Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "1506020",
    "label": "Panel Counsel Meetings",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1506020"
}

{
    "id": "1506020",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1506020",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Panel Counsel Meetings",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1506020",
    "collections": [
        "Charles E. Goodell Papers",
        "Presidential Clemency Board Subject Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Amnesty"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0193/648291/1506020.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0193/648291/1506020.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0193/648291/1506020.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1506020",
    "naId": 1506020,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-06-30",
        "month": 6,
        "year": 1975
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-06-01",
        "month": 6,
        "year": 1975
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0193/648291/1506020.pdf",
    "mediaId": "20fac773aefe8cc5",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 8, folder \"Panel Counsel Meetings\" of the\nCharles E. Goodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Charles Goodell donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box 8 of the Charles E. Goodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nPRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20500\nJune 16, 1975\nMEMORANDUM TO:\nLarry Baskir\nBuy\nFROM:\nBill Strauss\nSUBJECT:\nPanel Counsel Meetings of June 13\nCOPIES TO:\nPanel Counsels (Distribution c)\nAs you know, the PM & E staff held a series of six meetings with Panel\nCounsels on Friday, June 13. The meetings were well-attended and were\nquite useful in identifying policy discrepancies between the Clemency\nLaw Reporter's language and the apparent policy of Board panels and\naction attorneys. The number of discrepancies was fairly large, perhaps\nto be expected insofar as these were our first meetings of this kind.\n(This reinforces our need for weekly meetings to keep communication lines\nopen between Panel Counsels and ourselves.)\nThe following issues were raised -- and, if at all possible, you or the\nBoard should clarify what is our policy on them:\nAGGRAVATING FACTOR #1: There was considerable disagreement about what\nthe term \"felony conviction\" does or should mean. Does a one-year suspended\nsentence apply? Does a six-month jail term for an offense which could have\nhad a longer sentence apply? We need a firm rule for cases in which it is\nnot clear whether the crime has in fact been designated as a felony under\nstate law.\nAGGRAVATING FACTOR #2: No issues.\nAGGRAVATING FACTOR #3: No issues.\nAGGRAVATING FACTOR #4: Not included in the Clemency Law Reporter language,\nbut articulated by PM & E staff, was the test that this factor applies\nonly if there is some evidence of (a) cowardice or (b) some risk of immediate\ndanger to other troops. However, some members of the Board have been\napplying this factor in all cases where applicants went AWOL from ahywhere\nelse in Vietnam but Saigon -- or even while on home leave (or R&R) from\nVietnam.\n2\nAGGRAVATING FACTOR #5: Should we omit the language \"in circumstances\nwhere a reasonable inference may be drawn that the offense had been\ncommitted for selfish and manipulative reasons?\" The Board may not be\napplying the rule in this manner, with the simple absence of evidence\nsufficient of itself to bring about this factor. However, except in\nextraordinary cases (e.g., very thin files), the absence of any\nexplanation or circumstantial mitigating evidence tends to create a\nreasonable inference that the offense was indeed for selfish and\nmanipulative reasons. It is my understanding that the Board may. not\napply this rule in thin (or absent) file cases.\nAGGRAVATING FACTOR #6: Does this factor apply to a Jehovah's Witness who\nrefuses to accept draft-board-ordered alternative service for non-religious\n(e.g., financial) reasons?\nAGGRAVATING FACTOR #7: Does this factor apply just to civilian cases? In\nat least one instance, the Board has applied it to a military case. If it\nis to be so applied, should a suspended sentence in the military be\nequated with probated sentences and parole in the civilian context? If a\nsuspended sentence is vacated in the military because of some misconduct\non the part of the soldier, the Board has considered the vacation the same\nas a revocation of probation or parole and checked this factor. Frequently,\nin the military, when a suspended sentence is vacated, the soldier, is sent\nback to confinement, and in addition he must face a new court martial on\nthe charges that caused the suspension to be vacated. The result is that\nthe Board now checks this factor--and also checks aggravating factor #1\nfor an additional adult conviction.\nAGGRAVATING FACTOR #8: Do unpunished AWOLs count in assessing multiple\nAWOLs? If the general rule is no, what about UD-unfitness cases where the\ndischarge was the disciplinary response to the AWOL offenses? What if the\nUD had been based on both punished and unpunished AWOL offenses? What\nthe UD had been based at least in part on non-qualifying AWOL offenses? Also,\naction attorneys now must describe the form of punishment for each AWOL\noffense--listing summary court martials and non-judicial punishments.\nThis is prejudicial and does not bear on any aggravating factor and so might\nbe excluded from our summary format. However, changing our summary format\nwould be painful. Should action attorneys continue to mention summary\ncourt martials for AWOL offenses--or should they simply note that it was\na \" punished AWOL offense.\"\nAGGRAVATING FACTOR #9: Again, do unpunished or non-qualifying AWOLs count\nin tabulating the length of AWOL offenses? (We probably should apply the\nsame rule for both aggravating #8 and #9.) Also, does the Board apply\nthis factor to the last qualifying AWOL offense, to the longest qualifying\nAWOL offense, or to a cumulation of all qualifying AWOL offenses. Different\nBoard panels seem to be applying the rule differently.\n-- Do not count previous AWOLS for wh he's been punished\n3\nAGGRAVATING FACTOR #10: Does \"overseas assignment\" include Alaska\nand Hawaii?\nAGGRAVATING FACTOR #11: There was considerable confusion about this\nfactor. This factor was originally established to report a non-absence\noffense which contributed, along with an absence offense, to a discharge.\nSo far, it has been applied by action attorneys only in UD-Chapter 10\ncases. It has been applied by the Board panels in some UD-Unfitness\ncases, however. Should it apply in UD-Unfitness cases? If so, should\nthis factor apply if the non-absence offenses resulted only in a general\nor special court martial -- or should it apply if any punishment resulted?\nDoes it apply if no punishment (other than the UD-Unfitness discharge)\nresulted? Finally, do we apply this factor when an applicant receives\na BCD or a DD for charges which include both absence and non-absence\noffenses? It appears that the Board panels have in fact done SO.\nAGGRAVATING FACTOR #12: Does the Board apply the same rule as in\nmitigating factor #11 -- that only the last qualifying offense counts?\nAlso, the Board does in fact consider simple apprehension to be sufficient\nto bring about this factor. The language in the Clemency Law Reporter\nindicated that some evidence of willful evasion of authorities is also\nneeded, but the Board has yet to apply this rule."
}