Four thousand applicants to the Board were actually Vietnam combat
veterans, many of them with multiple tours in the war zone,
wounds, and decorations. They had emotional problems in the
war zone or when they got home, received inadequate medical
assistance from the services, and just cracked up.
These kinds of people deserve our compassion, and are quite
different from the popular stereotype of the Vietnam draft
evader or deserter. They are inconsistent with the image
which the Board members had of the typical evader or resister
before we started examining the cases, and I believe that they
are very different from the perception you had of the typical
evader or deserter when you initiated the clemency program.
These unfortunate orphans of our complicated draft and military
administrative systems need every last bit of help which you
can give to make your clemency program meet its promise to them.
It is for these reasons, and in the spirit of the Christmas
season, that I urge you now to approve the recommendations in
this memorandum.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Direct the Secretary of Defence to issue discharges under
honorable conditions, pursuant to the Board's recommendations
to you, to 253 Vietnam veterans with especially meritorious
records.
Approve
Disapprove
2. Direct the Veterans Administration to offer medical benefits,
pursuant to the Board's recommendations to you, to 400
- 9 -
deserters who are permanently disabled as a consequence of
wounds suffered in Vietnam, and who are not otherwise eligible
for any VA benefits.
Approve
Disapprove
3a. Direct the Secretary of Defence to issue to all Clemency
Discharge recipients a new DD Form 214 which does not
indicate "unsatisfactory" character of service and which
indicates in the "type of discharge" box only that they have
received a Clemency Discharge.
Approve
Disapprove
Direct the Secretary of Defence to give full effect to that
new DD Form 214 by sealing, except for security check purposes,
the prior discharge record of persons who have received a
Clemency Discharge.
Approve
Disapprove
3b. Direct the Secretary of Defence to instruct military discharge
review boards to give full effect to your grants of clemency
by treating an offense which you have pardoned, under your
clemency program, as if that offense were not in the record
of an applicant for discharge review who holds a Clemency
Discharge.
Approve
Disapprove
3c. Direct the Veterans Administration to give full effect to
your grants of clemency by treating an offense which you
have pardoned, under your clemency program, as if that offense
were not in the record of an applicant for VA benefits who
holds a Clemency Discharge.
Approve
Disapprove
4. Grant clemency, pursuant to the Board's recommendations,
to approximately 1000 applicants who have committed another
crime in addition to the draft evasion or military absence
offense with respect to which the Board has recommended clemency.
Approve
Disapprove
5a. Direct the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to
grant temporary visas for 30 days to exile draft evaders
and deserters who seek entry into the United States not
later than January 3, and who would otherwise be denied
entry by reason of a draft evasion or military absence offense.
Approve
Disapprove
5b. Direct the Department of Justice to initiate no new inves-
tigation or arrest of an alleged draft evader or military
absentee prior to February 7, and to assign lowest priority
thereafter to follow-up on information about such a person
gained by reason of a Christmas visit under a temporary
Christmas visa.
Approve
Disapprove