Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "4520637",
    "label": "MIA's (2)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4520637"
}

{
    "id": "4520637",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4520637",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "MIA's (2)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4520637",
    "collections": [
        "Philip W. Buchen Files",
        "Philip Buchen's General Subject Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Independent regulatory commissions",
        "Prisoners of war",
        "Presidential appointments",
        "Missing in action",
        "Vietnam War, 1961-1975",
        "Law and legislation"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0019/574067/Batch0002/38-0019-f-4520637.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0019/574067/Batch0002/38-0019-f-4520637.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0019/574067/Batch0002/38-0019-f-4520637.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4520637",
    "naId": 4520637,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1976-11-01",
        "month": 11,
        "year": 1976
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-01-01",
        "month": 1,
        "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-0019/574067/Batch0002/38-0019-f-4520637.pdf",
    "mediaId": "8f55ce6fe7e9604d",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 25, folder \"MIA's (2)\" of the Philip Buchen Files\nat 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. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain.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 25 of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nMEMORANDUM\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 24, 1974\nFOR:\nFROM:\nJAY FRENCH\nPHILIP W. BUCKEN BUCHEN\nSUBJECT:\nENCLOSED PROPOSAL FROM\nGENERAL LAWSON CONCERNING\nMIA/POW MATTERS\nEva referred this memo to me for my information. I discussed\nit with Ted Marrs and informed him that this is not a matter\nrequiring legal comment from our office.\nIt is my feeling that such a commission is improper. Intelligence\ninformation should be capable of telling us whether there is a\nsubstantial probability that a significant number of MIAs are alive.\nIf the information is positive, we do not need a commission to do\nwhat we should do on our initiative, that is, pressure these countries\nto account for these men. On the other hand, if the intelligence\ninformation is negative, a commission would only wet an appetite\nthat could never be satified.\n5\nEnclosure\nRALD CERALS LIBRANY FORD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDec. 18, 1974\nTo:\nJay\nFrom: Eva\nAttached is a copy of\nthe memo Mr. Buchen\njust received. FYI\nMEMORANDUM\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 18, 1974\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nDR. TED MARRS\nFROM:\nGENERAL LAWSON\nSUBJECT:\nMIA/POW Matters\nThe attached draft proposal to the President has been forwarded to\nDefense, State and NSC for approval, change, comment and coordi-\nnation. Defense has concurred. Neither State or NSC has formally\nresponded, although I have been informally advised that some\nresistance to the proposal is developing. I am pressing for a\ndecision in time to make an announcement on 27 January 1975 - the\nsecond anniversary of our POW release. I will keep you advised.\n1 Attachment\nDraft Proposal\nCC:\nMr. Marsh\nMr. Buchen\nMr. Baroody\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nMAJOR GENERAL LAWSON\nSUBJECT:\nDesignation of a Presidential Task Force\nfor MIA/POW Matters\nFor several months the MIA/POW families have been search-\ning for a responsible means of realizing their objectives. After\nRetention Copy Military Office\ncareful and intense study, they have come forward with a request\nfor the establishment of a \"Presidential MIA/POW Task Force\",\nmodeled along the lines of the Presidential Amnesty Commission.\n(Tab A)\nUpon receipt of the request, a study group was formed to\nevaluate the proposal. We have now completed a series of meetings\nwith members of the National League of Families, Congress, the\nDepartments of State and Defense, and various other interested\nindividuals. From these discussions, the following general.ob-\nservations were formulated:\n(1) Family members are generally optimistic about the\npotential value of such a commission. Although they are realistic\nenough to understand that a commission cannot perform \"acts of\nmagic,\" they do believe that the combined power of the legislative\nand executive branches of government united under a Presidentially\ndirected organization could achieve some measure of success\nLIBRARY GERALD ? FORD\n-2-\nAt the minimum, they believe the commission would focus international\nattention upon the failure of the North Vietnamese to comply with the\nprovisions of the Paris Peace Accords.\n(2)\nMembers of Congress have already issued statements\nsuggesting creation of either ? Presidential Task Force or a\nCongressional Task Force to \"investigate and make recommendations\nregarding the conduct of the MIA/POW program.\" (Tab B)\nCongressional interest in the MIA/POW issue has increased in the\npast six months. Amend iments to the Foreign Trade Bill and\nthe Military Construction Bill were initiated and only narrowly missed\nenactment. Both State and Defense have registered concern for the\nimpact which these amendments could have had upon cristing\nprograms (Tab C and Tab D).\n(3)\nThe Supreme Court decision which upheld the lower\ncourts' actions in the McDonald versus McLucas case (permitting\nthe redesignation of certain MIA/POW's to that of Presumptive\nFinding of Death [PFOD]) gives the green light to service secretaries\nto hold independent hearings and reviews on all MIA/POW cases\nimmediately if they so desire. This issue is one of the most\ncontroversial aspects of the entire MIA/POW program. Currently\nbecause of White House guidance, redesignation hearings are only\nheld FORD LICENSE when\nrequested by a family member. Some members (primarily wives)\nwould privately prefer to have the redesignation program proceed - but,\n- -3-\nthey cannot bring themselves to be the initiating factor. Others\n(primarily parents) have and will continue to use every possible means\nof delay to obstruct redesignation action. By law, this action cannot\nbe held up much longer. A commission would be a most useful means\nto publicly illuminate all aspects of this very difficult question.\nAfter careful consideration of all aspects of the National\nLeague of Families proposal, the study group has concluded that the\nformation of a Presidential Task Force for MIA/POW Matters is\ntimely and could serve an extremely useful function in the fi: al\nresolution of the Vietnam era MIA/POW issue. It is recognized that\nthere are certain inherent dangers associated with the establishment\nof Presidentially appointed commissions, in that occasionally their\nrecommendations tend to be narrowly focused and cannot be implemented\nwhen viewed in the context of national policy. However, in this case,\nthe question does not appear to be - \"Will there be a commission?\",\nbut \"Who will initiate a commission.\" The mood of Congress is quite\nclear. If the Executive Branch does not initiate action fairly quickly,\na Congressional task force will almost certainly be appointed to\naccomplish the study. Neither the families nor the representatives\nof Defense or State Departments favor that action. Considering all\naspects of the current situation, it is recommended that you establish\nPresidential Task Force for MIA/POW matters.\nLIBRARY GERALD\nThe Department of State and the Department of Defense concur\nwith this recommendation.\nIf you agree, a working group consisting of White House,\nDefense and State Department personnel will be established in order\nto develope the specific guidelines for the task force in order that\nyou might present this information to the National League of Families\nat the earliest possible date.\nAPPROVE\nDISAPPROVE\nLET'S DISCUSS\n1 Attachments\nLIBRARY GERALD P. FORD\nFORD.\nBRAAT\nis\nGLRATO\nNATIONAL LEAGUE OF FAMILIES\nOF AMERICAN PRISONERS AND MISSING IN SOUTHEAST ASIA\n1603 K STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006 (202) 628-6811\nSeptember 30, 1974\nPRESIDENTIAL TASK FORCE --- POW/MIA\nI. Why a Task Force?\nThe responsibility for obtaining a successful resolu-\ntion of the POW/MIA issue should be centralized. Previously the\nissue has been a concern of the Executive Branch including State\nDepartment, Defense Department, and the Congress. It has lacked\nthe cohesiveness that a commission directly responsible to the\nPresident would have. Therefore, it seems desirable- even\nimperative that a Presidential Task Force be established.\nII. Make Up of Task Force\nOf course the President would determine the make up.\nBut, because we so fervently desire an acceptable determination\nof the fate of our men, we are bold enough to make these suggestions:\n1. Someone from the Executive Branch to chair\nthe commission.\n2. Senate representation.\n3. House representation.\n4. State Department representation.\n5. Department of Defense representation.\n6. National League of Families representation.\n7. Members of other agencies could be used as\nconsultants as the need arises; i.e., Justice\nDepartment, J. C. R. C. Team, Four Party\nJoint Military Team, Red Cross, etc.\nIII. Purpose, Objectives, and Responsibilities of Task Force\nplan for obtaining an honorable resolution of the POW/MPA issue AND\nI. Very simply to develop, coordinate and execute\nas quickly as possible.