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
18558773
label
Final Report - Draft, Undated (5)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
18558773
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Final Report - Draft, Undated (5)
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
18558773
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-08-31
month
8
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-08-01
month
8
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
7bc99138595180ee
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 4, folder "Final Report - Draft, Undated (5)" of
the Charles E. Goodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Charles Goodell donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 4 of the Charles E. Goodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
APPENDIX G
G. DATA
GERALD
FORD LIBRARY &
APPENDIX
:
DATA ON PCB APPLICANT
Data
In order to collect adequate data on the PCB applicants, a sample was
constructed of 1481 cases reviewed and disposed of by the Board. The selection
process was not completely random, however, since the number of civilians. and
the types of military discharges were known from a complete survey. Approximately
11.5% of all PCB applicants were civilians and 88.5% were former military
personnel. Of the military personnel, 55.9% were discharged as undesirable
(UD) (49.5% of all applicants); 42.1% were discharged for bad conduct (BCD)
(37.3% of all applicants); and 1.9 were discharged under the dishonorable
classification (DD) (1.7% of all PCB applicants .) The sample consisted of
472 civilians cases and 1009 military cases - thus allowing an adequate sample
of civilian and making our military data more reliable. However, the military
cases could not be accurately controlled to fit the known discharge percentiles
since only cases which had been disposed could be used and since random
selectivity of the smaller, disposed universe varied in accordance with early
applications.
The data was prepared for analysis in the Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences program. Because the data collection was performed by a group
of people whose specialities were legal and not demographic, we had an error
rate of 3.2%.
We had to reply on case summaries for our data. While we could rely on
them as accurate reflections of the case files (given our Quality control
procedures) this did raise three methodological problems:
(1) Official
records's were not always prepared in the same manner, (2) Much of the Data did
not come directly from the applicant, but from a third party. (3) the information
included in case summaries was not included for the purpose of statistical
analysis, but simply had to be relevant to the Board's Baseline formula and
Factors.
Of course, relying on case summaries did have one advantage: Our statistics
reflect our Board members views of our applicants. Usually, the case summary
was the sole basis for a Board member's knowledge of an applicant. Of course
we are also aware of the natural amount of discrepancy in statistical studies.
In our own work such statistical difference has occured, and of this we would
like to take due note. We have actually performed two statistical studies: (1) aimed
at what is found in case summaries by a group of specially trained observors, and
(2) what we found in the case summaries as a Board and recorded in aggravating
and mitigating factors. The first study, as already noted, covered 472 civilian
and 1009 military cases. The second study covered 13,183 cases, or 87.2% of
all the cases we have heard. The statistical differences of some of the directly
correlative areas are noted below.
Civilian
Military
Board
Observer
Board
Observer
Creditable Service
84.45%
80.9%
Vietnam Service
26.08%
26.6%
Voluntary Surrender
58.88%
71.3%
37,23%
52.2%
Other Adult Felony
4.04%
4.0%
52.57%
57.6%
Inadequate Education
2.91%
20.9%
31.83%
31.9%
One of the most important differences in these statistics is based on the
degree of subjectivity involved. We have reacted differently than the other
observers. We would also like to note a difference in the cases used. As the
smaller study used cases disposed of before July 10, 1975, it does not reflect
trends of cases after that date. Despite apparent differences, we feel confident
that the Report adequately reflects the applicants, and of course, the larger
