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
1562806
label
Amnesty - Presidential Clemency Board General
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1562806
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Amnesty - Presidential Clemency Board General
citationUrl
collections
John O. Marsh Files (Ford Administration)
John Marsh's General Subject Files
subjects
President (1974-1977 : Ford). Presidential Clemency Board. 9/16/1974-9/15/1975
Amnesty
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1562806
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-09-30
month
9
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1974-10-01
month
10
year
1974
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
4fa9f3e551484339
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 2, folder "Amnesty - Presidential Clemency
Board General" of the John Marsh Files 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. Gerald R. Ford 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 2 of The John Marsh Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS SERVICE
WITHDRAWAL SHEET (PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARIES)
FORM OF
CORRESPONDENTS OR TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
DOCUMENT
1. French to Rourke, 7/28/75
Letters
Letters to six individuals re their pardons
7/16/75
C
FILE LOCATION
Marsh Files
General Subject File
Amnesty . - Presidential Clemency Board: General
RESTRICTION CODES
(A) Closed by Executive Order 12356 governing access to national security information.
(B) Closed by statute or by the agency which originated the document.
WHM, 11/6/85
(C) Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in the donor's deed of gift.
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
GSA FORM 7122 (REV. 5-82)
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
16.
October 4, 1974
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Presidential Clemency Board
FROM:
Richard Tropp RT
Special Counsel
SUBJECT: Guidelines on Categorization of Cases and on
Application of Mitigating and Aggravating Factors
I.
Why establish guidelines at all? Why not just evolve substantive
rules as the Board proceeds to consider individual cases?
*
Need for public certainty on how the Board will treat
applicants, in order to maximize number of people who
seek clemency. The longer there is ambiguity about what
criteria the Board will apply in disposition of applications,
the longer are potential applicants likely to delay their
petition or to ignore the clemency program altogether.
Need to maximize public perception of fairness of the
program, among potential critics as well as potential
applicants.
*
Desirability of ensuring equity in the way similarly
situated applicants are treated. Desirability of pre- -
empting legal claims of unequal protection.
*
Law of procedural due process suggests necessity for notice
to applicant of basis on which he will be judged.
Necessity to ensure consistency with which large staff will
treat potentially high percentage of cases which may never
rise to consideration by the Board, and to ensure that staff
dispositions follow policy articulated by the Board.
FORD & LIBRARY BERALD
- 2 -
*
Establishment of substantive rules now need not preempt
later addition of new categories, and new mitigating or
aggravating factors, as hard cases fall between the cracks
of the initial guidelines and come up to the Board for
decision.
II. What are the remedies available to the Board?
The Board has two decisions to make with respect to any case:
--Should the applicant perform alternative service and,
if so, how much?
--Should clemency take the form of
(1) commutation of sentence, or
(2) pardon (civilian) or clemency discharge (military), or
(3) both.
There are, then, conceptually at least seven possible remedies
available to the Board:
(1) unconditional commutation of sentence
(2) commutation conditioned upon completion of alternative
service
(3) unconditional pardon or clemency discharge
(4) pardon or clemency discharge conditioned upon com-
pletion of alternative service
(5) unconditional commutation and unconditional pardon/clemency
discharge
(6) commutation and pardon/clemency discharge both conditioned
upon completion of alternative service
(7) unconditional commutation of sentence, with provision
that completion of specified amount of alternative service
will lead to pardon or clemency discharge.
FORD & LIBRARY BERALD
- 3 -
Although not within the scope of remedies provided the Board
by the Proclamation and the Executive Order, two further options
legally are available to the Board for clemency directed at military
applicants:
(8) recommendation of upgrading of discharge to a service's
discharge review board, and transmission to it of a
Board record of fact-finding upon which such recommenda- -
tion is based
(9) recommendation of upgrading of discharge directly to
the President, based upon a Board record of fact-
finding.
One can imagine two contexts within which the Board might choose
to exercise option 8 or 9:
.-consensus among Board members that the practical effect
of a clemency discharge is equal to or worse than that of
an undesirable discharge, and that a clemency discharge
really is not "clemency" at all within the President's intent;
or
--a finding that an undesirable or punitive discharge was
improperly imposed in a particular case, or that mitigating
factors were insufficiently considered in a particular case,
with the consequence that the individual involved "deserves"
a discharge superior to a clemency discharge.
The Board is empowered by the Executive Order establishing it
to provide clemency to individuals discharged from the military after
conviction of one of the specified offenses, and to individuals convicted,
not discharged, and under confinement. The Board is not, however,
empowered to provide clemency to convicted but non-confined service-
men who were not discharged or who chose to remain within the service,
whether or not those individuals had previously served a sentence under
confinement. The anomaly, then, is that this latter class of servicemen
may be burdened with records more damaging than those of individuals
eligible for clemency, even though the behavior of members of this latter
class may have been superior to that of individuals who were discharged.
FORD LIBRARY
- 4 -
If the Board should decide to address this seeming inequity,
it may choose another option not within the scope of remedies
explicitly provided to it:
(10) recommendation to the services, to the Secretary of
Defense, or to the President that the records of con-
victed servicemen who remain within the military be
modified in exactly the same way as they would. be if
those servicemen were granted a clemency discharge to
replace an undesirable or punitive discharge.
III. A threshold jurisdictional question: Will the Board take applica- -
tions from those not yet convicted, in order to establish its
jurisdiction over them once they are convicted or discharged?
The Board is empowered, by section 2 of its establishing
Executive Order, to take jurisdiction of the cases of those who
- --have been convicted of violation of the specified
sections of law, or have received a punitive or
undesirable discharge consequent upon violation of
the specified articles of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice, with respect to acts committed between
August 4, 1964 and March 28, 1973, and
--have applied for Executive clemency prior to January 31,
1975.
It is specified that the acts of violation of law must have taken
place between particular dates, and that the application must be in by
a particular date, but it is not specified that a conviction or discharge
must have transpired either between particular dates or before a
particular date.
Depending upon one's interpretation of the expressions "have been
convicted" and "have received punitive or undesirable discharges",
then, it is possible that the Board will have within its jurisdiction the
class of all persons who committed the specified violations of law between
8/4/64 and 3/28/73, but who were not convicted as of September 16--
including those not yet convicted -provided that those unconvicted or
nondischarged persons submit applications for clemency prior to
January 31.
BERALD FORD LIBRATT
- 5 -
It is possible that anyone who is now a non-convicted fugitive
draft evader or a nondischarged deserter may choose to file an
application for clemency before January 31 prior to his conviction or
discharge, in order to ensure that the Board will have jurisdiction over
his clemency plea even if his conviction or discharge occurs after
January 31. That individual, currently within the jurisdiction of the
Justice Department or of the Defense Department under the Proclamation,
may seek to thereby remove himself from such jurisdiction and to
guarantee, instead, that his plea for clemency will be heard by this
Board.
Should the Board decide to take jurisdiction over such applications,
it will be in a strong position to affect the manner in which Justice
and Defense make their decisions on imposition and length of alternative
service. If the Board's conception of clemency comes to differ
markedly from that of either Justice or Defense, it may want to
exercise this lever in order to permit currently non-convicted and non-
discharged supplicants an alternative forum for their pleas, and in
order to moderate the decisions of one or both of the Departments.
On the other hand, the Board's taking of jurisdiction over such
applications would clearly permit a forum-shopping process which may
undermine the role that was contemplated by the Proclamation for the
two Departments in the clemency program.
Whether the Board's instinct now is that it probably will or
probably will not want to interpret its jurisdiction to include timely
applications submitted by individuals not convicted or discharged prior
to September 16, there are arguments for making the decision either
way sooner rather than later:
--If the Board will want to take such jurisdiction, then quick
public articulation of that position will maximize the number
of potential applicants for clemency whose decision will be
affected by the Board's position, and will maximize the
Board's leverage over the way that Justice and Defense
conduct their share of the clemency program. The two
Departments will be equally antagonized whether the
decision is made now or later.