\n2. It is easy to state simply and succinctly the\npurposes and objectives. The difficulty is in developing a plan\nand then in executing such a plan. This will require diligent\nchinking and rethinking, but the following might be used as a\nuse which may be altered and enlarged upon as we proceed towards\nthe goal.\nThe Task Force, as an arm of the government and directly\nresponsible to the President shoud:\n2.1 Seek ways to bring world-wide attention to the\nfact that the government of North Vietnam and the leaders of the\nProvisional Revolutionary Government (Viet Cong) are not abiding\nby international agreements which were witnessed by and attested\nto by other governments.\n2.2 Use the United Nations and other world forums to\ncall upon other governments of the world that are signatory to the\nGeneva Convention, to demand publicly and through official govern-\nment channels that the DRV and PRG abide by international agreements.\n2.3 Observe closely the coalition government in Laos\nand use all the means available to us to get cooperation and\nassistance in obtaining an acceptable accounting and return of\nall POW's according to the Laotian protocols.\n2.4 Use all available means to obtain an acceptable\naccounting and return of all POW's who may be in areas outside\nof North Vietnam, South Vietnam, and Laos. These would include\nbut not be limited to Red China and Cambodia.\n2.5 Study the possibility of applying economic pressure\nin obtaining an acceptable accounting, not only to North Vietnam\nbut to any country that has not to our government's satisfaction\npressured the DRV, PRG, Pathet Lao, and Khner Rouge to honor\ntheir commitments.\n2.6 Send a high ranking U. S. envoy to Southeast Asia\nto go from capital to capital (from Saigon to Phnom Penh to\nVientiane to Hanoi to Peking) to try to gain entry into areas\npresently controlled by Communists for our J. C. R. C. Team, the\nInternational Red Cross, or neutral countries, so such teams\ncould search out crash and incident sites, talk with natives,\nand try to obtain the honorable accounting we desire.\n2.7 Seek out governments from neutral countries that\nwould volunteer to send in teams to inspect crash and incident\nsites if such arrangements could be negotiated.\nBLD\nFORD\n2.8 Work closely with our J. C. R. C. Team, the Four\nParty Joint Military Team, and other existing agencies engaged AND\nin\nSoutheast Asia that could help in the POW/MIA issue.\n- 3 -\nIV. Funding\nThe Task Force should be specially funded for a given\nperiod of time--say four months. During this time the Task Force\n!ould exert maximum effort in developing and executing a plan.\n..e 120 days would end about January 27, 1975, which is the\nsecond anniversary of the signing of the Paris Peace Agreements.\nV. Reporting\nThe Task Force should issue reports periodically, the\nfirst report to be issued within one month from its organizational\nmeeting and monthly thereafter or more frequently if deemed\nnecessary. The final report should be given approximately\nJanuary 27, 1975, at which time the commission could assess the\nsituation and recommend that the Task Force be disbanded or con-\ntinued depending on the situation at that time.\nPRESIDENT\nCHAIRMAN TASK FORCE\nNATIONAL\nHOUSE\nLEAGUE OF FAMILIES\nSTATE\nDEFENSE\nSENATE\nLIBRARY GERALD R. FORD\nECM:dib\nFORD LIBRARY\n4\nLos Angeles, Cal 90024\nPhone: 213/824-7755 or\n824-7344\nSeptember 25, 1974\nFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE\nU.S. Senator Alan Cranston announced today that he will ask President\nFord to create a special board of inquiry to review all existing government pro-\ncedures and policies relating to Americans still missing-in-action in Southeast\nAsia.\nCranston said that if the President cannot create such a board by executive\norder, he will initiate legislation establishing the board.\n\"Many Americans, said Cranston, \"have already begun to forget the war\nin Vietnam. But for wives and families of those men whose fate is still uncertain,\nthe memory of that cruel and tragic conflict is very fresh indeed. For them, the\nanguished uncertainty continues day after day.\"\n\"I believe that a board of inquiry would be able to make badly-needed\ncomprehensive recommendations as to what the federal government can do to'\nsettle once and for all the question of the fate of those Americans who are still\nmissing and unaccounted for.\n\"The board should include in its review of existing policies and procedures\na thorough examination of Department of Defense practices with regard to MIAs\nand POWs, as well as recommenidations for needed legislative and executive\naction.\n\"Specifically, the board should:\nGERALD\nLIBRAR\n\"1. Determine if the State Department is actively seeking an end to the war\nin Vistram so that search teams may conclude--by examining crash and grave\nallos--whether any Americans remain alive in Communist-controlled territory.\n\"2. Review Department of Defense policies and regulations on determining\nintasing and unaccounted for.\n\"The board should include in its review of existing policies and procedures\na\nthorough examination of Department of Defense practices with regard to MIAs\nand POW S, as well as recommendations for needed legislative and executive\naction.\n\"Specifically, the board should:\n\"1. Determine if the State Department is actively seeking an end to the war\nin Vietnam so that search teams may conclude--by examining crash and grave\nsites--whether any Americans remain alive in Communist-controlled territory.\n\"2. Review Department of Defense policies and regulations on determining\nthe status of missing-iu-action.\n\"3. Recommend to the Administration and the Congress any legislation\nneeded to correct current problems regarding DOD policies and regulations. \"\nCranston noted that the Senate Committee on Finance has adopted, as\nTitle IV of the Trade Reform Act, language which reflects amendments offered by\nmore\nLIBRARY GERALD R. FORM\nIAs--add one\nenators Chiles and Gurney of Florida conditioning the extension of most-favored-\nation treatment and government credits to non-market economies upon 2\nresidential determination that such countries had undertaken to obtain the\nooperation of the pertinent governments in Southeast Asia in locating U.S.\nersonnel missing in action, repatriating those who are alive, and in recovering\nhe remains of those who are dead.\nEarlier the Senate adopted, as part of the Military Construction Authoriza-\nion Act, a provision--of which Cranston was the prime cosponsor--stating that:\nNo change in the status of any member of the uniformed services who is in\nL missing status may be made unless and until two provisions have been fulfilled.\nFirst, the President must determine and notify the Congress in writing that all\nreasonable actions have been taken to account for such members, and that all\nreasonable actions have been made to enforce the provisions of Article 8 (b) of the\nParis Peace Accord. Second, the service Secretary concerned must notify that\nperson's next-of-kin in writing of the proposed change in status. The next-of-kin\nthen has 60 days after receipt of notification of the proposed change in status to\nfile an objection to the change.\n\"These are important steps toward resolving the question of MIA\nSERATE and FORD ANSURA\nPOWs fairly and compassionately, \" Cranston said.\n\"Creation of a board of inquiry would be another important step toward\nto the long-suffering relatives of our men that the govez\nthis tragic problem.\"\nParis Peace Accord. Second, the service Secretary concerned must nouty that\nperson's naxt-of-kin in writing of the proposed change in status. The next-of-kin\nthen has 60 days after receipt of notification of the proposed change in status to\nfile an objection to the change.\n\"These are important steps toward resolving the question of MIAs and\nPOWs fairly and compassionately,\" Cranston said.\n\"Creation of a board of inquiry would be another important step toward\ndemonstrating to the long-suffering relatives of our men that the government is\ngiving priority to this tragic problem.\"\n- 0 -\nCD\nFORD LIBRA\nFO : e\n033470\nDEPARTMENT OF STATE\nWashington, D.C. 20520\nDecember 7, 1974\nHonorable Russell B. Long\nChairman, Committee on Finance\nUnited States Senate\nDear Mr. Chairman:\nThis letter responds further to questions from several\nMembers of the Committee during the Secretary's testimony\nDecember 3 concerning the Gurney-Chiles amendment (Sec.\n403) to the Trade Reform Act, which calls on the Soviet\nUnion and other nonmarket economy countries to help us\nachieve an accounting for Americans who are missing in\naction in Southeast Asia, including the repatriation of\nany men who may still be alive and the return of the\nremains of the dead.\nIt goes without saying that the Administration shares the\nconcern expressed by this amendment about North Vietnam's\nfailure to account adequately for our men lost in Southeast\nAsia. We have pressed the communist authorities in\nIndochina repeatedly on this subject, and the Secretary\nhas raised it personally with the Soviet and Chinese\nleaders. We have stated that there can be no considera-\ntion of economic assistance or other forms of accormoda-\ntion with Hanoi until there is satisfactory compliance\nwith the provisions of the Paris Agreement, including its\nmissing in action requirement. When the Secretary met at\nthe United Nations with the Foreign Minister of Laos, who\nrepresents the Pathet Lao side in the coalition government,\nhe made clear the importance we attach to search efforts\nfor our men missing in that country. The U.S. took the\ninitiative at the United Nations to sponsor a resolution\non accounting for the missing and dead in armed conflicts,\nwhich was overwhelmingly approved by the General Assembly\non November 6. Our actions will continue with seri\ndetermination until we have obtained the fullest\ninformation on our men.