study is more accurate.
In the remainder of this appendix, we list the findings of the smaller
survey. The aggravating and mitigating factors are discussed in Chapter
Civilian
Military
Childhood Residence
N
189
328
Urban
58.2%
47.3%
Suburban
10.5%
12.2%
Rural non-farm (small town)
17.5%
32.0%
Rural farm
5.8%
8.2%
Regions of Childhood
N
399
789
1 1st Circuit: Maine, New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Puerto Rico, Rhode
Island
3.3%
4.0%
2 2nd Circuit: Vermont, Connecticut,
New York
6.3%
9.0%
3 3rd Circuit: Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, Delaware, Virgin Islands
9.5%
9.2%
4 4th Circuit: Virginia, West
Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina,
South Carolina
7.0%
11.6%
5 5th Circuit: Georgia, Florida,
Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana,
Texas, Canal Zone
10.8%
17.9%
6 6th Circuit: Michigan, Ohio,
Kentucky, Tennessee
11.3%
13.6%
7 7th Circuit: Illinois, Indiana,
Wisconsin
8.8%
7.1%
8 8th Circuit: Arkansas, Missouri,
Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Nebraska
6.3%
8.6%
9 9th Circuit: California, Montana,
Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Nevada,
Alaska, Hawaii
25.1%
8.7%
10 10th Circuit: Wyoming, Utah,
Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma,
New Mexico
5.0%
4.9%
11 11th Circuit: District of Columbia
.3%
1.1%
12 Outside U.S. and Territories
1.3%
2.1%
13 More than one inter-circuit moves
before age 18
4.5%
1.5%
Evidence of Family Instability: Most
Severe
N
114
326
1 Evidence of child abuse
.9
3.4%
2 Evidence of drug abuse
,9
.3%
3 Evidence of alcoholism
12.3
9.5%
4 Multiple marriages
12.3
16.9%
5 Serious family illness
5.3
11.0
6 Serious family mental illness
5.3
3.1
7 Parental promiscuity
2.6
2.8
8 Lack of harmony
40.4
35.9
9 Other
20.2
17.2
Evidence of Family Instability: Secondary
Civilian
Military
N
52
124
1 Evidence of child abuse
3.8%
7.0%
2 Evidence of drug abuse
2.3%
3 Evidence of alcoholism
13.5
7.0%
4 Multiple marriages
11.5
7.0%
5 Serious family illness
3.8
14.0
6 Serious family mental illness
11.5
4.7
7 Parental promiscuity
1.9
0.8
8 Lack of family harmony
25.0
35.7
9 Other
28.8
21.7
Evidence of economic instability
N
130
245
1 Low income
23.1%
33.1%
2 Itinerent residence patterns
5.4%
6.1%
3 Intermittent employment
1.5%
2.0%
4
Low income and intermittent employment
1.5%
5.3%
5 Low income and itinerent residence pattern
1.5%
8%
6 Itinerent residence pattern and intermittent
1.5%
1.2%
employment
7 All elements noted (itinerancy, intermittant,
.8%
.8%
employ, low income)
8 Other evidence of economo-instability
6.9%
25.3%
9 Evidence of economic stability
57.7%
25.3%
Number of Siblings
N
428
897
None
10.6%
13.1%
One
15.9%
11.1%
Two
22.0%
15.8%
Three
21.7%
16.4%
Four
11.4%
13.0%
Five
6.5%
12.9%
Six or More
12.2%
17.1%
Year of First Qualifying Offense
Civiliar
Military
N
126
631
1964
I
3.0%
1965
.8%
4.3%
1966
1.6%
5.9%
1967
3.1%
7.1%
1968
2.3%
11.9%
1969
19.5%
16.2%
1970
21.9%
17.9%
1971
22.7%
16.5%
1972
19.5%
12.5%
1973
6.3%
3.0%
1974
.8%
I
Year of Last Qualifying Offense
N
455
995
1963
.2%
I
1964
I
.8%
1965
1.1%
2.2%
1966
1.8%
3.5%
1967
1.3%
6.9%
1968
5.5%
7.5%
1969
12.7%
15.0%
1970
24.3%
16.8%
1971
27.9%
19.2%
1972
17.5%
16.0%
1973
5.9%
9.1%
1974
1.3%
2.1%
Civilian
Military
Total Months Incarcerate for Qualifying Offense
N
472
1009
0
66.5%
50.9%
1-3 month
4.2%
18.1%
4-6 month
11.0%
21.4%
7-9 month
3.0%
5.1%
10-12 month
2.3%
2.7%
Over 1 year
12.7%
1.5%
Months of Creditable Service
N
N/A
1001
1-3
6.0%
4-6
13.1%
7-9
12.6%
10-12
9.2%
13 15
8.7%
15-18
6.6%
19-21
6.8%
22-24
7.6%
25-27
5.0%
28-30
5.1%
31-33
3.4%
34-36
2.9%
Over 3 years
11.9%
Most Severe Sentence Type for Qualifying Offense
Civilian
Military
N
441
455
Incarceration
37.0%
97.4%
Probation to Alternative Service
44.8%
.2%
Probation - Fines or Forfeitures
4.1%
.7%
Probation Only
6.2%
.7%
Incarceration Suspended in Lieu
Of Probation
7.5%
1.0%
Appeals Of Conviction
N
472
1009
None
93.2%
77.6%
Federal Court Appeals
6.8%
.27%
Courts-Martial Appeal
I
Appeal of Discharge
---
.8%
Type of Civilian Qualifying Offense
N
464
N/A
Failure to Register
2.6%
-
Failure to Inform of Charge
9.7%
-
Failure to Report for Physical
3.7%
i
Failure to Report for Induction
32.1%
--
Failure to Submit for Induction
31.7%
-
Failure to Perform A/S
13.4%
-
Combination Including Induction
6.5%
-