FCRD
GERALD
LIBRARY
- 6 -
-If the Board will not want to take such jurisdiction, then it
is best to articulate that position before an application of
someone convicted or discharged after September 16 is sub-
mitted. Once an application is submitted, the Board will
appear ungenerous in denying the supplicant relief by re-
fusing to take jurisdiction; there are bound to be news
stories about the extent to which the Board intends to be
"clement". If the decision not to take jurisdiction. over
that class of cases is made now, it can be articulated in
the form of an interpretation of the words "have been" and
"have received" in the Executive Order, and that inter-
pretation can be issued as one sentence in a several-page
set of substantive guidelines.
IV.
What are possible alternative categories within which the Board
may choose to treat individuals equally, subject to the application
of mitigating and aggravating factors?
A. Categorization by Sentence Status
(1) Given suspended sentence or discharged from military
without sentence
(2) Sentenced to probation
(3) Sentenced to incarceration or judicially-imposed alternative ser-
vice - absconded before or during imprisonment
(4) Sentenced to incarceration or judicially-imposed alternative
service - currently serving
(5) Sentenced to incarceration - out on parole
(6) Sentenced to incarceration - sentence completed
Possible rules which the Board may choose to apply to these
categories are:
(i) No applicant shall be required by the Board, as a condition
of his receipt of clemency, to perform alternative service
for a period exceeding the length of sentence which has been
imposed by a judge.
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
- 7 -
(ii) Length of alternative service imposed will be measured
against the base of
- --sentence imposed by a judge, minus time served
in the military, reduced pursuant to findings of
mitigating factors in individual cases,
or
--a specified time period (18 months, or 24 months, or
12 months), reduced pursuant to findings of mitigating
factors in individual cases,
or
--zero, absent findings of aggravating factors in
individual cases.
(iii) The "base" against which length of alternative service shall
be measured will be reduced by
--one day less alternative service for every day of
an incarceration sentence already completed,
and
--one day less of alternative service for every day of
honorable military service already rendered.
Alternatively, the Board may decide that a day of incarceration,
or a day in military service (particularly combat), or both,
are more onerous than a day of alternative service, and that
2 days - or 4 days, or a week-- of alternative service shall be
subtracted from the base for every day spent incarcerated,
or in the military, or in combat.
(iv) No applicant shall be worse off, with respect to time commit-
ment or to quality of discharge, under the clemency program
than a similarly situated person would have been prior to
September 16.
FORD & LIBRARY 07V830
- 8 -
Thus if the typical military treatment of a
particular type of deserter prior to the
Proclamation was to simply give him an
undesirable discharge, then perhaps he
should not now be required to render any
alternative service as a condition of receiving
a clemency discharge.
Assuming the adoption of rules (i) and (iv), measurement of
length of alternative service against the base of sentence imposed
by a judge (not 18 months, or 0 months, or any other specified
period), and a one-for-one trade between days of alternative
service and days of incarceration sentence already completed and
honorable military service already rendered, the disposition of the
6 categories listed by sentence status would be:
Categories 1, 2, 5, + 6: no alternative service as condition
of commutation or pardon.
Categories 3 and 4: alternative service not exceeding the
length of sentence, minus sentence time already served
and time in honorable military service already rendered,
provided that, in the case of a military applicant, length
of alternative service may be further reduced in order to
equalize his treatment with what it would have been prior
to September 16.
So far, our categorization enables us to proceed completely on the
basis of a tiny portion of an applicant's file, with no need for fact-finding
as to motivation or any other variable. If indeed the Board adopts cate-
gorization on the basis of sentence status, the large majority of cases
will fall within categories 1, 2, 5, and 6, and disposition of those cases
will not require either extensive examination of files or a personal
appearance. Disposition of all cases within those four categories will
be immediate.
B. Categorization by Fairness of Prior Judicial
or Military Administrative Disposition
Assuming that most applications will be decided entirely upon the
basis of sentence status, there still remain those cases within sentence
categories 3 and 4: those who have been sentenced to incarceration or to
judicially-imposed alternative service and who either absconded before or
during service of sentence or are currently serving out an uncompleted
sentence.
FORD LIBRARY
- 9 -
The Board will want to treat applicants with similar sentence
statuses differently, depending upon the Board's perception of the
fairness and propriety of prior judicial or military administrative
disposition. The Board may wish to provide unconditional clemency,
notwithstanding sentence status, to the following categories of
applicants:
Draft Evaders
(1) In Welsh V. United States (1970), the Supreme Court held
that applicants for conscientious objector status need no
longer show that they believe in a Supreme Being, but
rather that philosophical opposition to war--as long as it
is opposition to all wars, and not just to a particular one
deemed unjust--is sufficient to justify a claim of
conscientious objection. Because the Court's decision
was prospective in application and not at all retrospective,
those who would have met the Welsh standard prior to 1970
were denied redress. The Board may wish to consider
blanket unconditional commutation and pardons to all
applicants who had unsuccessfully claimed C.O. status
prior to Welsh, and whose record clearly shows that they
would have met the C.O. criteria had they applied after
Welsh.
(2) More broadly, the Board may wish to tender unconditional
clemency to all applicants who can show now that they met
the Welsh standard prior to their induction or draft evasion,
even though no record exists of their having claimed C. O.
status. There will be some cases of people who knew that
they did not qualify for a C.O. prior to Welsh because they
did not believe in a Supreme Being, and therefore did not bother
to apply and to establish a record, but who would have been
eligible for a C.O. after Welsh.
(3) Those who were punitively reclassified for civilian antiwar
activities, and pursuant to that punitive reclassification illegally
inducted. Gutknecht V. United States (1969) prospectively barred
punitive reclassifications and punitive inductions, but--like
Welsh--did not reach the problems of those who had been
punitively reclassified and inducted prior to the Court's
decision.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
- 10 -
(4) Those who were improperly denied claims for exemption as
a C. O., other exemption, or deferment, by reason of
procedural failure on the part of their Selective Service
Board or of a state or national director of Selective
Service. Denial of a claim may have been procedurally
defective by reason of Selective Service's failure to provide
reasons for denial, of failure to advise applicants of their
administrative appellate rights, or for a host of other
reasons.
(5) Those who can establish that they were given incorrect
advice respecting Selective Service regulations by Selective
Service employees and relied on such advice as the basis
for what would later be labeled their act of draft evasion.
Deserters
(6) Those who were improperly denied claims for C.O. status
while in the military, by reason of substantive or procedural
failure, including their reliance with respect to their C. O.
claim upon incomplete, misleading, or incorrect advice given
by chaplains, military legal counsellors, or other military
employees. Also those who can establish that their failure
to apply for a C. O. was based upon reliance upon such advice.
(7) Those who deserted subsequently to, and because of, an order
reasonably believed to be unlawful.
(8) Those who deserted subsequently to, and because of, punitive,
inequitable, or otherwise improper behavior on the part of a
superior officer, including racial or ethnic provocation or
discrimination, and including punitive treatment by reason
of their opposition to the Vietnam War.
(9) In-service conscientious objectors whose records disclose a
claim that their military assignment was in violation of military
regulations for C. O. S or that their treatment by their commander
otherwise violated religious rights protected for in-service
C. O. S under military law.
GERALE FORD LIBRARY
- 11 -
(10) Those whose desertion was prompted by family hardship,
where a request for hardship discharge, compassionate
reassignment, or emergency leave was improperly denied
or hindered.
(11) Those whose desertion was prompted by family hardship,
and who would have applied for hardship discharge, com-
passionate reassignment, or emergency leave but for their
reliance upon incomplete, misleading, or incorrect advice
given by military chaplains, legal counsellors, or other
military employees. Also those who would have applied for
hardship discharge or compassionate reassignment but for
demonstrable ignorance at the time of their right to apply
and of the procedure for application.
(12) Those whose absence or desertion was caused by incarcera-
tion by a U.S. or foreign court.
The rationale for provision of unconditional clemency - -including
pardon and, to the extent possible, expungement of record - -to applicants
who fall within these categories is that they never should have received
a bad record in the first place. These categories are not based upon
considerations of generosity, but rather of equity. Applicants within
these categories may be conceived as deserving the redress of clemency,
not as being the recipients of an act of grace based upon a finding of
mitigating factors.
Administratively, applications within most of these categories
will require fact-finding based upon careful examination of the whole
file, and some of the categories require reliance upon additional
information not in the file. Categories 1, 9, 10, and 12 should, however,
be susceptible of decision upon the basis of quick scrutiny of the file,
and many cases within categories 4 and 6 will also be susceptible to such speedy
disposition.