\nDERAZO Ossible IDENTIBRA\n- 2 -\nAlthough we agree with the aim of the Gurney-Chiles\namendment, we are concerned that its reporting require-\nments will hinder, rather than advance, achievement of\nthat objective. As the Secretary indicated in his response\nto questions, it is simply unrealistic to expect progress\nin this important matter on the basis of efforts which are\npublicly disclosed. We assure the Committee we will con-\ntinue our efforts to enlist Soviet cooperation on this\nsubject, but to give this any chance of success, we hope\nthe amendment can be stated as the Sense of the Congress,\nand that the reporting requirement can be removed. We of\ncourse do not wish to have the bill delayed by amendments\non the floor but would hope this section could be adjusted\nin Conference.\nIf we can provide further information on this subject,\nI hope you will let me know.\nLinwood Holton\nAssistant Secretary\nfor Congressional Relations\n&\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\n8\nLIBRAR\nFORD FO :\n&\nBERALD\nASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE\nWASHINGTON, D. C. 20301\nSDEC 1974\nINTERNATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS\nMEMORANDUM FOR GENERAL LAWSON\nSUBJECT: Accounting for Missing Servicemen\nThe Vietnam Ceasefire Agreement, signed in January 1973, in addition\nto providing for the return of prisoners of war and civilian detainees,\nmade provision for an accounting for those missing U. S. servicemen and\ncivilians who did not return. Now, almost two years later, that ac-\ncounting has not been accomplished and the Military Services continue\nto carry over 900 men in a missing status. The inability of the Military\nServices and our government to obtain compliance from North Vietnam and\nits allies with Article 8(b) of the Ceasefire Agreement, which obligates\nthe signatories to cooperate in efforts to account for the missing, has\nresulted in great frustration and continued anxiety for the families of\nthose who did not return from Southeast Asia. Much of this frustration\nhas been directed at the Department of Defense. The resulting situation\nin which we find ourselves, and which will be described below, pleases\nno one.\nSome next of kin are vehemently opposed to the change in status of their\nloved one from missing in action or prisoner to deceased. Others would\nlike the Services to continue with status reviews but cannot bring them-\nselves to comply with current Service procedures which have evolved as a\nresult of the sensitivity of this issue. Congress has also consistently\nexpressed great interest in the issue of accounting. This interest has\nrecently been expressed by the introduction in Congress of measures which\nwould severely restrict the ability of the Military Services to deal with\nthe problem of their members who become missing in either wartime or\npeacetime.\nAs you are well aware, the majority of our efforts to obtain an accounting\nfor our men who did not return have been put forth by our delegates to the\nFour-Party Joint Military Team in Saigon. Although we have continually\npressed the other side in that forum on their clear obligation under Article\n8(b) of the Paris Agreement concerning this purely humanitarian issue, we\nhave achieved only minimal results. The only substantive response has been\nthe return to us last March of the remains of 23 American servicemen whom\nthe DRV reported as having died in captivity. The remains of some 17 other\n&\nFORD\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\n2\nAmericans have been recovered through the activities of our Joint\nCasualty Resolution Center which is based in Thailand. Thus far,\nthe Center has been restricted to uncontested areas of South Vietnam\nin conducting field searches.\nWhen our men returned from enemy captivity in early 1973, they were\nable to provide information which allowed resolution of fewer than\n100 cases of the 1363 servicemen who had remained unaccounted for at\nthe time the repatriation was. completed. On 20 July 1973, a law suit\n(McDonald V. McLucas) was filed against the Secretaries of the Military\nDepartments in an effort to halt changes from missing status to de-\nceased. The resultant Temporary Restraining Order handed down by the\nCourt restricted the Secretaries to reviews of and changes to the status\nof missing servicemen to only cases in which the primary next of kin re-\nquested the appropriate Secretary in writing that he not delay action on\nthe case based on information in his possession. The final decree in\nMcDonald V. McLucas, entered on 11 March 1974, required that the Secretaries\nafford certain rights, including that of a hearing, to those next of kin\ncurrently receiving governmental financial benefits prior to a review of\ntheir missing service member relative's case which could result in a find-\ning of death. By early April 1974, the Services had developed and imple-\nmented regulations to conform with the requirements of the decree. Ad-\nditionally, at that time, we were informed that the decision would be\nappealed to the Supreme Court by plaintiffs' counsel. The appeal was\nsubsequently tiled, and the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the\nlower court on 11 November 1974. We have been informed that the deadline\nfor an appeal for a rehearing by the Supreme Court is 6 December 1974,\nand that as of yet, it has not been filed. The case remains technically\nactive in that regard, although we believe that the granting of such an\nappeal is unlikely.\nWith these legal entanglements now practically behind us, I believe it is\ntime for a look at where we have been and where we should go. An assess-\nment should be made now of our efforts to achieve the accounting required\nby Article 8(b), together with consideration of further status reviews\nand changes. The mechanism exists in the Services to proceed in an orderly\nfashion in accordance with the requirements of the decree with those cases\nwhich warrant review. Some reviews will continue to be made based on the\nrecovery and identification of remains. Others will be warranted because\nof the receipt of new information, or information which verifies that which\nis currently possessed. Still other cases may warrant review simply be-\ncause of the dim prospect for the survivability of the incident itself, the\nfact that our returnees could add nothing to known information which would\nis\nFORD\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\n3\nindicate survival, and even the receipt of additional information,\nwhich might be given by the other side in some future compliance with\nArticle 8(b), would not include additional data in a number of cases.\nAlthough the obligation for the other side to account for our men is\nclear in application to both the missing and the dead, the interpreta-\ntion made by many is that once a change is made to deceased, the other\nside is relieved of their accounting responsibilities. Recent proposed\nlegislation reflecting this view attempts to attach unreasonable con-\nstraints on the statutory authority of the Secretaries under 37 United\nStates Code to make findings of death, and based on the hope that some-\nhow, if there is a halt in status changes, the other side will come\nforth with an accounting. Our review of the past plenary sessionsof\nthe Four-Party Joint Military Team reveals that the other side fully\nrealizes the importance we place on the accounting for our missing and\nthe return of the remains of the dead; therefore, they will continue to\nstall and rebuff our efforts in this area until internal pressure here\nwill result in their achievement of political and military concessions\nwhich they have previously been unable to gain.\nI believe the Services have proceeded thus far in an extremely conserva-\ntive fashion in their reviews of the cases of their missing servicemen.\nThey have continued, as in the past, to honor family requests for reviews.\nAt the present time, no hearings or reviews are being scheduled by the\nServices except in those cases where the primary next of kin requests a\nhearing, or where new and significant information, such as the recovery\nand identification of remains, is forthcoming. As you know, the views\nof next of kin vary on this issue, and often have caused dissention within\nthe same family. We know there are cases which warrant review and the re-\nquest for which would never be sent by the wife. Many feel they could ac-\ncept a change, but not if a need existed for them to initiate the action.\nTestimony to this effect was recently given by family members before the\nHouse Armed Services Committee in connection with consideration by Sub-\ncommittee Number Two of proposed legislation to restrict status changes.\nIn summary, I believe the situation should be studied in light of the\ncurrent and foreseen environment so that we can chart a proper course\nof action.\nRigst E. Shindah\nROGER E. SHIELDS\nDeputy Assistant Secretary\nLIBRARY GERALD R. FORD\nFor Jay French\nNATIONAL LEAGUE OF FAMILIES\nOF AMERICAN PRISONERS AND MISSING IN SOUTHEAST ASIA\nMrs. Ann Griffiths, State Coordinator, Southern California\n6575 Christine Circle, Buena Park, CA 90620\nNovember 14, 1974\nDr. Theodore Marrs\nSpecial Assistant to the President\nThe Whitehouse\nWashington, D.C.