Combination Not Including Induction
.4%
-
Circuit of Conviction
Civilian
Military
N
45%
N/A
1st Circuit
2.6%
-
2nd Circuit
5.9%
-
3rd Circuit
8.9%
-
4th Circuit
7.0%
1
5th Circuit
11.8%
-
6th Circuit
12.9%
-
7th Circuit
7.6%
-
8th Circuit
6.5%
-
9th Circuit
30.9%
I
10th Circuit
5.9%
:
11th Circuit
-
Age at Enlistment or Induction
N
N/A
1006
15
:
.1%
16
-
.5%
17
-
30.8%
18
-
25.7%
19
-
21.2%
20
-
12.1%
21
-
4.1%
22
-
1.9%
23
-
1.3%
24 or older
-
2.4%
Military Intake
Civilian
Military
N
N/A
Drafted
-
15.6%
Enlisted for 2 years
:
11.1%
Enlisted for 3 or more years
:
46.0%
Reenlisted
-
7.2%
Judicially Induced Enlistment
-
4%
Enlistment Length Unknown
-
19.7%
Hardship Reassignment Requested
N
N/A
100 %
Temporary deferral from active duty, granted
PR
2%
Temporary deferral from active duty, denied
:
.1%
Compassionate leave, granted
-
..7%
Compassionate leave, denied
-
1.4%
Compassionate reassignment, granted
:
.6%
Compassionate reassignment, denied
-
1.6%
Hardship discharge, denied
--
5.6%
None noted
-
89.8%
Vietnam Experience
N
N/A
100%
Volunteer, partial tour ending in injury
.5%
Volunteer, partial tour ending in AWOL
1.1%
Volunteer, partial tour ending other reasons
1.1%
Voluntary full tour
6.3%
Non-volunteer, partial tour ending in injury
1.0%
Non-volunteer, partial tour ending for other
1.3%
Non-volunteer, partial tour ending for other
reasons
2.3%
Non-volunteer, full tour
10.0%
More than one tour
3.0%
No tours
73.4%
Type of Military Qualifying Offense
N
N/A
AWOL
990
-
Desertion
89.9%
-
Missing Movement
2.7%
-
AWOL and Desertion
.2%
-
AWOL and Missing Movement
6.2%
-
Desertion and Missing Movement
.7%
-
.3%
Number of Unpunished AWOLs, etc.
N'A
Mean = 1.6
Number of NJPs for AWOL, etc.
N/A
Mean =. 1.9
Number of SCMs for AWOL, etc.
N/A
Mean = 1.2
Number of SPCMs for AWOL, etc.
N'A
Mean = 1.4
Number of GCMs for AWOL, etc.
N/A
Mean = 1.008
Civilian
Military
Circumstances of Last/Discharge Military
Offense
N/A
N
-
823
Left from Basic Training
-
6.9%
Left from advanced infantry training
-
10.1%
Left from stateside duty, not after
Vietnam Service
-
51.9%
Left from stateside duty, after Vietnam
Service
-
24.1%
Failed to return to Vietnam from R&R
or other leave
-
1.3%
Left from non-combat area of Vietnam
-
2.2%
Left from combat area of Vietnam
-
1.2%
Left from actual combat
-
2.3%
Criminal Intake of Last Qualifying Offense
N
230
700
Surrendered
71.3%
700
52.2%
Apprehended
28.7%
52.2% 47,8%
Civilian
Military
Place While AWOL or Otherwise at Large
N
181
397
Immediate return to authorities
6.6%
2.5%
Hometown, not in hiding
63.0%
73.0%
Elsewhere in US, with family
2.2%
8.1%
Elsewhere in US, not with family, not in hiding
14.4%
5.3%
Elsewhere in US, in hiding (e.g., under assmued name)
2.2%
1.0%
In Canada
6.6%
2.0%
In the foreign country of military assignment
-
6.0%
In another foreign country
5.0%
2.0%
Activities While AWOL or otherwise at Large
N
112
284
Employed, full-time, white collar
23.2%
2.3%
Employed, full-time, skilled blue collar
20.5%
32.1%
Employed, full-time, unskilled
24.1%
47.0%
Employed, part-time, white collar
Employed, part-time, skilled blue collar
1.8%
.9%
Employed, part-time, unskilled
7.1%
3.7%
Employed intermittently
14.3%
5.1%
Unemployed
7.1%
7.9%
Other
1.8%
.9%
Secondary Reasons for Offense
N
Civilian
Military
204
649
Religious objection to all war
6.9
3%
Ethical or moral objection to all war (non-
religious)
18.1
.8
Specific political moral or ethical objection
to the war in Vietnam (not religious)
14.2
1.1
Avoid going to Vietnam
2.5
1.2
Avoid going to overseas replacement station,
not in Victnam and not known to be Europe
-
.2
Went AWOL from Victnam
-
.5
Failed to return to Vietnam from leave or R&R
-
.3
Post combat psycological problems complained of
-
1.1
Did not like service
1.0
6.2
Other, articulated or unarticulated opposition to
war
5.4
.3
Hindrance of CO application or failure to provide
proper assistance
2.9
.3
Denial of CO application
3.2
.3
Hindrance of request for. hardship discharge or
compassionate reassignment.
-
2.0
Denial of hardship discharge or compassionate
reassignment.
-
1.2
Improper recruitment into armed forces enlistment
in lieu of sentence by criminal authorities.
-
.2
AFQT Category IV --Project 100,000
-
4.0
Breach of assignment preference or occupational
choice.
.6
2.0
Denial of request for leave.
.5
1.7
Improper orders: Told to go home and wait orders;
lost soldier.