C. Subcategorization by Mitigating Factors
Having made available unconditional clemency to most potential
applicants on the basis of their sentence status, and having screened
out from alternative service many of the rest on the basis that their
prior judicial or military administrative disposition was unfair or im-
proper, the Board is left with an indeterminate minority of potential
applicants who will presumably be required to render some alternative
service as a condition of receipt of clemency.
GERALD FORD LIBRANT
- 12 -
Even within this category of applicants, the Board may want to
grant unconditional clemency, or a reduced period of alternative service,
upon a finding of presence of one or more of the following mitigating
factors:
Draft Evaders and Deserters
(1) Those who applied for conscientious objector status and,
although that claim was properly denied and they do not
fit under the Welsh retroactive category, have established
a record of their sincere religious or philosophical objection
to engaging incombat in Indochina. In particular, those
who violated Selective Service law after having received
and rejected a Selective Service deferment on the ground
that they were entitled to C. O. status instead of the
deferment received.
(2) Those who have failed to establish such a record, but can
now show that their draft evasion or desertion was in whole
or in substantial part motivated by religious or philosophical
opposition to their engaging in combat in Indochina.
(3) Those who can show that their employment since conviction
or discharge has been to the public benefit.
Deserters
(4) Those who were on their second or subsequent tour of
service in Indochina.
(5) Those who deserted while in the war zone, but not in
combat.
(6) Those who had been in military service for more than
two years.
(7) Those who had seen combat for more than a specified con-
tinuous period, or whose unit's combat losses were high,
and thereby presumptively were under unusual mental stress.
(8) Those wounded in combat.
GENALD FORD LIBRARY
- 13 -
(9) Those who had received decorations for unusual courage
and performance in combat.
(10) Those who had applied prior to desertion for hardship
discharge, compassionate reassignment, or emergency
leave by reason of family hardship, although there is
nothing in the record indicating that the claim was im-
properly denied.
(11) Those whose desertion was prompted by family hardship,
including death, receipt of a "Dear John" letter, and per- -
ception of need to assist family in economic distress,
whether or not desertion was preceded by application for
a hardship discharge, compassionate reassignment, or
emergency leave.
(12) Those for whom evidence exists that desertion was
associated with acute mental or physical illness or
distress.
(13) Those who can show that they lacked sufficient mental
capacity to appreciate that they were violating the law,
or that they were erroneously convinced by others that
they were not violating the law. IQ under 75 shall consti-
tute presumption of lack of sufficient mental capacity.
(14) Those who deserted subsequently to, and because of,
racial or ethnic provocation or discrimination by their
peers or by civilians in the surrounding environment.
(15) Those who were initially inducted under Project 100, 000
after failure to meet the intellectual, emotional or other
standards for induction, and who therefore were accepted
by the military services with foreknowledge that they
were especially poor risks.
D. Subcategorization by Aggravating Factors
Assuming that an applicant is otherwise eligible for unconditional
clemency or for clemency conditioned upon limited alternative service,
the Board may want to deny clemency altogether, or to impose the
maximum period of alternative service, upon a finding of presence of
one or more of the following aggravating factors:
APV GERALD FORD
- 14 -
(1) Applicant has made a false statement to the Board.
(2) Applicant has used force collaterally to his desertion,
AWOL, or mis-ship.
(3) Applicant has deserted from his unit during combat, with
consequent peril to other members of his unit.
V. Conclusion: What Are the Decisions Which the Board Has
to Make?
(1) Will the Board establish substantive guidelines, or proceed
to disposition of cases without them?
(2) Will the Board choose to exercise all of the remedies avail-
able to it? If not all, which ones?
(3) Will the Board take applications from those not yet convicted,
in order to establish jurisdiction over them once they are
convicted or discharged?
(4) Will the Board initially examine cases categorized by sentence
status, or under another criterion?
(5) If initial categorization will be by sentence status, what will
be the rules on the basis of which length of alternative
service is decided?
(a) Will the Board adopt the rule that no applicant
shall be required to perform alternative service
for a period exceeding the length of sentence which
has been imposed by a judge?
(b) Will the Board measure length of alternative service
against the base of length of sentence imposed by a
judge, or against a specified time period which is
the same for all applicants?
(c) Will a requirement of alternative service be reduced
by one day or more for each day of an incarceration
sentence already completed?
DEEALO FORD LIENARY
- 15 -
(d) Will a requirement of alternative service be
reduced by one day or more for each day of
honorable military service already rendered?
For each day in combat?
(e) Will the Board adopt the rule that no applicant will
be worse off, with respect to time commitment
or to quality of discharge, under the clemency
program than a similarly situated person would
have been prior to September 16?
(6) Will the Board provide unconditional clemency to several
categories of applicants who have been subject to unfair or
procedurally or substantively improper prior judicial or
military administrative disposition?
(7) Which mitigating factors will the Board choose to take notice
of? Upon a finding of presence of one or more mitigating
factors, will the Board grant unconditional clemency or a
reduced period of alternative service? Will mitigating
factors be additive?
(8) Which aggravating factors will the Board choose to take
notice of? Will a finding of presence of one or more of them
bar a grant of clemency, or will it lead to increase in the
period of alternative service required? Will aggravating
factors be additive?
FORD & LIBRARY 038470
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
OLD EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING, ROOM 460
WASHINGTON, D.C.
20500
Office of the Press Secretary
202: 456-6476
Release #1-74
For immediate release
October 25, 1974
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD REVIEWS CASES
Washington, D.C.
The Presidential Clemency Board met on
October 23rd and 24th and reviewed 60 cases of individuals furloughed
from federal prisons.
Tentative decisions were made on each of the cases. Within this group,
the Board has received indications of interest in pursuing the Clemency
Program but has deferred final action to allow each individual an opportunity
to submit a personal statement concerning his case.
Beyond this, the Board has received approximately 560 applications from
people interested in the Clemency Program and is forwarding to them
appropriate information kits.
(more)
FORD : LIBRARY BERALD
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD REVIEWS CASES 2-2-2-
Regarding military cases, the Clemency Board has just begun to receive
records it believes are necessary for the preparation of case files.
The Presidential Clemency Board convenes again on Wednesday, October 30th.
At that time the Members hope to be able to make some definitive judgments
on the cases reviewed this week, based on the detailed information they
expect to receive.
The meeting will take place at 9:00 AMin Room 459
of the Old Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C.
-30-
FORD i LIBRAR GERALD
JAN 27 1975
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 27, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN O. MARSH
SUBJECT:
Attached Information Memorandum
For the President
Attached for your information is a copy
of the memorandum I have submitted
to the President concerning the impact
of the Presidential Clemency Board's
public information campaign.
C.E.D. m.m,
Charles E. Goodell
Chairman
Attachment
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
INFORMATION
January 27, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
CHARLES E. GOODELL
SUBJECT:
The Impact of the Presidential Clemency Board's
Public Information Campaign
Recent Developments in Board Applications
The number of Presidential Clemency Board Applications has risen
sharply since our public information campaign began on January 6.
In less than three weeks, our total number of civilian and military
applications has more than tripled. If our current application rate
continues through the end of January, our final total will be over five
times the January 7 total. In fact, our application rate is rising daily,
so the final total may be even higher.
Civilian
Military
applicants
applicants
Total
through January 7:
317
636
953
through January 27:
978
1949
2927
projected through the
current deadline:
1500
3500
5000
This surge is particularly striking when one considers how much the
Board's application rate had tapered off in late December and early
January. In the two weeks before January 7, we received only 11
applications; in the two weeks thereafter, we received 1217. We are
now receiving applications at the bi-weekly rate of 2500. The Board's
previous high for a two-week period was about 160 in early November.
This two-hundredfold increase in the rate of applications is illustrated
in the attached bar chart. Similarly, while we once had just 5 or 10
inquiries daily, we received almost 500 letters and telephone inquiries
during each of the last several days. The change has been that sudden
and dramatic.
FORD i LIBRA DERALD
- 2 -
Factors Contributing to the Increased Rate of Applications
While the upcoming January 31 deadline may be one factor contributing
to the Board's surge in applications, I am convinced that our public
information campaign is the decisive factor. Since January 6, we
have done the following:
(1) We have mailed over 7,000 application kits to
convicted draft offenders. The low number of
undelivered envelopes indicates that as many as
6, 000 kits have been delivered.