\nDear Dr. Marrs:\nI wanted to thank you for taking the time to discuss what I know to\nbe our mutual concern of obtaining the accounting. I greatly\nappreciated our very frank discussion of this situation and related\nmatters.\nIn attempting to convince the families that bitterness should not be\naimed at our current President, I have to say that most families feel\nPresident Ford is the only one who actually can help us obtain the\ninformation we must have in order to feel any real peace within our-\nselves. It really would not matter who occupied the presidency, the\nfrustration would still be vented upon that person. They would con-\nsider it irrelevant that President Ford was not initially to blame,\nonly that he can help us now and has not yet acted with the strength\nand determination they feel is mandatory.\nI share your view that there is no person who can negotiate from a\nposition with nothing to offer. The leverage must be there. What can\nwe do to help our leaders gain the leverage? We must have suggestions\nbefore we can attempt to help. So many of the families have already\nwaited SO long that their patience has worn quite thin. Almost to a\nmember, the families were relieved and happy when Mr. Ford became\nthe President and they all shared the expectancy that now, finally,\nsomething would be done. It is imperative that we have an all-out\neffort for a solution immediately, and I know you certainly share the\nurgency we all feel.\nWe anxiously await further word from General Lawson on the formation of\na special committee of qualified persons who might be able to advise FOR\nthe President in a positive manner. Until then I know we must maintaino\npatience in spite of the impatience which often engulfs us. Again, BE thank\nyou for your concern, efforts and time.\nSincerely,\nan Mills Sriffitter\nAnn Mills Griffiths\n(714) 826-3110 or (714) 893-7531\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 16, 1974\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nGENERAL LAWSON\nFROM:\nDR. MARRS\nDick - the attached letter from Ann Mills Griffiths\nis characteristic of the thinking of a number of\nfamilies of MIAs. Few have been quite as reserved\nhowever.\nThe establishment of a committee would be a welcome\nindicator of interest to all - and announcement of\nsuch before Christmas would be particularly appre-\nciated. By the way, December 27 or 28th is date\nconsidered as MIA \"anniversary.\"\nAs you know, prior to my opportunity to sample the\nsincerity and depth of pained feelings in regard to\nthe Clemency Board I did not support such a Committee.\nNow I am convinced it is a moral obligation.\nIf there is any way I can be of assistance let me\nknow.\nI still cannot guarantee specific recommendations or\nwhitewash - and don't expect the latter. Good selec-\ntion of the committee can preclude a disaster type\nproduct.\nEnclosure\nCC: Mr. Marsh\nMr. Buchen\nMr. Baroody\nGeneral Scowcroft\na.\nFORD\nGERALD\nLIBRABY\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nACTION MEMORANDUM\nWASHINGTON\nLOG NO.:\nDate:\nJanuary 22, 1975\nTime:\nFOR ACTION: Phil Buchen\nCC (for information):\nFROM THE STAFF SECRETARY\nDUE: Date:\nTime:\nSUBJECT:\nLawson memo (1/20/75) re: Designation of\na Presidential Board for MIA Matters\nACTION REQUESTED:\nFor Necessary Action\nX\nFor Your Recommendations\nPrepare Agenda and Brief\nDraft Reply\nXFor Your Comments\nDraft Remarks\nREMARKS:\nLIBRARY GERALD R. FORD\nPLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.\nIf you have any questions or if you anticipate a\ndelay in submitting the required material, please\nJerry H. Jones\ntelephone the Staff Secretary immediately.\nStaff Secretary\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJanuary 20, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nFROM\nMAJOR GENERAL LAWSON\nSUBJECT\nDesignation of a Presidential Board\nfor MIA Matters\nFor several months the MIA families have been searching for a\nresponsible means of realizing their objectives. After careful\nand intense study, they have come forward with a request for\nthe establishment of a \"Presidential MIA Board\", modeled along\nthe lines of the Presidential Amnesty Commission.\nUpon receipt of the request, a study group was formed to evaluate\nthe proposal. We have now completed a series of meetings with\nmembers of the National League of Families, Congress, the\nDepartments of State and Defense, and various other interested\nindividuals. From these discussions, the following observations\nwere formulated:\n(1)\nFamily members are generally optimistic about\nthe potential value of such a group. Although they are realistic\nenough to understand that a Board cannot perform \"acts of magic,\"\nthey do believe that a Presidentially directed organization might\nachieve some measure of success. At the minimum, they believe\nthe activities of the Board would focus international attention upon\nthe failure of the North Vietnamese to comply with the provisions\nof the Paris Peace Accords.\n(2)\nMembers of Congress have already issued state-\nments suggesting creation of either a Presidential Board or a\nCongressional Committee to \"investigate and make recommenda-\ntions regarding the conduct of the MIA program. 11 Congressional\ninterest in the MIA issue has increased in the past six months.\nRestrictive amendments to the Foreign Trade Bill and the Military\nConstruction Bill on this subject were initiated and only narrowly\nmissed enactment. Both State and Defense have registered cort@emn\nfor the impact which such amendments could have had upon existing.\nprograms.\nGERA\nLIBRARY\n-2-\n(3)\nThe Supreme Court decision which upheld the lower\ncourts' actions in the McDonald versus McLucas case (permitting\nthe redesignation of certain MIA to that of Presumptive Finding of\nDeath [PFOD] - gives the green light to service secretaries to hold\nindependent hearings and reviews on all MIA cases immediately if\nthey so desire. This issue is one of the most controversial aspects\nof the entire MIA program. Currently, redesignation hearings are\nonly held when requested by a family member. Some members\n(primarily wives) would privately prefer to have the redesignation\nprogram proceed - but, they cannot bring themselves to be the\ninitiating factor. Others (primarily parents), have and will con-\ntinue to use every possible means of delay to obstruct redesigna-\ntion action. By law, this action cannot be held up much longer.\nA Board would be a most useful means to publicly illuminate all\naspects of this very difficult question, and to develop recommen-\ndations for the resolution of the matter.\nThe study group recognized that there are certain inherent dangers\nassociated with the establishment of Presidential Boards.\n(1)\nSome recommendations of similar groups have\ntended to be narrowly focused and could not be implemented when\nconsidered in the context of total national policy. (This is a potential\nproblem in this case since one of the most frequent proposals from\nthe MIA community is the adoption of foreign trade restrictions\ndesigned to force access for search and identification teams into\nNorth Vietnam and other communist occupied areas.)\n(2)\nThe recommendations of Presidential Boards seldom\nsatisfy everyone concerned with the issue. In this case, it is the\nstudy group's conclusion that approximately 80% of the family mem-\nbers will be satisfied with the recommendations of the MIA Board,\nprimarily because they know that their issue was carefully consid-\nered by the very top leadership of the nation.\n(3)\nThe news media has sometimes postulated that the\nvery act of establishing a \"Presidential Group\", in itself, implies\nthe existance of a serious problem.\nDespite the dangers cited above, the study group's final conclusion\nwas that the formation of a Presidential MIA Board is timely and\nwould serve an extremely useful function in the resolution of Vietnam\nera matters.\nR.\nGERALD\nFORD\n-3-\nThis recommendation was primarily influenced by the following\nobservations:\n(1)\nThe programs and actions taken on behalf of the\nAmerican MIA and Unaccounted for in Southeast Asia have been\nrecognized by all nations as models of concern, interest and\ncoordinated governmental action. These programs should be\nreviewed, analyzed and documented. Family members do not\nhave a concise, complete view of the total actions taken by their\ngovernment in support of the POW's, MIA's, and unaccounted for\npersonnel. This review would do much to mute those charges which\nhave been made that \"the government doesn't care.\"\n(2)\nThere is strong evidence that the question is not -\n\"Will there be a Board?\", but, \"Who will initiate the Board?\"\nThe mood of Congress is quite clear. If the Executive Branch\ndoes not initiate action within the immediate future, a Congres-\nsional committee will almost certainly be appointed to accomplish\nthe study. Neither the families nor the representatives of the\nDefense or State Departments favor that action.\n(3)\nAs a result of modern communications and the\nextended duration of the Vietnam Conflict, the families of the\nPOW, MIA and unaccounted for personnel became acquainted and\nformed organizations for mutual support. These groups have\nnot dissolved as they have in the aftermath of previous conflicts.\nIndeed the principal organizations seem to be stronger than ever.