-
.3
Other Procedural Unfairness
4.4
6.6
Drug or alcohol problems/dependence
1.6
2.3
Personal medical problem;
1.5
5'.2
Personal, emotional or psychological problem
3.9
8.9
Marital problem
1.0
3.7
Family Medical problem
2.5
8.3
Family emotional or psychological problem
.5
5.2
Family problems with the law
.5
.6
Family financial problem
2.0
15.1
Other personal or family problems
6.9
10.3
Civilain convictions
2.0
.3
Avoidance of punishment for other actions
-
.8
Boredom, lack of satisfaction, sense of uselessness,
-
1.4
Went AWOL cause he wanted to go to Nam and they cou
wouldn't let him go
-
.3
Personal Problem w/law-not convictions
-
-
Selfish reasons
5.4
4.5
Immaturity
2.9
2.3
Primary Reasons for Offence
Civilian
Military
N
431
926
Religious objection to all war
34.1%
.4%
Ethical or moral objection to all war (non-religious
23.2%
1.0%
Specific political moral or ethical objection to the
14.9%
2.5%
war in Vietnam (not religious)
Avoid going to Vietnam
.7%
1.1%
Avoid going to overseas replacement station, not in
-
.1%
Victnam and not known to be Europe
Went AWOL from Vietnam
-
.5%
Failed to return to Victnam from leave or R&R
I
.2%
Post combat psycological problems complained of.
-
1.8%
Did not like service
.5%
9.7%
Other, articulated or unarticulated opposition to war
2.8%
.5%
Hindrance of CO application or failure to provide proper
-
--
assistance.
Denial of CO application.
3.2%
.2%
Hindrance of request for hardship discharge or
-
.2%
compassionate reassignment
Denial of hardship discharge or compassionate re-
.2%
1.7%
assignment.
Improper recruitment into armed forces--enlistment in
-
.4%
lieu of sentence by criminal authorities.
AFQT Category IV. Project 100,000
-
2.3%
Breach of assignment preference or occupational choice.
.2%
2.6%
Denial of request for leave.
-
1.1%
Improper orders: Told to go home and wait orders;
-
.3%
lost soldier
Other procedural Unfairness
2.3%
4.6%
Drug or alcohol problems/dependency
.9%
4.9%
Personal medical problem;
1.9%
3.6%
Marital problem
.2%
8.4%
Family Medical problem
1.9%
11.1%
Family emotional or psychological problem
1.2%
2.6%
Family problems with the law
-
.1%
Family financial problem
1.6%
12.5%
Other personal or family problems
2.1%
6.4%
Civilian convictions
I
.3%
Avoidance of punishment for other actions
I
1.0%
Boredom, lack of satisfaction, sense of uselessness
.2%
1.7%
Went AWOL cause he wanted to go to Nam and they wouldn't 1
-
.6%
let him go
Personal Problem 2/law-not convictions
.7%
.1%
Selfish reasons
4.9%
4.3%
Immaturity
.7%
4.3%
Civilian
Military
Last known family status (applicant's family)
N
372
768
Single, no dependents
46.2%
38.4%
Single, dependents
2.7%
2.3%
Widowed no dependents
-
.1%
Seperated, no dependents
.5%
.8%
Divorced, or seperated, dependents
2.7%
3.4%
Married, no dependents other than spouse
23.7%
15.2
Married, dependents other than spouse.
21.0%
38.4%
Employment Activities at Time of Application
N
360
316
Employed, full-time, white collar
26.1%
6.6%
Employed, full-time, skilled blue collar
16.9%
22.2%
Employed, full-time, unskilled
21.1%
17.4%
Employed, part-time, white collar
.4%
I
Employed, part-time, skilled blue collar
1.1%
.6%
Employed, part-time, unskilled
2.5%
.6%
Employed intermittently
2.9%
1.6%
Unemployed
2.1%
11.1%
In trade school
.4%
.3%
In college
7.5%
2.5%
In graduate school
1.8%
.3%
In trade school, employed part-time
-
.6%
In college, employed full-time
.7%
1
In graduate school, employed, part-time
2.1%
.3%
Incarcerated, awaiting trial
.4%
.3%
Incarcerated, past conviction
3.6%
22.8%
Incarcerated, for qualifying offense (furloughed by
7.5%
11.4%
Executive Order)
Mental or Physical Problems
N
472
1009
None Noted
86.7%
71.9%
Physical Problems, No Disability
2.5%
4.0%
Physical Problem, With Disability
1.9%
2.9%
Psychological Problems pertaining to
.8%
5.0%
Reaction to Authority
Other Psychological Problems
5.7%
10.3%
Problems with drugs
1.7%
5.0%
Problems with alcohol
.6%
1.0%
Existence and Origin of Medical Problem
N
472
1009
None
93.4%
84.5%
Congenital
1.3%
2.1%
Pre-Military/Draft
4.7%
3.7%
Emanating from draft or military
-
2.9%
situation
Possibly emanating from Vietnam experience
-
.6%
Definitely emanating from Victnam experience
-
3.1%
Post-military/draft
-
.6%
Origin Unknown
.6%
2.6%
Civilian
Military
Existence and Origin of Psychological Problems
N
472
1009
None
90.5%
78.9%
Congenital
1.9%
2.1%
Pre-Military/Draft
5.9%
5.4%
Emanating from draft or military situation
1.1%
7.0%
Possibly emanating from Vietnam experience
-
1.7%
-
Definitely emonating from Vietnam experience
3.2%
Post-military/draft
-
.3%
Origin Unknown
.6%
1.5%
Existence and Origin of Family Problems
N
472
1009
None
86.9%
60.2%
Congenital
.4%
4.9%
Pre-Military/Draft
7.2%
12.1%
Emanating from draft or military situation
4.2%
15.8%
Possibly emanating from Vietnam experience
-
.4%
Definitely emanating from Vietnam experience.