(2) We have distributed public service announcements
and live copy to 2500 television and radio stations.
(3) We have circulated approximately 27, 000 notices
to post offices, community action agencies, prisons,
employment service agencies, unemployment insurance
offices, probation officers, Action agencies, and veterans'
counselors.
(4) During the past week, five Board members made
personal appearances in 15 cities, attracting substantial
coverage from the local media.
I have four reasons for my conviction that the Board's public information
campaign stimulated these applications. First, the Board's total
number of applications increased by a dramatic 207% from January 7
through January 27. During the same period, Department of Defense's
applications have grown to 3800 and Department of Justice's to 285.
This increase began immediately following the commencement of the
Board's public information effort.
Second, from a survey of a recent day's telephone inquiries, we dis-
covered that over 90% of our eligible callers did not realize that they
could apply for clemency until after our public information campaign
had begun. Likewise, 90% learned of their eligibility only after hearing
or reading about our criteria in the media or on a notice we distributed
to a local agency.
+
FORD
ALD
LIBRARY
- 3 -
Third, we have undertaken efforts to reach target groups of
eligible persons, and each has drawn an immediate response. Our
direct mailings to civilians doubled our total civilian applications
within about a week -- a few days before our first major increase
in military applications. Similarly, we have received a major
response from our other mailings.
Fourth, as other Board members and I met the public and the press
last week, we, encountered surprise when we explained that convicted
draft-offenders and ex-servicemen with bad discharges can apply for
clemency. The general impression, even among well-informed people,
is that the program is aimed only at draft-evaders and deserters in
exile. When the Board's jurisdiction is explained, the entire clemency
program is better received.
Conclusions
The tripling of applications in twenty days is clearly attributable to
the impact of our public information campaign. We expect a total
of 5000 by January 31, and there is every reason to believe we can
reach a total of 10-20, 000 in the next six months.
Our success so far has demonstrated the extent to which eligible persons
never before realized that they qualify under your program. However,
it is unlikely that we can spread this information to more than a small
fraction of eligible persons by January 31. Much remains to be done.
For example, Department of Defense can begin in February to send
application kits to ex-servicemen whose service records indicate
that they are probably eligible to apply. Many other actions can and
should be taken to inform potential applicants. It would be unfortunate
if our final tally of applications were small only because most people
never knew they could apply.
i
FORD
07-
LIBRA,
CHANGING PCB APPLICATION RATES
FORD
LIBRARY
2021
(FOR TWO-WEEK PERIODS FROM SEPTEMBER TO THE PRESENT)
&
OF
100
KEY:
- NUMBER OF NEW CIVILIAN
APPLICATIONS
150
- NUMBER OF NEW MILITARY
APPLICATIONS
(EACH NUMBER IS THE TOTAL FOR
THE TWO-WEEK PERIOD NOTED)
674
543
489
150
100
111
111
99
57
80 69
32
42
48
10
10
22
5 6
EYE
SEP 18
OCT 2
OCT 16
OCT 30
NOV 13
NOV 27
DEC 11
DEC 25
JAN 8
PRESENT
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
OCT 1
OCT 15
RATE
OCT 29
NOV 12
Nov 26
DEC 10
DEC 24
JAN 7
JAN 21
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 25, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JACK MARSH
SUBJECT:
STATISTICS FOR RECONCILIATION
PROGRAM
The attached chart is submitted to you in accordance with your request
at the meeting with Chairman Goodell.
E. R. FORD 1811
STATISTICS
RECONCILIATION PROGRAM
RATE OF RETURNEES PER WEEK
NUMBER OF
APPLICANTS
PER WEEK
2,000
1,000
950*
1,000
Clemency Board
600
550
500
371
FORD
275
250
AMERICA
125
100
92
85
Department of Defense
50
35
12
33
14
3
0
Department of Justice
DATE
September
December
January
January
February
February
16, 1974
9-15, 1974
11-17,1975
18-24, 1975
10-16,1975
17-23, 1975
*(1,000 estimated applications
in unopened mail)
GERALD R. FORD LIBRARY
This form marks the file location of item number
for
listed on the pink Withdrawal Sheet found at the front of this folder.
FOR COMMCENTER USE ONLY
IMMEDIATE
UNCLAS
PRECEDENCE
CLASSIFICATION
DEX 013
FROM: JACK MARSH
DAC
GPS
TO: DKK CHENEY/S. DIEGO
LDX
PAGES 2
TTY
INFO:
DTG: 0319007 INSITUATION
WHITE
RELEASED BY 6D
TOR: 03191
CITE APR 3 PM N 3 10
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
/
TOTAL R. FORD VIBRARA
WHCA FORM 8. 22 FEB 74
To Dick Cheney
From- JACK MARSH
FINAL STATISTICS ON CLEMENCY PROGRAM
Applications
Total
Percent
Received
Possible
% Total
Presidential Clemency Board
17,500*
130,000
13%
Department of Defense
5,376
10,500
50%
Department of Justice
635
4,500
13%
Total
23,511
145,000
16%
*
The Presidential Clemency Board is still counting applications.
To: Dick Chency
From: JACK MARSH
Question
Now that your Clemency Program has ended, will you tell us how you
measure its success?
Answer
I believe the program was successful because it served the very purpose
for which it was initiated. That purpose was to offer an avenue of return
for those who had violated the law and wished to clear their records and
rejoin their families openly.
Through the Departments of Defense and Justice, and the Presidential
Clemency Board, this offer was made to about 145, 000 persons. Of
that total number, more than 23, 500 persons (about 16%) have made
application, and I understand that the Clemency Board is still opening
mail. Therefore that figure will increase.
(4) 4/3/75
FORD LIBRARY
April 21, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR: PAUL O'NEILL
FROM:
JACK MARSH
Where do we stand on the Clemency Board? Do
you feel this is on track now?
Thanks.
JOM/dl
CG 2. FORD LIBRARY
is
FORD is
0
o
THE WHITE House
WASHINGTON
18
BARY
/. Jaymegusted
attached be relayed
to ben. walt an
phone. (bottom live
rardon and cleanency
can be used together).
2. Minority sport
will be called to
IF is attention.
JUL 30 1975
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 28, 1975
TO:
RUSS ROURKE
THROUGH:
PHILIP BUCHEN
T.W.B.
FROM:
JAY FRENCH Jay
This is in response to your note to Phil Buchen concerning General
Walt's inquiry of July 23. General Walt specifically inquired
whether (a) it is "legal" for the President to indicate that he will
give a pardon and clemency discharge at some future point in time,
and whether (b) it is proper to use the word "clemency" to refer to
action taken by the President on the Board's recommendations.
With respect to inquiry (a), there is a mandatory and time consuming
review procedure by higher military authority of each conviction under
the U.C.M.J. In several cases, the Presidential Clemency Board
completed its review of applications before military authorities had
completed review of the convictions. Therefore, letters similar to
the one attached were sent to these applicants so that they might
begin alternate service immediately. The letters were intended to
assure these persons that the President would implement the Board's
recommendations if military authorities upheld the convictions. Since
the President has the authority to grant "reprieves and pardons",
it follows that he can agree to grant relief (clemency) at a future
time.
With respect to inquiry (b), the word "clemency" is a generic term
describing specific forms of relief which the President may grant
under Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution to those who
commit Federal offenses. Thus, to grant a "pardon" is to grant
FORD LIGRA
2
"clemency". However, these words are not interchangeable since
merely to indicate that "clemency" has been granted is not suffi-
ciently descriptive to indicate whether relief is in the form of a
"pardon" or "commutation of sentence (reprieve. )" Based on the
foregoing discussion, it is proper to use the word "clemency" as
the Chairman has in his letter to Tyrone Graves. Therein,
Chairman Goodell indicates that the Board has recommended Graves
for "conditional clemency" the particular form of which will be a
"pardon and clemency discharge."
I hope this response clears up any misunderstanding with respect
to these inquiries from General Walt. However, please do not
hesitate to contact me further if we can be of further assistance.
FORD
&
RALD
1977
July 24, 1975
MEMORANDUM TO:
PHIL BUCHEN
FROM:
RUSS ROURKE
Phil, the attached is the Item to which I made reference in our
conversation. In General Walt's own words he wants to know
whether "it is legal to indicate the prospective receipt of both
a pardon and clemency discharge."