\nThey are well funded, have strong leadership, and they are now\nachieving the autonomy of purpose which they seemed to lack in\nthe past. During the recent holiday season, over 65,000 Christmas\ncards were addressed to the MIA's and mailed to various govern-\nment agencies, \"to be delivered to addressee at current location. \"\nMarches and demonstrations are becoming more vocal and demon-\nstrative. They have come to believe that only in this manner can\nthey achieve their objectives. It is the considered, collective judge-\nment of the study group that these groups will not \"go away\" without\nan overt action on the part of the government.\n(4)\nThe responsible family members look to the estab-\nlishment of the Presidential Board as the \"Beginning of the End\"\nto their long vigil. Certainly they do hope that the activities of\nthe Board will focus international attention on their problem and\nwill result in a relaxation of restrictions on search and identifi-\n&\ncation team movements. However, none of them believe that\nFORD\nmilitary force could or should be employed to force entry, just\nas the thought of additional Americans being killed while on search BERALD\nLIBRARY\n-4-\nand identification missions is especially repugnant to them. The\nfamilies' concept of a Presidential Board is an organization which\nwill review and document the past, assess the present and make\nresponsible recommendations for the future. They believe an\nindependent Board would be less bound to the past than a similar\ngroup made up of administration officials, congressmen, or even\nfamily members. While the thought is never openly stated, it is\nevident that more than anything the families want this matter to be\nbrought to a conclusion. A final report of a Presidential Board\nrepresents the end that they seek. In their minds, the establish-\nment of a Presidential Board is their proof that the country did\ncare - that they as a group had succeeded in getting their issue to\nthe very top, and that the final resolution of their problem had been\nreviewed by the President himself. Thus, the imperative for a\n\"Presidential Board. Anything less, in their eyes, means one\nmore step that could and therefore must be taken. Most importantly,\nthe study group is convinced that the majority of the families have\nprivately agreed that the findings and recommendations of the Board\nwill represent the last word. If the Commission reports to the\nPresident that \"All has been done that can be done, \" these family\nmembers are ready to disband, and return to their lives,\nFor these reasons, the Study Group recommends the establishment\nof a Presidential MIA Board. The Departments of State and Defense\nconcur with this recommendation.\nThe second anniversary of the signing of the Paris Peace Accords\nis January 27, 1975. This date has assumed great significance among\nall MIA groups. A large national meeting is planned here in\nWashington beginning January 25 and ending with a series of events\ncommemorating the anniversary on January 27, 1975. It is recom-\nmended that you support these activities by meeting in the Oval\nOffice with the Board of Governors of the National League of\nFamilies, and issuing a proclamation declaring January 27, 1975\nas \"National MIA Awareness Day\". This proclamation should be\nissued on January 25, in order to permit appropriate planning\nto occur around the nation. If you agree with the designation of a\nBoard, it is further recommended that you sign the Executive\nOrder creating the Board at this time. Approximately 16 family\nmembers can be expected to attend such a signing ceremony.\nAPPROVE\nDISAPPROVE\nis\nFORD\nLET'S DISCUSS\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\n- -5- -\nAttachments\nTAB A - Executive Order establishing MIA Board\nTAB B - Listing of Potential Board Members\nTAB C - Proclamation declaring January 27, 1975\nas \"National MIA Awareness Day\"\n:\nGERALD\nFORD LIBRANT\nEXECUTIVE ORDER\nEstablishing a Board on United States personnel missing\nor unaccounted for in Southeast Asia.\nBy virtue of the authority vested in me as President of\nthe United States by the Constitution and statutes of the United\nStates, I hereby order as follows:\nSection 1.\nEstablishment of the Board. There is hereby\nestablished in the Executive Office of the President, a board of\neight members, which shall be known as the President's MIA Board.\nThe members of the Board shall be appointed by the President, who\nshall also designate its Chairman.\nSection 2.\nFunctions of the Board. The Board shall\nexamine and review the efforts that have been made to obtain an\naccounting for United States personnel missing or unaccounted\nfor in Southeast Asia, and shall make recommendations to the\nPresident regarding the future conduct of this vital program. Pur-\nsuant to the realization of this objective, the following areas of\ninterest are identified as starting points for the Board's study:\n2.1.\nReview and evaluate actions of the Executive\nBranch of government in support of the national program on\nUnited States personnel missing or unaccounted for in Southeast\nAsia.\n2.2. Describe and document the failure of the\ncommunist authorities to account for the missing and to return\nthe remains of the dead, as provided in the Vietnam and Laos\nAgreements.\n2.3.\nConsider what further actions can be taken\nto obtain information on United States personnel missing or\nunaccounted for in Southeast Asia.\n2.4. Explore means by which search efforts can\nbe undertaken for crash and incident sites and other information on\nUnited States personnel missing or unaccounted for throughout\nSoutheast Asia.\n&\nFURD\nGERALD\nLIBREPA\n-2-\n2.5.\nReview existing laws, regulations, and pro-\ncedures on United States personnel missing or unaccounted for in\nSoutheast Asia to insure their current suitability and effectiveness,\nand, if appropriate, to recommend changes and deletions thereto.\nSection 3.\nCompensation of Board Members. Each\nmember of the Board, except any member who then receives other\ncompensation from the United States, may receive compensation\nfor each day he or she is engaged upon the work of the Board, not\nto exceed the daily rate now or hereafter prescribed by law for\npersons and positions in GS-18, as authorized by law (5 U.S. C. 5703)\nfor persons in the government service employed intermittently.\nSection 4.\nFunding of the Board. Necessary expenses\nof the Board may be paid from the Unanticipated Personal Needs\nFund of the President, or from such other funds as may be avail-\nable.\nSection 5.\nAdministrative Services and Support for the\nBoard. Necessary administrative services and support may be\nprovided the Board by the General Services Administration on a\nreimbursable basis.\nSection 6.\nInformational and Technical Support of the\nBoard. All departments and agencies in the Executive branch\nare authorized and directed to cooperate with the Board in its\nwork, and to furnish the Board all appropriate information and\nassistance, to the extend permitted by law.\nSection 7.\nTenure of the Board. The Board shall sub-\nmit its final recommendations to the President not later than\nJune 30, 1975, at which time it shall cease to exist.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nJanuary 25, 1975\nLIBRARY GERALD R.\nPOTENTIAL CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD\nThe study group was unanimous in its recommendations that\nAmbassador Bunker be nominated for selection as Chairman\nof the Board. Because of the potential workload associated with\nthe position, Mr. Bunker was contacted and indicated tentatively\nthat he would serve as Chairman of the Board -- if such a Board\nwere established and if he was appointed.\nPOTENTIAL BOARD MEMBERS\nThe list of potential Board members was developed after careful\nreview of capabilities and demonstrated public service. None of\nthese individuals has been contacted regarding service on the\nBoard, however, each has indicated a willingness to serve in\nsupport of this matter in the past. With your approval, contact\nwill be established.\nLIBRARY GERALD R. FORD\nPOTENTIAL BOARD MEMBERS\nHONORABLE ELLSWORTH BUNKER\nAmbassador-at-Large\nDepartment of State\n22nd and C Streets, N. W.\nWashington, D. C. 20520\nMr. Frank T. Cary\nChairman of the Board\nInternational Business Machines\nArmonk, New York 10504\nLieutenant General Charles A. Corcoran\nUnited States Air Force (Retired)\n3819 Prince William Drive\nFairfax, Virginia 22003\nMr. Charles Duncan\nDean, Howard University Law School\n2935 Upton Street, N. W.\nWashington, D.C. 20008\nMr. George Elsey\nPresident, American Red Cross\n1730 E Street, N. W.\nWashington, D.C. 20006\nLieutenant General Alvan C. Gillem II\nUnited States Air Force (Retired)\n2408 Belcher Drive\nMontgomery, Alabama 36111\nMr. Jerome Holland\nin\nPresident, Hampton Institute\nFORD\nSuite 1490\nGERALD\n270 Park Avenue\nLIBRARY\nNew York, New York 10017\n-2-\nMr. Gilbert Jones\nVice Chairman of the Board\nInternational Business Machines\nArmonk, New York 10504\nMr. Tom Jones\nPresident and Chairman of the Board\nNorthrop Corporation\n1800 Century Park East Century City\nLos Angeles, California 90067\nDr. George Kozmetsky\nDean, Graduate School of Business\nUniversity of Texas BEB 203\nAustin, Texas 78712\nMrs. Oswald B. Lord\nFormerly Ambassador to Human Rights Commission\n770 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10021\nAdmiral John S. McCain\nUnited States Navy (Retired)\n2101 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20006\nGeneral John C. Meyer\nUnited States Air Force (Retired)\nTAB Communications Incorporated\n410 32nd Street\nNewport Beach, California 92660\nMajor General John Murray\nUnited States Army (Retired)\nVice President\nAssociation of American Railroads\n1920 L Street, N. W.