-
.1%
Post-Military/draft
.2%
1.4%
Origin Unknown
1.1%
5.3%
Existence and Origin of Problem with the Law
N
472
1009
None
71.8%
75.8%
Pre-Military/Draft
5.3%
.7%
Emanating from draft or military situation
21.8%
19.0%
Possibly emanating from Vietnam experience
-
.6%
Definitely emanating from Vietnam experience
-
1.4%
Post-military/draft
-
1.7%
Origin Unknown
1.0%
.7%
Existence and Origin of Financial/Employment
Problems
N
472
1009
None
93.5%
81.0%
Congenital
.2%
1.2%
Pre-Military/Draft
1.3%
3.9%
Emanating from draft or military situation
4.2%
10.4%
Possibly emanating from Vietnam experience
I
.3%
Definitely emanating from Vietnam experience
-
.2%
Post-military/draft
.2%
.7%
Origin Unknown
.4%
2.4%
APPENDIX H
H. *MANAGEMENT
APPENDIX H- MANAGEMENT TOOLS
1. Pipeline Analysis
One of the most useful of the many tools developed by the management
analysis staff, this one in particular at the instigation of an OMB study team,
was the production "pipeline analysis.' The "Pipeline" was designed to monitor
the entire workload and case flow throughout the organization, based on a
simple bean-in-the-bin methodology.
The pipeline analysis literally did no more than count the number of cases
in each significant stage of the process at the time the pipeline "snapshot"
occurred. A form listing the 20-25 most important (and discrete) steps in
the case process, from receipt of an application to hearing or rehearing by
the Board, was handed out at a fixed time to every person in the organization
that might conceivably handle a case or a case file. At a fixed time shortly
thereafter, each person would stop work and count the case files then in his
(her) physical possession. While clarifying modifications occurred over time,
the principal remained the physical accounting of cases.
Results of the snapshot were then put together with data gathered from other
intermediate steps in the organization--gross totals from the application section,
files processing, docketing and distribution, and post-Board operations, to
form an audit of the organization.
Initially, some 600 cases were "lost" or otherwise unaccounted for. As time
went by and the pipeline became more sophisticated, fewer cases turned up in
the missing category. Those that did were assumed to resemble the bankers "float".
That is, some cases were inevitably uncounted because they were between stages.
A number of cases were also assumed to be "1os t" in the sense that no one had
possession of them. Figure 1 is a copy of the "snapshot" form used to derive
the bulk of the data. Figure 2 below shows a typical pipeline analysis for
the week ending August 4 ; alphabetic characters in the boxes correspond to
lines in the "snapshot (Figure 1), and form the general equations used to
derive the pipeline analysis.
Data from the pipeline analysis were used to spot actual and anticipate:
potential backlogs, plan Board sessions (based on the number of cases that
could be expected to come to fruition in time for a Board meeting), and to
determine the need for short term resource realocation. Of all of the tools
developed, this proved to be one of the most useful in the critical May-July
operations of the PCB. It is also the management tool that may have the most
limited applicability in a standard government unit. Where there is clearly
a productiontype operation, however, the pipeline analysis could easily be
utilized. It was both our most diffuclt and useful management tool.
FIG ZE 1 - SNAPSHOT FORM
B
AA/ATL/TL/QC/Other
ATL/TL
Secretaries
QC
Xerox
Oz.
Ldr
Team See
IL
Atty
QC Accy
Other
4AUG
Cases Assigned but not
Started
Cases Partially written,
or Awaiting More Info.
Draft Not Yet To ATL or QC
Draft from ATL or QC but
Not In Final Type
Final Typed, But Not Sent
To Xerox
Cases sent to D/D Or Docke-
ted, Awaiting Presentation
Presented Cases Reld Be-
cause of Tabling
Presented Cases Ileld Be-
cause of Full Board Ref.
Presented Cases Held Be-
cause of Atty. Flagging
Case Referred as Juris.
Cases Referred as In-
Memo.
eligible
Presented Cases, Ready For
Delivery to File Room
Cases Received by TL/ATL
But Not Assigned to M.