As I indicated to you, General Walt was under the impression
that, as & result of a previous discussion, the words "clemency"
and "pardon" were synonymous, but he cannot understand the
use of both words in the attached letters.
For General Walt's purposes, the situation would appear to require
a legal interpretation with appropriate guidance.
Many thanks.
RAR:rs
Enclosures
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
7/23
Russ -
These are the letters I spoke
7 yesterday- - If "pandon"
and Clemency "ase synonomous
as argued last Fall- - why
use both terms? - Thanks
for your interest Lave
FORD & LIBRARY PERALD
Climency
August 15, 1975
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM TO:
PHIL BUCHEN
FROM:
RUSS ROURKE
a
Phil, General Walt hand delivered the attached memo to me.
It describes alleged Clemency Board "discrepancies."
I am under the impression that Jay French has already received
a verbal report on this matter.
Enclosure : Copy of memo of 8/13/75 to Gen. Walt from
Karl P. Essigmann (sp.)
RAR:rs
LIBRATY GERALD 4. FORD
August 15, 1975
ADMINISTRATIVELY
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM TO:
PHIL BUCHEN
FROM:
RUSS ROURKE
Phil, General Walt hand delivered the attached memo to me.
It describes alleged Clemency Board "discrepancies."
I am under the impression that Jay French has already received
a verbal report on this matter.
Enclosure : Copy of memo of 8/13/75 to Gen. Walt from
Karl P. Essigmann (sp.)
RAR:rs
LIBRARY GERALD P. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
washington
Jach-
\
cittached in a copy of
hor W alts current
headaches w/ the
Clemency Board. FORD
Burner : LIBRARY GERALD
R.- - this go
Did Phil ?
to
Buche M
MEMO 70 U-C.V.
13 AUG 75 1200 HRS
THE Following 15 A List OF
DISCREPANCES NOTED in THE
OPERATION OF THE PRESIDENTIAL
CLEMENCY PROGRAM AS OF THIS
DATE:
/.
IN A NUMBER OF INSTANCES iT
HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT CASES
AFTER HAVING ONCE BEEN DECIDED
AND Suppose ocy Disposed OF By
THE FULL BOARD ORA PANEL HAVE AGAIN
BEEN DOCKETED AND PRESENTED TO.A
PANCEL OR THEFULL BOARD.
2.
CASES BRING PRESENTED to THE
FULL BOARD, WHICH HAD BEEN
FLAGGED EITHER By THE COMPUTER
FOR VARIOUS REASONS, OR PHYSICALLY
HAD NOT BEEN DCNTIFICO AS'
SUCH ON THE DOCKET IN ACCORDANCE
WITH policy ESTABLISHED
3.
AN AUTOMATIC HOLD HAS BEEN
PLACED ON ALL CASES INVOLVING A
"No CLEMENCY Dispositions AND
CASES INVOLVING APPLICANTS
CURRENTLY INCARCERATED.
CASES INVOLVING OTHER DISPOSITIONS
HAD BEEN SENT to THE WHITE HOUSE
ON A REGULAR BASIS
GERALD FORD FIBRARY
e
4.
ALL CASES DECIDED By THE
FULL BOARD pRioR TO 8 MAY 1975
(DATE BOARD (TRANOED) ARE BONG
CONFIDERED AS CASES HAVING BEEN
ACCORDED PANEL HEARINGS ONLY.
As SUCH SEVERAL CASES HEARD
PRIOR To THIS DATE HAVE BEEN
FLAGGED AND ARE BEING HELD FOR
possible RECONSIDERATION By THE
"FULL BOARD".
(NOTE: PRIOR 20 THE INCREASE iN
NUMBER or Bonies MEMBERS ON
8 MAY 1975, THE FULL BOARD MET
AS A PANEL.)
IN OTHER WORDS, THOSE CASES
Deciseo By THE FULL BOARD prior
To 8 MAY 1975 ARE NOT BRING
ACCORDED FULL BOARD RECOGNITION.
5.
AT THE PRESENT TIME, SOME
384 CASES ARE BEiNG HELD FOR
VARIOUS REASONS. THESE ARE NOT
AWAITING FURTHER INFO
TABLED Cares, OR CASES BEING
HELD FOR FULL BOARD PRESENTATION,
BUT CASES ALREADY ACTEO ON
in RESPECT To FINAL DISPOSITIONS
6.
ASSUMING JURNDICTION IN SITUATIONS
NOT COVERED By THE
EXECUTIVE ORDER. (see NOTE ATTACHED)
GERALD FORD
3,
7
REFUSAL AND RELUCTANCE OF
KEY SOME ADMINISTRATIVE CLEMENCY
BOARD PERSONNEL To COOPERATE
WITH PREPARERS OF THE MINORITY
REPORT By WITHHOLDING ESSENTIAL
INFORMATION MATERIAL To THE
PREPARATION THEREOF.
LTC, USARR
(MINORITY REPORT)
FORD : LIBRARY
SEP 11 1975
due ¡ASAP
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
HIGH PRIORITY
September 10, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JAMES CONNOR
PHILIP BUCHEN
ROBERT HARTMANN
MAX FRIEDERSDORF
JOHN MARSH
FROM:
WARREN RUSTAND USR
SUBJECT:
Recognition of The Clemency Board
as it Finishes its Work on September 15
We are tentatively proposing this for Monday, September 15.
Do you concur with the proposal?
FORD : LIBRARY GERALD
September 8, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM LYNN
FROM:
JACK MARSH
SUBJECT:
Clemency Board
In reviewing the Executive Order winding up the Clemency Board,
I wanted to tell you what a great job you and all of those associated
with you at OMB did on this program.
The tremendous help that was forthcoming from OMB last Spring,
when you moved into that operation to provide the necessary back-
up and administrative know-how to get things moving, accounts
in large measure for being able to bring about the planned termina-
tion of the Clemency Board.
Paul O'Neill gave us his usual fine help and I would be grateful if
you would thank him.
JOM/dl
FORD is LIBRARY 076839
X
clemency Board
September 11, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JACK MARSH
FROM:
RUSS ROURKE
For obvious reasons, I seriously question the wisdom of the
proposed reception and meeting referred to in Tropp's memo to
Nicholson. As I understand it, the Board is nowhere near com-
pleting its work. In view of the controversy that is rampant
within the Board itself, I think any such receptionweed be a
farce. It may be appropriate for the President to meet with a
small representative group from the Board to receive their
general comments concerning the Board's final action and
report, and for the President to render any appropriate
response. I will check with Jay French and advise you of
his own personal recommendations in this regard.
Bear in mind that Geheral Walt still plans to go ahead with his
press conference on Friday, September 12. He departs for an
extended trip to Korea on September 14.
RAR/dl
FORD LIBRARY is GERALD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
M
September 11, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JACK MARSH
FROM:
RUSS ROURKE
R
For obvious reasons, I seriously question the wisdom of the
proposed reception and meeting referred to in Tropp's memo to
Nicholson. As I understand it, the Board is nowhere near com-
pleting its work. In view of the controversy that is rampant
within the Board itself, I think any such reception would be a
farce. It may be appropriate for the President to meet with a
small representative group from the Board to receive their
general comments concerning the Board's final action and
report, and for the President to render any appropriate
response. I will check with Jay French and advise you of
his own personal recommendations in this regard.
Bear in mind that General Walt still plans to go ahoad with his
press conference On Friday, September He departs for an
extended trip to Korea on September 14.
No press conference by Gen.Walt.
FORD i LIBRARY DERALL
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
September 8, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
WILLIAM NICHOLSON
FROM:
RICHARD TROPP
Special Counsel
SUBJECT:
Scheduling Proposal: Presidential Reception
for Presidential Clemency Board
As I mentioned in our conversation earlier today, the Presidential
Clemency Board will complete its work and go out of existence on
September 15. By that date, it will have processed 15, 500 cases
and 5, 000 ineligible applications.