\nWashington, D.C. 20036\nLIDRARY GERALD ? BERALD R. FORD\n- -3-\nDr. Dallion Oakes\nPresident\nBrigham Young University\nProvo, Utah 84601\nMr. David Packard\nChief Executive\nHewlett-Packard\n4 Choke Cherry Road\nRockville, Maryland 20850\nMr. T. A. Wilson\nChairman of the Board\nThe Boeing Company\nPost Office Box 3707\nSeattle, Washington 98124\nAnnouncing the designation of January 27, 1975, as National MIA\nAwareness Day.\nBy the President of the-United States of America\nA Proclamation\nJanuary 27, 1975, marks the second anniversary of the\nsigning of the Paris Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring\nthe Peace in Vietnam. Although that Agreement contains specific\nobligations on accounting for the missing and the return of the\nremains of the dead, the communist authorities have failed to\nprovide information on Americans missing in Southeast Asia, or\nto complete the return of the remains of our dead. Over 2400\nAmericans are still unaccounted for -- some 900 of them still\nlisted as missing, the remainder declared dead with their bodies\nnever recovered. The families of these men continue to live with\nthe anguish of uncertainty about the fate of these loved ones.\nNOW, THEREFORE I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the\nUnited States of America, do hereby designate Monday, January 27,\n1975, as National MIA Awareness Day, a day dedicated to the many\nAmericans who remain missing or unaccounted for in Indochina,\nand to their families. I call upon all Americans to join in this\noccasion in voicing the clear, continuing commitment of the\nAmerican people and their government to seek the fullest possible\naccounting for Americans missing in Southeast Asia and the\nreturn of the remains of those who died. As an expression of that\ncommitment, I have this day ordered the establishment of a\nPresidential Board on United States personnel missing or unaccounted\nfor in Southeast Asia. It shall be the responsibility of this board to\nreview all aspects of our national program on this subject and to\nis\nFORD\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\n-2-\ndevelop and make recommendations for achieving our national goal\nas previously cited -- \"the fullest possible accounting for Americans\nmissing in Southeast Asia and the return of the remains of those\nwho died. \"\nIN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this\ntwenty fifth day of January, in the year of our Lord nineteen\nhundred seventy-five and of the Independence of the United States\nof America the one hundred ninety ninth.\nFORD is LIBRARY 074439 39\nM/A\nWednesday 1/22/75\nfile\n5:45 Geof Shepard brought this over -- would like your\ncomments tonight or first thing in the morning.\nThey want to get it in to the President tomorrow.\nAs requested, here are Mr. Areeda's comments.\nOuten fill\nLIBRARY CERALO FORD E\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nACTION\nWASHINGTON\nJanuary 22, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nKEN COLE\nSUBJECT:\nDesignation of Presidential Board\nfor MIA Matters\nAttached at Tab A is a memorandum from General Lawson\nadvocating three items:\n-- (1) Issuance of a Presidential proclamation declaring\nJanuary 27, 1975 (the second anniversary of the\nsigning of the Paris Peace Accords), to be \"National\nMIA Awareness Day. 11\n-- (2) Issuance of an Executive Order designating a\nPresidential MIA Board to investigate and recommend\nactions in this area.\n--\n(3) An Oval Office meeting with the Board of Governors\nof the National League of Families this Saturday,\nJanuary 25, when you would sign both the Proclamation\nand the Executive Order.\nNeither the proposed Proclamation nor the proposed meeting\nwith sixteen representative families are particularly controversial.\nThe Proclamation is an appropriate and reasonable designation\nand provides a convenient reason for meeting with MIA representa-\ntives if you have not already done SO.\nThere is, however, a great deal of controversy over the wisdom\nof the Executive Order creating a Presidential Board for MIA\nLISTARY\n- 2 -\nmatters. General Lawson indicates that the families favor one\nand that Congressional interest is growing. However, such a\nBoard runs the substantial risk of thrusting you personally into\nan area of past controversy which you bore no responsibility\nfor creating and for which there is absolutely no hope of solution.\nClearly, the expectations of the group have been raised--but\nthis alone should not force you further into a very emotional\nand difficult situation. One viable alternative might be to direct\nthe Secretary of Defense to create such a Board and report to\nyou upon its recommendations. This would show some action,\nbut would insulate the White House from the known unpredicta-\nbilities of Commissions.\nOPTIONS:\n1. Create the Presidential Board by Executive Order.\n[N.B. In any event, the Executive Order cannot be\nprepared and funded by this Saturday, so that it will\nhave to follow the Proclamation by a week. ]\n2. Direct the Secretary of Defense to establish a depart-\nmental board and report to you upon its recommendations.\n3. Postpone the creation of any such Board pending possible\nCongressional action in this area.\nRECOMMENDATIONS:\nFORD\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJanuary 20, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nFROM\nMAJOR GENERAL LAWSON\nSUBJECT\nDesignation of a Presidential Board\nfor MIA Matters\nFor several months the MIA families have been searching for a\nresponsible means of realizing their objectives. After careful\nand intense study, they have come forward with a request for\nthe establishment of a \"Presidential MIA Board\", modeled along\nthe lines of the Presidential Amnesty Commission.\nUpon receipt of the request, a study group was formed to evaluate\nthe proposal. We have now completed a series of meetings with\nmembers of the National League of Families, Congress, the\nDepartments of State and Defense, and various other interested\nindividuals. From these discussions, the following observations\nwere formulated:\n(1)\nFamily members are generally optimistic about\nthe potential value of such a group. Although they are realistic\nenough to understand that a Board cannot perform \"acts of magic,\"\nthey do believe that a Presidentially directed organization might\nachieve some measure of success. At the minimum, they believe\nthe activities of the Board would focus international attention upon\nthe failure of the North Vietnamese to comply with the provisions\nof the Paris Peace Accords.\n(2)\nMembers of Congress have already issued state-\nments suggesting creation of either a Presidential Board or a\nCongressional Committee to \"investigate and make recommenda-\ntions regarding the conduct of the MIA program. 11 Congressional\ninterest in the MIA issue has increased in the past six months.\nRestrictive amendments to the Foreign Trade Bill and the Military\nConstruction Bill on this subject were initiated and only narrowly\nmissed enactment. Both State and Defense have registered concern\nfor the impact which such amendments could have had upon exissing\nLIBRARY\nprograms.\n-2-\n(3)\nThe Supreme Court decision which upheld the lower\ncourts' actions in the McDonald versus McLucas case (permitting\nthe redesignation of certain MIA to that of Presumptive Finding of\nDeath [PFOD] - gives the green light to service secretaries to hold\nindependent hearings and reviews on all MIA cases immediately if\nthey so desire. This issue is one of the most controversial aspects\nof the entire MIA program. Currently, redesignation hearings are\nonly held when requested by a family member. Some members\n(primarily wives) would privately prefer to have the redesignation\nprogram proceed - but, they cannot bring themselves to be the\ninitiating factor. Others (primarily parents), have and will con-\ntinue to use every possible means of delay to obstruct redesigna-\ntion action. By law, this action cannot be held up much longer.\nA Board would be a most useful means to publicly illuminate all\naspects of this very difficult question, and to develop recommen-\ndations for the resolution of the matter.\nThe study group recognized that there are certain inherent dangers\nassociated with the establishment of Presidential Boards.\n(1)\nSome recommendations of similar groups have\ntended to be narrowly focused and could not be implemented when\nconsidered in the context of total national policy. (This is a potential\nproblem in this case since one of the most frequent proposáls from\nthe MIA community is the adoption of foreign trade restrictions\ndesigned to force access for search and identification teams into\nNorth Vietnam and other communist occupied areas.)\n(2)\nThe recommendations of Presidential Boards seldom\nsatisfy everyone concerned with the issue. In this case, it is the\nstudy group's conclusion that approximately 80% of the family mem-\nbers will be satisfied with the recommendations of the MIA Board,\nprimarily because they know that their issue was carefully consid-\nered by the very top leadership of the nation.\n(3)\nThe news media has sometimes postulated that the\nvery act of establishing a \"Presidential Group\", in itself, implies\nthe existance of a serious problem.\nDespite the dangers cited above, the study group's final conclusion\nwas that the formation of a Presidential MIA Board is timely and\nwould serve an extremely useful function in the resolution of Vietnamo\nera matters.