Drafts From AA Awaiting
Cleanance by ATL
Draft Cleared by. ATL to Be
Delivered to AA 02 00
Cases Held For Typing
Cases Held for Xeroxing
Final Typed, Awaiting
Distribution (To AA/ATL)
Draft /waiting Review
By OC
QC, Awaiting Review by
QC Team Leader
Case Approved By QC,
Ready For Delivery To AA
Post Audit Review
Avaiting Xeroxing
Xerox Completed, Awaiting
= $ a
n: e
Distribution
5 OTHER 2
116
Tm # 1
136
8
15
2.5
226
7
8.2
16
9
29
16.
2
S
-)
19
38
11
Tm # 2
129
27
9
29
33
94
E
33
3
10
13
21
11
3
12
4
7
5
Tm # 3
138
55
7
30
3
183
9
65
G
2
63
12
16
20
13
3
Tm # 4
180
71
25
11
20
186
10
42
24
10
2
17
1
55
12
Tm # 5
157
58
14
37
8
103
5
30
9
2
3
2
82
9
2.
12
Tm # 6
86
44
14
6
17
83
4
27
24
7
4-
50
10
24
12
Q.C. Team
18
5
)
5
/
3
2
/
121
10
Tm # 7
143
10%
8
9
57
123
30
4)
19
5
12
18
16
3
29
Xerox Rooms
117
Tm # 8
68
75
16
36
7
188
12
40
15
27
60
2
(
2
Post-audit
Review and
6
4
4
1805
1
161
20
3
Juris. Review
VARIABLES
J
ES
a
b
C
d
e
to
9
h
/
i
to
/
M
n
0
P
9
r
s
+
U
V
w
x
in
4
1866
061
552
29
102
179
171
1190
33
373
116
235
248
is
95
5
67
72
33
123
0
10
i)
20
117
48
cases only if they fall into one of these categories. 6176
119
172
133
20
146
is
-
EQUATION
CASES IN PCB PIPELINE AS OF
1
Projected
Applications
Initial File
DD or BCD
Records Received
Applicants
Logged, File
Request Out
File Request
Files Not Completed
2
Not Requested
Out
m
a
2
Files Available
Files Enroute/
Files Rcd. by
Cases Assigned,
For Distribution
Distributed to
AA Teams, Not Yet
No Significant
3
AA Teams
Assigned to AA's
Action
y
we
+
k
Miscellaneous
Jurisdictional
Cases in AA
Question or
Pipeline
Correspondance
b
c+n
o
3
Draft Case Partially
Draft Hand-
Draft
stttu
dtp
Written, or in Pro-
Written
Typed
Cases TO/IN
Cases Awaiting
4
cess of Rewrite
Quality Control
Final Typing
Tabled
Flagged/
f+x-#
docketed this
Jurisdiction
4
Cases Typed in "inal
Docketed
Decided By
Cases etatrtw Awaiting
and Xeroxed
Board Panel
Xeroxing
To Upgrade
Panel
Set
Aside
Cases to be
Cases Sent to
SIGNED
Heard By
President,
BY
Board
Awaiting Signature
PRESIDENT
GERALD
Cases Heard
By Full Board
FORD
LIBRARY
HGURE 2B - PIPELINE
CASES IN PCB PIPELINE AS OF 4 AUG 75
*
*225/18069
317/ 17819
01 17502
01 17502
01 17502
Projected
Applications
Initial File
DD or BCD
Records Received
1
Applicants
Logged, File
Request Out
File Request
Files Not Completed
2
(100/1000)
Not Requested
Out
*-25 duplicates
30/ 17502
334/ 17472
19/ 17138
1061/ 17119
2
Files Available
Files Enroute/
Files Rcd. by
Cases Assigned,
For Distribution
Distributed to
AA Teams, Not Yet
No Significant
3
AA Teams
Assigned to AA's
Action
48/ 13957.
2101/ 16058
Miscellaneous
Jurisdictional
Cases in AA
Question or
Pipeline
Correspondance
5521 13909
197/ 13357
5/ 13160
133/ 13155
346/ 13022
3
Draft Case Partially
Draft Hand-
Draft
Written, or in Pro-
Written
Typed
Cases TO/IN
Cases Awaiting
4
cess of Rewrite
Quality Control
Final Typing
Tabled
368 - ?
Flagged/ 39
507/ 12371
800/
11864
305 / 12676
Jurisdiction
9055 11064
Cases Typed in "inal
Docketed
Decided By
Cases Awaiting
and Keroxed
Board Panel
324
Xeroxing
26
To Upgrade
Panel
Set
330
V
652
Aside
3991 1051
Cases to be
Cases Sent to
SIGNED
Heard By
President,
BY
Board
Awaiting Signature
PRESIDENT
V
194
Cases Heard
By Full Board
2. Productivity Analysis
Productivity analysis was one of the earliest devised methods of guaging
performance of and the probable success of the venture, as measured by our
progress towards goals. The management team measured, at the lowest level,
individual performance as a function of the number of cases sent from that
segment of the process to the next over a week period of time; individual
performance measures were combined by team and by organization to chart performance
was obviously important, an ability to measure progress in line management
levels, where performance was so dependent on the leadership characteristics
of a disparate group of individuals, was the most critical application of the
productivity analysis. The MIS form used for this exercise is attached as figure 3.