On behalf of the Board and its Chairman, I request that two meetings
be scheduled to mark the completion of the case resolution phase of
the President's clemency program:
(i) A reception for the Board and the senior staff
(26 people), or alternatively perhaps a ceremonial
meeting in the Cabinet Room or the Oval Office, and
(ii) A brief meeting with the whole Clemency Board staff
(approximately 400), perhaps in the East Room. This
meeting might take place immediately upon the
adjournment of the reception.
Simultaneously with these gatherings, the President may want to
release a statement marking the end of the clemency program, and
--noting the recent Gallup Poll and other surveys, and
congratulating the American people on their over-
whelming (85% of those surveyed) acceptance back into
their communities of those who have earned re -entry
under his clemency program,
- -thanking the Board for having worked day and night for
the last 3 1/2 months in order to meet his target for
caseload completion,
GERALD R. FORD
- 2 -
- -noting that exactly one year ago he created a temporary
program and a new government organization within his
Office to administer it, and that the organization is
breaking precedent by getting its job done and going out
of existence within the deadline which he set for it, and
- -affirming that, with the Board's work completed, the
clemency/amnesty issue is now a dead letter and a part
of history. This particular wound of the Vietnam war is,
to the extent that it ever humanly can be, healed.
We will prepare a draft statement.
September 16, the day after the Board's completion of its work, is
the most appropriate date for the reception and the meeting with
the staff. The next three days of that week are second choice.
FORD & LIBRARY
E HOUSE
M
WASHINGTON
12 Sept
Jash-
1
Jim Connor
advises me that,
although the IT will -
meet w/ a representative
group from the Board,
there will probably
be no statement
by the TT. That RALD R. FORD LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
would be just fine.
Rune
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
Clemenis SEP 1₂ 1975
PRESIDENTIAL THE WHITE CLEMENCY HOUSE BOARD Board pogra
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
September 11, 1975
MRMORANDUM
Chirles FOR: Donald E. Hadell
FROM: Charles E. Goodell, Chairman
SUBJECT: Statement for the President to Issue upon the Expiration
of the Presidential Clemency Board.
Attached is my proposed statement for the President to issue
on Monday in connection with the Presidential Clemency Board's
completion of its work.
cc: Philip W. Buchen
John 0 Marsh
Ronald Nessen
James Connor
FORD & LIBRARY 0799
RTropp:mm:9/10/75
Draft Statement for the President
I am today signing an Executive Order terminating the Presidential
Clemency Board, which has completed its consideration of all
applications for clemency made to it. The Board has worked day
and night for the past 5 months in order to meet the target of
September 15 which I set for it, and it has made recommendations
to me on approximately 15, 500 cases. 5,000 applications to it
proved to be from people ineligible for consideration under the
Proclamation which established the clemency program.
One year ago tomorrow, I established the Presidential Clemency
Board as a temporary organization within the White House, in order
to carefully consider on a case-by-case basis whether applicants
to it ought to be granted clemency, and on what terms. As I had
intended, the Board gave careful attention to each individual case,
and did not simply recommend blanket amnesty for whole categories
of applicants.
The Board considered its cases under a set of regulations which
guaranteed scrupulous fairness and due process for each applicant.
At the same time, in its overall pattern of decisions, the Board has
ensured that the decisions of the military justice system were
respected and that military discipline has been maintained. Constantly,
in thinking about every application it faced, the Board remembered
the sacrifices made by our veterans who went into combat in Vietnam,
who died, and who suffered grievous wounds for their country.
I am proud that the Board is breaking governmental precedent by
getting its job done and going out of existence within the deadline
set for it.
It seems to me critical that the American people understand that
although there are cases of clemency which have been granted to
those who conscientiously opposed the war in Vietnam, most of the
clemency cases have turned out to have nothing to do with opposition
to the war. By and large, they involve family hardship cases and
cases in which former servicemen fought well in Vietnam, and then
cràcked under the strain after they had completed their duty in the
combat zone. They were generally unsophisticated, uneducated,
inarticulate people who just did not know the proper channels when
they ran into dying parents, sick children, deserting spouses, or
just plain emotional problems.
GEBALD FORD LIBRARY
- 2 -
These are not at all the kind of people whom, we, as a nation, pictured
as the stereotype draft evader or deserter. These are, rather,
unfortunates who have shown that they are willing to fulfill their
obligation to their country by doing alternative service, and whom
we should accept back into their communities. Where they are
former servicemen with a Clemency Discharge, I hope that
neighbors and employers will treat them as ordinary people who
have earned their re-entry into their community, who have earned
the privilege of being treated just the same as anyone else.
I ask the business community, particularly the small businessmen
and the manufacturers who will employ most of these people, for
their help in this.
I am gratified to note that the recent Gallup Poll shows, consistently
with other surveys, that 85% of the American people will welcome
back into their communities those who have earned re-entry under
the clemency program. I am especially pleased to note that veterans
in general, and Vietnam veterans in particular, have overwhelmingly
indicated that they intend to accept clemency recipients back.
It is this generous reaction of the American people, and particularly
of those most intimately acquainted with the Vietnam war, which
will make the clemency program a success in healing the divisions
generated by the war, and in consigning the clemency/amnesty issue
to the pages of history.
FORD is LIBRARY OTH
SEP 12 1975
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
10
SERVICE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
1
STS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
MEMORANDUM FOR: JIM CANNON
DICK CHENEY
PAUL THEIS
JACK MARSH
RON NESSEN
FROM:
PAUL H. O'NEILL
Ohein
Attached is a draft fact sheet/Q&A package regarding
termination of the Clemency Board.
These materials have been checked for factual accuracy
and cleared by DOD, DOJ, Selective Service, Clemency
Board, and OMB.
Your views on substance and tone are necessary additions.
I propose that Paul Theis circulate through his normal
process in order to get this into final form.
Attachments:
FORD & LIBRARY
TOTALLY EMBARGOED
September 15, 1975
UNTIL 11:30 A.M. EDT
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
FACT SHEET
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD TRANSITION
The President has today issued Executive Order
terminating the
Presidential Clemency Board operations and delegating residual admin-
istrative responsibilities to the Department of Justice and the
Selective Service.
Background
On September 16, 1974, the President issued a proclamation and Execu-
tive Orders establishing a program of clemency for draft evaders and
military deserters to commence immediately. The program for the re-
turn of Vietnam-era draft evaders and military deserters was formulated
to permit these individuals to return to American society without risk
of criminal prosecution or incarceration for qualifying offenses if
they acknowledge their allegiance to the United States and agree to
serve a period of alternate civilian service, when required as a con-
dition of clemency.
The Presidential Clemency Board was comprised of eighteen private
citizens designated by the President with former Senator Charles E.
Goodell as Chairman. The Board reviewed the records of two kinds of
applicants. First, those convicted of a draft evasion offense commit-
ted between the date of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution (August 4, 1964)
and the date of withdrawal of United States troops (March 28, 1973).
Second, those who received a punitive or undesirable discharge from
the armed forces because of a military absentee offense committed
during the Vietnam era or were serving sentences of confinement for
such violations. The Board was empowered to make recommendations to
the President on a case-by-case basis either granting or denying
clemency. In the absence of aggravating factors, the Clemency Board
was expected to recommend clemency.
When appropriate, the Board could recommend clemency conditioned upon
the performance of some alternate service, to be performed under the
auspices of the Director of the Selective Service.
In the case of a military deserter, the Board could also recommend
that a clemency discharge be substituted for a punitive or undesirable
discharge. The Clemency Board's recommendations to the President took
the form of a pardon, or a clemency discharge with and without condi-
tions of alternate service requirements.
Military deserters and draft evaders who had not been discharged or
convicted did not apply to the Presidential Clemency Board but reported
to their military department or the Department of Justice. There they
were relieved of punishment contingent upon taking an oath of allegiance
and fulfillment of alternate service requirements.
The deadline for all applicants to apply for clemency was originally
set for January 31, 1975, but was extended to March 31, 1975, to
respond to the heavy volume of applications received after the
original date.
(more)
CERALO FORD LIBRARY
(OVER)
2
The Clemency Board was charged to complete its reviews and recommenda-
tions to the President by September 15, 1975 on those applications
received by the March 31, 1975 deadline.
Accomplishments of the Board
The record of the Presidential Clemency Board reflects a successful
completion of the Board's responsibilities within the deadline date
of September 15, 1975.
- The Board received approximately 21,500 applications and requests
for clemency.