\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\n-3-\nThis recommendation was primarily influenced by the following\nobservations:\n(1)\nThe programs and actions taken on behalf of the\nAmerican MIA and Unaccounted for in Southeast Asia have been\nrecognized by all nations as models of concern, interest and\ncoordinated governmental action. These programs should be\nreviewed, analyzed and documented. Family members do not\nhave a concise, complete view of the total actions taken by their\ngovernment in support of the POW's, MIA's, and unaccounted for\npersonnel. This review would do much to mute those charges which\nhave been made that \"the government doesn't care. \"\n(2)\nThere is strong evidence that the question is not -\n\"Will there be a Board?\", but, \"Who will initiate the Board?\"\nThe mood of Congress is quite clear. If the Executive Branch\ndoes not initiate action within the immediate future, a Congres-\nsional committee will almost certainly be appointed to accomplish\nthe study. Neither the families nor the representatives of the\nDefense or State Departments favor that action.\n(3)\nAs a result of modern communications and the\nextended duration of the Vietnam Conflict, the families of the\nPOW, MIA and unaccounted for personnel became acquainted and\nformed organizations for mutual support. These groups have\nnot dissolved as they have in the aftermath of previous conflicts.\nIndeed the principal organizations seem to be stronger than ever.\nThey are well funded, have strong leadership, and they are now\nachieving the autonomy of purpose which they seemed to lack in\nthe past. During the recent holiday season, over 65,000 Christmas\ncards were addressed to the MIA's and mailed to various govern-\nment agencies, \"to be delivered to addressee at current location. \"\nMarches and demonstrations are becoming more vocal and demon-\nstrative. They have come to believe that only in this manner can\nthey achieve their objectives. It is the considered, collective judge-\nment of the study group that these groups will not \"go away\" without\nan overt action on the part of the government.\n(4)\nThe responsible family members look to the estab-\nlishment of the Presidential Board as the \"Beginning of the End\"\nto their long vigil. Certainly they do hope that the activities of\nthe Board will focus international attention on their problem and\nwill result in a relaxation of restrictions on search and identifi-\nB.\nFORD\ncation team movements. However, none of them believe that\nmilitary force could or should be employed to force entry, just\nGERALD\nas the thought of additional Americans being killed while on search\nLIBRARY\n-4-\nand identification missions is especially repugnant to them. The\nfamilies' concept of a Presidential Board is an organization which\nwill review and document the past, assess the present and make\nresponsible recommendations for the future. They believe an\nindependent Board would be less bound to the past than a similar\ngroup made up of administration officials, congressmen, or even\nfamily members. While the thought is never openly stated, it is\nevident that more than anything the families want this matter to be\nbrought to a conclusion. A final report of a Presidential Board\nrepresents the end that they seek. In their minds, the establish-\nment of a Presidential Board is their proof that the country did\ncare - that they as a group had succeeded in getting their issue to\nthe very top, and that the final resolution of their problem had been\nreviewed by the President himself. Thus, the imperative for a\n\"Presidential Board. \" Anything less, in their eyes, means one\nmore step that could and therefore must be taken. Most importantly,\nthe study group is convinced that the majority of the families have\nprivately agreed that the findings and recommendations of the Board\nwill represent the last word. If the Commission reports to the\nPresident that \"All has been done that can be done, \" these family\nmembers are ready to disband, and return to their lives.\nFor these reasons, the Study Group recommends the establishment\nof a Presidential MIA Board. The Departments of State and Defense\nconcur with this recommendation.\nThe second anniversary of the signing of the Paris Peace Accords\nis January 27, 1975. This date has assumed great significance among\nall MIA groups. A large national meeting is planned here in\nWashington beginning January 25 and ending with a series of events\ncommemorating the anniversary on January 27, 1975. It is recom-\nmended that you support these activities by meeting in the Oval\nOffice with the Board of Governors of the National League of\nFamilies, and issuing a proclamation declaring January 27, 1975\nas \"National MIA Awareness Day\". This proclamation should be\nissued on January 25, in order to permit appropriate planning\nto occur around the nation. If you agree with the designation of a\nBoard, it is further recommended that you sign the Executive\nOrder creating the Board at this time. Approximately 16 family\nmembers can be expected to attend such a signing ceremony.\nis\nFORD\nAPPROVE\nGERALD\nDISAPPROVE\nLIBRARY\nLET'S DISCUSS\nJanuary 20, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR\nGENERAL LAWSON\nFROM\nPHILLIP AREEDA\nSUBJECT:\nMIA Presidential Board\nThere is no legal obstacle to the creation of the propesed board.\nOf course, any Executive Order or Proclamation must be reviewed\nin OMB and the Justice Department in accord with the usual\nprocedure.\nI do believe, however, that it is presumptively unsound for the\nPresident to create non-governmental boards to investigate the\nworkings of the Executive Branch. To be sure, there are exceptions,\nsuch as the recent commission looking into the CIA. I do not see\na similar need here. I do not see why the Executive Branch itself\ncannot do all that needs to be done in this area.\nI understand, finally, that the Unanticipated Personnel Needs Fund\nis more than exhausted by the Clemency Board and by the CLA\nCommission.\nbcc: Jay French\nLIBRARY GERALD : FORD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJanuary 18, 1975\nMr. Areeda:\nJay asked me to type this memo to you\nsince Mr. Buchen had left and due to\nthe time factor. However, he says\nit is not a terribly important matter\nbut should be returned today or no\nlater than Monday.\nHe said to mention to do\nwhat ever you wish concerning it.\nO.K.\nThanks.\nPatsy.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJanuary 18, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nPHILLIP AREEDA\nFROM:\nJAY FRENCH\nSUBJECT:\nMIA PRESIDENTIAL BOARD\nGeneral Lawson requests your comments concerning the creation\nof a \"Presidential MIA Board.\" The attached memorandum is\nscheduled to go to the President on January 20. We just received\nit for review.\nThe board would perform these functions:\na.\nreview efforts of the Executive branch to\nobtain an accounting of MIA's\nb.\ndescribe and document failure of communist\ncountries to account for MIA's\nc. consider what further action can be taken to\nobtain information on MIA's\nd. review existing laws and regulations concerning\nMIA's\nThe funds for such a board would come from the Unanticipated\nPersonnel Needs Fund.\nI believe that such a broad charter invites problems. For example,\nthe first function is to investigate the Executive branch.\nIf there are a significant number of MIA's still believed to be alive\nthen we should act but through direct Executive action, not a board\nof persons who are exhausted emotionally.\nFurthermore, I would point out that the Unanticipated Personnel\nNeeds Fund is low on funds and the financial future of the Clemency\nBoard is still undecided.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJanuary 18, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR\nMAJOR GENERAL LAWSON\nSet forth below are my comments with regard to your memorandum\nproposing the creation of a Presidential \"MIA\" Board.\n1. I share the concern of these families, but I wonder if\nit is the best policy, in responding to their needs, to\ncreate a Board which has a function of reviewing the\nExecutive branch S past efforts to locate these persons.\n2. If information exists which indicates that these MIA's\nare still alive, then perhaps more speedy and positive\nExecutive action should be contemplated.\n3. However, if the concern of these families is to stimulate\na more effective accounting of the MIA's, then I do not\nbelieve we need a Presidential Board to achieve this goal.\n4. Several recent programs have drawn heavily on the\nUnanticipated Personnel Needs Fund and I am also\nconcerned that we might unknowingly overextend our- -\nselves.\nPhillip Areeda\nCounsel to the President\nFORD\nLIBRARY\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nMAJOR GENERAL LAWSON\nSUBJECT:\nDesignation of a Presidential Board\nfor MIA Matters\nFor several months the MIA families have been searching for a\nresponsible means of realizing their objectives. After careful\nand intense study, they have come forward with a request for the\nestablishment of a \"Presidential MIA Board\", modeled along the\nlines of the Presidential Amnesty Commission.\nUpon receipt of the request, a study group was formed to eval-\nuate the proposal. We have now completed a series of meetings\nwith members of the National League of Families, Congress, the\nDepartments of State and Defense, and various other interested\nindividuals. From these discussions, the following observations\nwere formulated:\n(1)\nFamily members are generally optimistic about\nthe potential value of such a group. Although they are realistic\nenough to understand that a Board cannot perform \"acts of magic,\"\nthey do believe that the combined power of the legislative and\nexecutive branches of government united under a Presidentially\ndirected organization might achieve some measure of success.