Areas of the process both prior to and subsequent to the case attorney areas
were not production units in the same sense. Fromthe file processing unit,
it was necessary to know the estimated application rate, projection of potential
caseload, and the number of case files--essentially the raw materials in the
process--that were readied for the attorneys to process. At the other end, it
was necessary to know how many cases had been readied for the Board to hear (again
raw materials), and how many had been heard or were to be recycled through the system;
hearing rate, and the number actually removed from the process by forwarding
were gathered from other areas.
to the President for signature Thus, numbers were supplied at a gross level,
A
made
and judgements were A without close examination at the microlevel.
FIGURE 3 - MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
PCB FORM #02
(GENERALIZED) FORM
WEEKLY PROGRESS REPORT - TEAM (ATTY) (ATL) CTEAD CIRCLE ONE
WEEK ENDING July 3rd 1945
Sum Rept.
NAME
ISE ID (ATTY WIL)
LEEKLY
WEEKLY PRODUCTION
CURRATIVE
CIRCLE ONE
GOAL
DRAFT
TO CC
DEAFT TO Q.C.
COLLENTS
# A
68
68
1535
1701
B
27
42
1358
1524
C
48
69
933
961
D
91
109
1704
1240
E
59
78
1190
1269
F
49
71
1258
1295
G
82
168
1352
3068.
H
73
95
1640
1662
TOTALS
497
700
10,970
12,720
WEEKLY CUPULATIVE
TOTAL CASES FROM OC
TOTAL CASLS TO D/D
COMMITS
Microlevel productivity analysis at the attorney level, produced startling
discrepencies between performance in of different individuals. Using the
projected average learning curve and a standardized production of 8 cases
per week, the management team produced a cumulative production curve.
The cumulative production for each action attorney on a team was next
plotted against this curve (a was cumulative cases, and the X-axis was number of
weeks on board). Since the team members of any given team came on board over a
continuous period of time, and not all at once, the plotted cumulative production
for each team member should theoretically have formed a learning curve and a
standard production curve. (This probably) depicted the two more accurately than
otherwise might have been "ad the data have been plotted by week instead of
cumulatively, simply because it had the effect of averaging individual performance
E overtime and varying curcumstances.) The fact is that the points did follow
the learning curve as predicted.
Later, a second curve vas plotted that used minimum performance as
the baseline (1-2-4-6 ). Individuals that fell on or below this minimum
productivity line were identified and an attempt was made to determine what
problems may have led to the low productivity. Thos that simply could not or
would not perform to those levels were sent back to the home agencies.
Figure 4A shows the learning curve for "Team 8" at the beginning of
the management intensive phase. Figure 4B shows that same team some four weeks
later. Points for the curves are derived from the management information
system results as shown in the sample in Figure 3. The dark curve was the
predicted le arning curve. The thin curve on the same pages depict the
actual learning curve for the teams.
60
TEAM: #8
May 2
55
3 - 3 - 3 - 3 and X
50
45
CUMULATIVE NUMBER OF CA PRODUCED/SENT TO QUALITY CONTROL
40
35
30
25
R
20
8
15
O
10
8
5
o
O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
NUMBER OF WEEKS ON-BOARD PCB
CUMULATIVE NUMBER OF CASES PRODUCED/SENT TO QUALITY CONTROL
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
1
00
2
NUMBER OF WEEKS ON-BOARD PCB
1-4-5-5-5-4-4-4 1-4-5-5 4 5 5 4-4-4
TEAM: #8 - 5/23
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
3
..]
4
G
$
*
5
9
7
O(ATL)
- (An) (
3. Time and Motion Analysis
Figure 5A through D show, in sequence, the process steps used by the
PCB in writing and quality controlling its cases. Members of the manage-
ment team broke the process up into the primary segments, observed
motions and sequence, discussed the same with staff involved in each
segment, and revised the process as necessary in order to eliminate
both excessive time and duplication.
FIGURE 5A
RECEIPT OF CASE/TO DD - TIME LINE
0:00:00
0:00:05
Application Logged
B
0:00:15
Benson Receives Application
0:00:20
RECORDS REQUEST
(+ 12:00:00 AEMY, AF
Form Completed
+ 14:00:00 NAYY, MC)
0:00:25
MILITARY - Mailed to St. Louis
BCD & DD
0:00:30
CIVILIAN - Mail Request to:
(1) Request (mail) record of trial
(1) Probation Officers
(2) Fed. Bureau of Prisons'
(3) Selective Service (as necessary)
Army, Air Force
Navy, Marines
0:00:45
(a) Type worksheet
(a) Type worksheet
0:00:
0:00:50
(b) Mail to U.S. Court of Military Review
(b) Mail to D. C. Navy Yard
0:00:
2:00:00
(c) Received U.S. C.M.R.
(c) Received Navy Yard
1:00:
2:00:05
(d) U.S. C.M.R. fills out Federal Record
(d) Search for Case
1:06:
Center Request
(e) Sent to Judge Advocate General
2:00:10
--cc to PCB
at Arlington Nava Annex
3:00:
Original to FRC (Suitland)
(f) Sent to PCB
13:00:
Receipt of
(g) Received by PCB
14:00:
Mil Records
10:00:00
Civ. Records
Received
12:00:00
Delivered to PCB
12:01:00
Filed W/Case Folder
B
Undiscovered
BCD or DD
10:00:15
Deliver to
Filed W/Case Folders
14:01:0
File Room
10:00:30
Filed
A1
TIME COMPUTED TO A1 = 12:00:00
AZ = 14:00:00
B = 22-24:00:00 22
A
START FROM TIME COMPUTED AT A OR B
0:00:00
Team Leader New Requests File Number Assignment
(est.) 0:01:00
Team Leader Receives Files Assignments
0:02:00
Case Numbers Assigned to Attorneys
(0:03:00)
Assistant logs assignments on T-02
Attorney
0:02:05
Attorney receives case numbers
0:02:10
Attorney requests file
0:03:00
Attorney receives file
C
0 :04:18
1, Read the file and take notes
:26
2. Fill in best address form
:56
3. Draft background statement
0:05:28
4. Draft statement of circumstances of offense
0 :06 :03
5. Miscellaneous (Prior military offenses,
Chronology, Sources and other information)
:13
6. Fill in aggravating and mitigating sheets
23
7. Resolve problems by calling applicant, asking
team leader questions
:25
8. Give to typist
:40
9. Typist types 1st draft
:45
10. Returns to attorney for proofreading
:50
11. Attorney proofreads draft
LIBRARY GERALD FORD R.
0:6:50
12. Team leader comments on draft
:55
13. Return to attorney
0:7:00
14. Log out on A-01
:01
15. Return to secretary
:06
16. Log out on T-02
:10
17. Phone Q.C. to inform of availability
of summaries
: #5
18. Picked up by Qual. Control
Quality Control:
0:07:13
Received by Q.C. attorney and logged on M-01
:20
1. Check-out case with team leader
:23
2. Read case summary for readability
:26
3. Correct obvious errors, grammatical
mistakes, etc.; check headings
137
4. Read all correspondence from applicant,
including application
:39
5. Check best address form
:42
6. Verify facts in the heading
0:08:26
7. Check records by turning directly to the file
fill-in omissions; correct mistakes; delete
unwarranted additions
:33
8. Read case summary in its entirety
0:08:38
9. Check aggravating and mitigating sheets
0108:38
9. Check Aggravating and Mitigating Sheets
I. NO CORRECTIONS
0:08:38
II. MINOR CORRECTIONS
0:08:38
III. SIGNIFICANT
CORRECTIONS
0:08:40
1. Log Out on M-01
:52
1. Correct case summary at
:5z
1. Return to Acti
Action Atty's desk
ATTY. FOR CORRE
TIONS
0:08:45
2. Return to secretary for
:53
2. Sign- off at Quality Control
C
DECISION
final typing
:55
3. Log-out on M-01
0:08:58
0:09:15
4. Leave with team secretary
Logged by secretary on T-02
for delivery to A.A.
0:09:7
Give final to A.A. for proof-
reading
:23
A.A. Deliver files to D&D
:28
Logged by D&D
:33
Logged by A.A.
:35
Deliver summary, A&M, "Best
Address" to team secretary
.45
Secretary to Xerox
:50
Xeroxing of 22 copies
0:10:10
Mailing
30 DAYS
APPENDIX I.
I. BUDGET
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD BUDGET ESTIMATES
FY '75
Actual Cost Incurred From
Unanticipated Needs Fund:
Original
Allocation
9/17/74
$ 85,000
Additional
1/5/75
100,000
11 " 11 11
3/18/75
55,000
Total
$240,000
Other
Contributions (DOJ) :
$ 34,600
$
Total:
FY '75
$274,600
FY '76
Actual Costs Incurred
From Unanticipated Needs Fund:
Original Allocation:
$ 100,000
Additional Allocation:
181,000
Total Allocation:
$ 281,000
Total Actual Out of
pocket Board Expenses:
$555,600
Estimate of Real Board Costs:
Actual Costs Incurred:
$ 555,600
Staff Costs
Salaries:
(Av. Grade 65.8 For an
3,000,000
Av. 250 pcs. for 12 months)
Benefits @ 99%
270,000
Total Salary Expenses:
$3,270.000
Space - Approx:
800.000
Telephones, Communications- Approx:
500.000
Miscellaneous - includes overhead-
supplies-printing-guard service, etc.
500.000
CERALD R.FORD
Total-estimated real costs:
$5,625,600