- Of these applicants, approximately 5,000 did not qualify for the
program.
- The remaining approximately 15,500 cases have all been reviewed by
the Board and recommendations made for Presidential consideration.
- Approximately six percent of the total cases reviewed by the Board
resulted in recommendations for denial of the applicant's request
for clemency.
- Of the total, roughly 43 percent of the cases were recommended for
clemency conditional on fulfillment of alternate service for an
average of six months.
- The remaining 51 percent of the cases were recommended for pardons.
Effects of Program
Expeditious action by the Board has enabled thousands of persons con-
victed of draft evasion or desertion to return to the mainstream of
American society. Many thousands who were recommended for clemency
can choose to fulfill alternate service requirements and cause less
than honorable discharges to be converted to clemency discharges,
while working in areas that contribute, belatedly, to the betterment
of their community and the country. The maximum length of alternate
service is two years. In prescribing the length of alternate service
in individual cases, honorable service rendered prior to desertion,
penalties already paid under law for the offense, and other mitigating
factors were taken into account to ensure equity of treatment among
those participating in the program. The Director of Selective Service
has the responsibility to find or approve alternate service jobs for
those who agree to the conditional provisions and report for assignment.
Determining factors in selecting suitable jobs are:
- Contributes to national health, safety or interest;
- Non-interference with the competitive labor market;
- Compensation is comparable to that received by another employee
utilizing the same skills and occupying the same position;
- Utilizes any applicant's special skills, where possible.
Follow-Up Activities Related to Presidential Clemency Board Activities
BY applications for executive clemency, as to which the Presidential
Clemency Board has not taken final action shall be transferred, to-
gether with the files related thereto, to the Attorney General.
(more)
GERÄLD R. FORD (OVER) LIBRARY
3
The Attorney General, with respect to the applications and related
files transferred to him by Section 2 of this Order, shall take all
actions appropriate or necessary to complete the clemency process
and shall expeditiously report to the President his findings and
recommendations as to whether executive clemency should be granted
or denied in any case. In performing his responsibilities under this
Order, the Attorney General shall apply the relevant criteria and
comply with the appropriate and applicable instructions and procedures
established by Executive Order No. 11803 of September 16, 1974, as
amended, Proclamation No. 4313 of September 16, 1974, as amended,
Executive Order No. 11804 of September 16, 1974, and, to the extent
that he deems appropriate, the regulations of the Presidential
Clemency Board and the Selective Service System issued pursuant to
the foregoing Executive Orders.
#
#
#
BERALD FORD LIBSARY
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD TRANSITION
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Q. Exactly what does the Executive Order do?
A. The Executive Order terminates the Clemency Board operations and
delegates authority for carryover functions of the Presidential
Clemency Board after September 15 to the Department of Justice.
Q. Will the Clemency Board meet after September 15?
A. No. The Board has completed all actions on cases available for
its review and has completed its final report to the President.
Q. Were files used by the Presidential Clemency Board made available
to other agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
A. No. The policy of the Presidential Clemency Board was that no
records under any circumstances were to be released to any other
Federal agency or other inquirers. I understand that inadvertently
one record was released to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Q. Were files of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or other intel-
ligence agencies made available to the Presidential Clemency Board?
A. Yes. The Presidential Clemency Board was assisted in performing
its functions by, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, various
police departments in obtaining necessary information to properly
review applications for clemency.
Q. What security measures were taken to protect applicant's files
from unauthorized use?
A. Normal security measures were taken to protect the confidentiality
of applicant's files and records.
Q. If a person does not fulfill his alternate service requirements,
is he subject to a new liability or merely the original charge
against him?
A. Those persons who have received pardons conditioned upon the
performance of alternate service and who fail to fulfill their
alternate service requirements will not be subject to any new
liability or to the underlying charge against them. With respect
to the military deserter who signs with the Secretary of the
Department of the Armed Forces in which he served and thereby
receives an undesirable discharge, if that individual breaks the
agreement, he is not subject to prosecution on the underlying
charge. On the other hand, the unindicted draft evader who signs
an agreement with the U.S. Attorney and who breaks the agreement
is subject to prosecution on the underlying charge.
Q. I understand that in some cases in which clemency was granted
included persons presently serving jail terms. Is that so?
A. Offenses other than draft evasion and desertion were not within
the jurisdiction of the Clemency Board. In determining the merits
of each application, aggravating factors such as conviction for
other offenses committed prior or subsequent to the offense of
evasion or desertion were taken into account by the Board.
Clemency Board recommendations apply only to the offense of
desertion or draft evasion.
BERILD FORD LIBRANT
A. There were 15,500 draft evaders potentially eligible under the
Presidential Clemoney Board program. An indeterminato number of
military deserters were eligible.
Q. The statement is made that 43 percent of the applicants to the
Clemency Board were required to complete alternate service as a
condition to clemency. Where are these jobs to be found when the
unemployment rate of honorably discharged veterans is so high?
A. The Director of the Selective Service is responsible for assigning
applicants to suitable jobs. Most will be placed in the type of
job for which it is normally difficult to find applicants such as
in service jobs in hospitals, charitable organizations, etc.
Generally, these jobs are in the lower range of pay. Many will
be permitted to work in volunteer services in addition to their
regular employment if necessary to support families.
Q. What would the President's reaction be to a congressional action
to provide amnesty to all deserters and draft evaders who did
not take advantage of the clemency program by the deadline date?
A. The President is committed to the concept of justice on the side
of leniency and mercy, but he has also promised to work within
the existing system of military and civilian law and the precedents
set by his predecessors who faced similar post-war situations,
among them Abraham Lincoln and Harry S. Truman. He would be
opposed to total amnesty.
Q. What did it cost to process the approximately 21,500 cases reviewed
by the Clemency Board?
A. The budget provided for the Board was $521,000 plus legal and
clerical staff from various other Federal agencies.
Q. What type of people applied for the program?
A. Most of those offenders who applied for clemency consisted of
persons classified as low income, from rural areas, having a low
educational level and had mitigating factors such as family hard-
ships during his service.
Q. How many of the total applicants actually served in Vietnam?
A. Twenty-four percent of the total applications received served some
period of time in Vietnam. As a matter of fact, many of these
individuals received decorations while in Vietnam.
Q. As of Sept. 15 how many cases have been heard by the Board.
A. The Board has reviewed all 15,500 cases. Of the 15,500 approximately
900 are "Hard Cases". These are cases where information related to
applicants has not yet been available or has been found not to exist.
These 900 cases will be transferred to the Department of Justice who
will continue to search for the necessary information to prepare a case.
Q. How many cases have been forwarded to the White House for signature,
and how many have actually been signed.
A. Approximately 6981 cases have been forwarded for signature. Of the 6,981,
2,402 have been signed.
FORD is LIBRAR GERALD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 13, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
RUSS ROURKE
FROM:
JACK MARSH Jul
You may want to get a copy of the memo from General Walt
into the President's Reading File before he does the event.
FORDO & LIBRARY CERALD
7
THE WHITE HOUSE
M
WASHINGTON
September 12, 1975
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM TO:
PHIL BUCHEN
JACK MARSH
JIM CONNOR
DICK CHENEY
FROM:
RUSS ROURKE
R
General Walt called me again this morning to make one final comment
with regard to the wrap-up of the Clemency Board.
He has agreed to cancel the press conference he had scheduled for
today and to reject the invitation he had to be a guest on "Meet the
Press". He has, however, met with a number of veterans organiza-
tions and newspaper and magazine reporters concerning what he feels
are the "excesses" of the Board. In brief, it is General Walt's view
that the majority of the Board is commited to a program of general
amnesty and that the actions of the Board, thus far, have been an effec-
tive precursor to that end.
In the best interests of the President, General Walt simply suggests
that the President do nothing and say nothing that would be interpreted
as an endorsement of the actions taken by the Board. Walt is convinced
that a number of reporters, having been briefed by him and others, are
prepared to pounce on the Board, once its final report is made public.
If the President endorses the actions of the Board, they will turn on him
with equal vigor.
General Walt is interested in seeing to it that the President does not
place himself in a vulnerable position.
For the above reasons, it is suggested that no statement be released
by the President, or in his behalf, at the conclusion of the Board's work.
Secondly, General Walt advises against the scheduling of any reception
for the members of the Board and the detailees who worked with the Board.