\nLIBRARY GERALD B. FORD\nAt the minimum, they believe the activities of the Board would\n-2-\nfocus international attention upon the failure of the North Viet-\nnamese to comply with the provisions of the Paris Peace Accords.\n(2)\nMembers of Congress have already issued state-\nments suggesting creation of either a Presidential Board or a\nCongressional Committee to \"investigate and make recommenda-\ntions regarding the conduct of the MIA program.\" Congressional\ninterest in the MIA issue has increased in the past six months.\nRestrictive amendments to the Foreign Trade Bill and the Military\nConstruction Bill on this subject were initiated and only narrowly\nmissed enactment. Both State and Defense have registered ! concern\nfor the impact which such amendments could have had upon existing\nprograms.\n(3)\nThe Supreme Court decision which upheld the lower\ncourts' actions in the McDonald versus McLucas case (permitting\nthe redesignation of certain MLA to that of Presumptive Finding\nof Death [PFOD] ) gives the green light to service secretaries to\nhold independent hearings and reviews on all MIA cases immediately\nif they so desire. This issue is one of the most controversial\naspects of the entire MIA program. Currently, redesignation\nhearings are only held when requested by a family member.\nmembers (primarily wives) would privately prefer to have the\nSome GERALE FORD LIBRABY\nredesignation program proceed - but, they cannot bring themselves\nto be the initiating factor. Others\n- 3\n(primarily parents), have and will continue to use every possible\nmeans of delay to obstruct redesignation action. By law, this\naction cannot be held up much longer. A Board would be a most\nuseful means to publicly illuminate all aspects of this very diffi-\ncult question, and to develop recommendations for the resolution\nof the matter.\nIt is recognized that there are certain inherent dangers associated\nwith the establishment of Presidentially appointed commissions,\nin that occasionally their recommendations tend to be narrowly\nfocused and cannot be implemented when viewed in the context\nof national policy. However, in this case, the question does not\nappear to be - \"Will there be a Board?\", but \"Who will initiate\na Board ?\" The mood of Congress is quite clear. If the Executive\nBranch does not initiate action fairly quickly, a Congressional\nCommittee will almost certainly be appointed to accomplish the\nstudy. Neither the families nor the representatives of Defense\nor State Departments favor that action. After serious considerations\nof all aspects of the current situation, the study group has concluded\nthat the formation of a Presidential MIA Board is timely and would\nFORD\nserve an extremely useful function in the resolution of Vietnarn GREAT\nLIBRARY\nMIA matters. The Department of State and the Department of Defense\n-4-\nconcur with this recommendation.\nNOTE:\nAn Executive Order establishing the MIA Board is attached at TAB A.\nA listing of potential Board members is located at TAB B.\nThe second anniversary of the signing of the Paris Peace Accords\nis January 27, 1975. This date has assumed great significance\namong all MIA groups. A large national meeting is planned here in\nWashington beginning January 25 and ending with a \"Candle-Light\nVigil\" on January 27, 1975. It is recommended that you support\nthese activities by issuing a proclamation declaring January 27, 1975\nas \"National MIA Awareness Day\" (See TAB C). This proclamation\nshould be issued on January 25 in order to permit appropriate\nplanning to occur. Further, it is recommended that you meet\npublicly with the Family members on January 27, 1975 in order to\nsign the Executive Order creating the Presidential MIA Board.\nApproximately 300 family members and Congressmen can be\nexpected to attend such a signing ceremony.\nAPPROVE\nDISAPPROVE\nFORD is DIRATO LIBRARY\nLET'S DISCUSS\nEXECUTIVE ORDER\nEstablishing a Board on U.S. personnel missing or unaccounted\nfor in Southeast Asia.\nBy virture of the authority vested in me as President of the\nUnited States by the Constitution and statutes of the United States,\nI hereby order as follows:\nSection 1.\nEstablishment of the Board. There is\nhereby established in the Executive Office of the President a\nboard of\nmembers, which shall be known as the\nPresident's MIA Board. The members of the board shall be\nappointed by the President, who shall also designate its Chairman.\nSection 2.\nFunctions of the Board. The Board shall\nexamine and review the efforts that have been made to obtain an\naccounting for U.S. personnel missing or unaccounted for in\nSoutheast Asia, and shall recommend to the President on means\nto obtain an honorable resolution of this subject. Pursuant to the\nrealization of this objective, the following areas of interest are\nidentified as starting points for the Board's study:\n2.1. Review and evaluate actions of the Executive\nBranch of government in support of the national program on\nU.S. personnel missing or unaccounted for in Southeast Asia.\nFORD\nGERALD\nLIGRARY\n-2-\n2.2.\nDescribe and document the failure of the communist\nauthorities to account for the missing and to return the remains of\nthe dead, as provided in the Vietnam and Laos Agreements.\n2.3.\nConsider what further actions can be taken to obtain\ninformation on U.S. personnel missing or unaccounted for in\nSoutheast Asia, including the return of any Americans who may\nstill be alive.\n2.4.\nExplore means by which search efforts can be\nundertaken for crash and incident sites and other types of infor-\nmation on U.S. personnel missing or unaccounted for in'communist\ncontrolled areas of Southeast Asia.\n2.5.\nReview existing laws, regulations, and procedures\non U.S. personnel missing or unaccounted for in Southeast Asia\nto insure their current suitability and effectiveness, and, if\nappropriate, to recommend changes and deletions thereto.\nSection 3.\nCompensation of Board Members. Each\nmember of the Board, except any member who then receives other\ncompensation from the United States, may receive compensation\nfor each day he or she is engaged upon the work of the Board, not\nto exceed the daily rate now or hereafter prescribed by law for\nFORD\npersons and positions in GS-18, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. OFFILE 5703)\nfor persons in the government service employed intermittently.\n-3-\nSection 4.\nFunding of the Board. Necessary expenses of\nthe Board may be paid from the Unanticipated Personal Needs Fund\nof the President, or from such other funds as may be available.\nSection 5.\nAdministrative Services and Support for the Board.\nNecessary administrative services and support may be provided the\nBoard by the General Services Administration on a reimbursable\nbasis.\nSection 6.\nInformational and Technical Support of the Board.\nAll departments and agencies in the Executive branch are authorized\nand directed to cooperate with the Board in its work, and to furnish\nthe Board all appropriate information and assistance, to the extent\npermitted by law.\nSection 7.\nTenure of the Board. The Board shall\nsubmit its final recommendations to the President not later than\nJune 30, 1975, at which time it shall cease to exist.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nJanuary 28, 1975\nFORDO is LIBRARY 038870\nDRAFT\nAnnouncing the designation of January 27, 1975 as National MIA\nAwareness Day.\nBy the President of the United States of America\nA Proclamation\nJanuary 27, 1975 marks the second anniversary of the\nsigning of the Paris Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring\nthe Peace in Vietnam. Although that Agreement contains specific\nobligations on accounting for the missing and the return of the\nremains of the dead, the communist authorities have failed to\nprovide information on Americans missing in Southeast Asia, or\nto complete the return of the remains of our dead. Over 2400\nAmericans are still unaccounted for -- some 900 of them still\nlisted as missing, the remainder declared dead with their bodies\nnever recovered. The families of these men continue to live with\nthe anguish of uncertainty about the fate of these loved ones.\nNOW, THEREFORE I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the\nUnited States of America, do hereby designate Monday, January 27,\n1975 as National MIA Awareness Day, a day dedicated to the many\nAmericans who remain missing or unaccounted for in Indochina, and\nto their families. I call upon all Americans to join in this occasion\nDRAFT\n- 2\nin voicing the clear, continuing commitment of the American people\nand their government to seek the fullest possible accounting for\nAmericans missing in Southeast Asia and the return of the remains\nof those who died. As an expression of that commitment, I have\nthis day ordered the establishment of a Presidential Board on U.S.\npersonnel missing or unaccounted for in Southeast Asia. It shall\nbe the responsibility of this board to review all aspects of our\nnational program on this subject. and to develop and make recommenda-\ntions for achieving our national goal as previously cited -- \"the\nfullest possible accounting for Americans missing in Southeast\nAsia and the return of the remains of those who died. 11\nIN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this\ntwenty fifth day of January, in the year of our Lord nineteen\nhundred seventy-five and of the Independence of the United States\nof America the one hundred ninety ninth.\n?\nFORD\nGERALD\nLIBRARY"
}