He agreed that a meeting with the President for a small representative
FORD LIBRARY & CERALD
group from the Board was a practical, if not unavoidable, necessity.
R-
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 15, 1975
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JACK MARSH
FROM:
RUSS ROURKE
FROM:
Rick Tropp -- Pageboy
In answer to your inquiry, Bill Gulley advises me that a pageboy
was not issued to Rick Tropp. He must have borrowed someone
else's pageboy or he could have been utilizing a pageboy that was
in the possession of someone else with whom Tropp was visiting.
FYI: The PCB staff have reported the loss of three portable
tape recorders.
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
September 15, 1975
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JACK MARSH
FROM:
RUSS ROURKE
FROM:
Rick Tropp -- Pageboy
In answer to your inquiry, Bill Gulley advises me that a pageboy
was not issued to Rick Tropp. He must have borrowed someone
else's pageboy or he could have been utilising a pageboy that was
in the possession of someone else with whom Tropp was visiting.
FYI: The PCB staff have reported the loss of three portable
tape recorders.
RAR/dl
FORD LIBRARY : 07WN70
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
15 September 1975
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Chairman Charles Goodell
FROM:
General Walt
Mr. Dougovito
SUBJECT: Upgrade Cases, Recommendation
Concerning
-
To date there have been 25 cases tentatively recommended for upgrade.
There are still over 200 cases which have not been considered and due
to the Board's termination date of 15 September 1975, they cannot be
considered. It was the consenses of the Full Board and the strong
position of the Department of Defense that all the upgrade cases should
be considered at one time. We also believe that each case must have a
careful final check to make sure that all facts presented in the brief
are accurate and that the applicant is not now in trouble with the law.
We, therefore, are definitely opposed to approving only the 25 cases
which have been tentatively acted on by the Upgrade Panel.
We recommend that the upgrade program of the Clemency Board be abandoned
and that the 25 tentatively above cases and the 207 cases not yet acted
on by the Upgrade Panel be turned over to the Review Boards of the De-
fense Department for special consideration. We are still firm in our
belief that there are many deserving applicants in this group who should
be given the veteran's benefits.
FORD i LIBRARY 07V830
Lewis W. Walt
James P. Dougovito
Board Member
Board Member
September 15, 1975
MEMORANDUM TO:
DICK KEISER
FROM:
RUSS ROURKE
I received a call today from retired General Lou Walt concerning
a conversation he had in the last several days with a Dr. Joel
Delsey. Gen. Walt advises me that Dr. Delsey is a consultant,
employed by the federal government at Aberdeen, Maryland. Delsey
is a surgeon and an expert in the field of bullistics. He indicated
to Gen. Walt that his laboratory is currently working on a new
light-weight abdominal protective device. I am aware that the Secret
Service is currently reviewing all proposals of this nature, and, If
you have not already done so, you might contact Dr. Delsey in order
to get a full briefing on Miscurrent research activities.
CCI JMarsh
RAR:Cb
FORD i LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 18, 1975
R
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
Disiss
MEMORANDUM TO:
JACK MARSH
FROM:
RUSS ROURKE
R
Jack, because of our previously expressed interest in the
actions of the Clemency Board personnel, Bill Gulley called
to advise me of some difficulties that were encountered in
connection with the 2 1/2 day Camp David "retreat" for Clemency
Board staff. Gulley reports that they stole towels, ash trays
and the Presidential seal off of the President's golf cart. They
used up more than $400 worth of shells shooting skeet, and,
despite a request not to use the clay tennis courts (which were
wet due to a recent rain), they did so, resulting in a requirement
for somewhat extensive repair work on the courts.
FYI, Gulley is giving Don Rumsfeld a memo on the above.
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 29, 1975
Jack Mar
h
The letter to
Charles Goodell has been rewritten
at your request Please let us
know If you approve this version.
Nim Connor
FORDO & LIBRA, 19
September 25, 1975
Dear Charlie:
It is a special pleasure for me to thank you for your
dedicated service as Chairman of the Presidential
Clemency Board.
This Administration, your country and several thousand
young Americans are indebted to you for your unselfish
efforts as Board Chairman. By your skillful and
sensitive attention to the personal problems of these
young people, you have made a valuable contribution
to the Nation.
1 deeply appreciate the ties of friendship which we have
enjoyed through the years and your willingness to accept
this special task. You have earned the gratitude of your
fellow citizens and my personal thanks for all that you
have done.
Warmest personal regards,
GERAL LIBRARY 4. FORD
The Honorable Charles Goodell
2823 a Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20010
PAT/cf
Clemency
October 7, 1975
MEMORANDUM TO: JAY FRENCH
FROM:
RUSS ROURKE
Jay, the attached memo from Cel. Benson is self-explanatory.
I would appreciate any reaction you might have to Is comments.
Many thanks.
RAR:cb
FORD i LIBRARY 078
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 2, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HONORABLE EDWARD H. LEVI
Attorney General
Department of Justice
FROM:
CHARLES E. GOODELL
Chairman
Presidential Clemency Board
SUBJECT:
Transfer of Residual Presidential Clemency
Board Functions to the Department of Justice
Since it is supported by the Unanticipated Personnel Needs Fund of
the White House Office, the Presidential Clemency Board (PCB) is
statutorily barred from entering into new obligations after September 15,
one year from the date of its creation. The President has directed
that the Board complete the disposition of clemency applications by
September 15, and the Board will meèt that target. We will have
processed 15, 500 cases and 5, 000 ineligible applications.
Although the Board will have completed case disposition by September 15,
several residual functions remain. Our staffs and that of OMB have
agreed that those functions should be transferred to the Department of
Justice. A number of open questions with respect to the transition remain,
however, and you and I need to reach a resolution of those questions.
J, Exercise of Residual Discretion in Reconsideration
Cases Triggered by Presentation of New Facts
Under the PCB regulations, an applicant has the right to petition for
reconsideration of his case for thirty days after Board disposition,
should the applicant present new facts material to the disposition of
his application and not previously available to the Board. The Board's
recommendations are not forwarded to the President until after that
thirty-day period has run.
An applicant also is granted, by the regulations, entitlement to re-
consideration within thirty days after the President's decision on his
case, provided that the applicant presents new material facts not
previously available for good cause.
LIBRARY BERALD A. FORD
- 2 -
Those two reconsideration periods will not have run by September 15,
and the administrative processing of applications will therefore not
be complete.
If it would be helpful to you, the Board has indicated its willingness to
meet, as unpaid consultants to you, to resolve reconsideration petitions.
Such a meeting probably would be for one day, and could take place
immediately prior to November 1. If the Board members themselves
resolve these residual cases, the President will be assured that
decisions are made with maximum consistency with prior cases.
II. Certification of Completion of Alternative Service
The critical remaining exercise of discretion after September 15 will
relate to cases in which a local Selective Service board rules that an
applicant either has not completed the prescribed period of alternative
service, or did not make a good faith effort to find an alternative
service job, and in which the applicant alleges either that he did
indeed complete the period or did make a good faith effort. The
question presented then is whether, notwithstanding that Selective
Service alleges failure to complete alternative service for no good
cause, the conditions attached to the President's grant of conditional
clemency will be considered by the Department to have been met.
This is much more than a ministerial function. The Department must
elect either to certify or not to certify the applicant as deserving of
the pardon which the President has granted him conditionally. The
Board has faced several such cases already.
The Board is very concerned that this exercise of discretion be informed
by careful attention to each individual case in which a conflict arises
between the applicant and his local board, and that the officials who make
the discretionary decisions on your behalf have the organizational
strength and resources to override the determination of a local board
if the facts of a particular case warrant that.
We would feel most reassured on this point if you chose to place this
residual discretionary authority--and the appropriate staff to work on
FORD
i
such cases--in the Immediate Office of the Attorney General, rather
DERALD
LIBRARY
than in the Office of the Pardon Attorney. I expect that the number of
such cases will be small, and that the exercise of this function can be
organizationally divorced from completion of the residual administrative
tasks if you choose to house those in the Office of the Pardon Attorney.
10/1/75
OCT 2 1975
Russ -
This is the
mend I mentioned to
you.
Section II is another
attempt at total
annesty and should be
stopped.
Col. Senson
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY