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
1505969
label
Case Processing
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1505969
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Case Processing
citationUrl
collections
Charles E. Goodell Papers
Presidential Clemency Board Subject Files
subjects
President (1974-1977 : Ford). Presidential Clemency Board. 9/16/1974-9/15/1975
Amnesty
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1505969
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-08-31
month
8
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-05-01
month
5
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
fc1549497d45be53
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 1, folder "Case Processing" of the Charles E.
Goodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Charles Goodell donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 1 of the Charles E. Goodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
From the desk of
CHARLES E. GOODELL
IAPPLICATIONS
IPILES
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
I APPLICATIONS/LETIES
AJ NO Theis- 6005 To HARRIE
B) NOOD FILE- GOODS To
UN CERTAIN ABOUT
JULISDICTION- NEED
FILE
i cass TO GRETCHEN
II FILES
A) NO THRIS - GOOS TO HARCE
FOR LETTER
B) Jues - - GODS BACK TO
ACTION Any PUR
WRITING of SUMMARY
GOODELL
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
May' 31, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Distribution List B
FROM:
Bill Strauss
CERALD R. FORD LIBRARY
SUBJ:
Jurisdiction Cases
First thing Monday morning, the jurisdiction question
will be discussed with the General Counsel. You will be
notified immediately concerning the result of this meeting.
If you have any questions, please contact Charlie Craig at
634-9601.
GOODELL
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
at
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
June 2, 1975
MEMORANDUM
TO
: Assistant General Counsels/Quality Control Personnel
THROUGH
: John J Foote
NOI
FROM
: Lou Coffelt
He
SUBJECT
:
Quality Control
I
Pursuant to recent directive, Quality Control has been cut back in
size. Yet it is still to review the work product of all action
attorneys with this reduced force of 24 professionals and 4 team
leaders. This is done despite our previous determination that it
would take some seventy-five quality control personnel to review
adequately the work of every attorney presently detailed to the Board.
The overall quality of work presently produced has improved greatly
in the past several weeks. Attorneys are improving their expertise
in military law and Assistant General Counsels have begun to effec-
tively use their deputies to reduce error rates previously encoun-
tered by Quality Control. Recent checks of quality however, have
indicated that there is still a substantial need for the Quality
Control function, even if the basic criteria is limited to "rejection"
of those cases in which there was an error in the ag/mit sheets.
H
Under the current Table of Organization, there are eight action.
attorney teams and four Quality Control teams. The present plan is
that each action attorney team will be reviewed every other day by
one of the QC teams. (One QC team will rotate between two Action
teams.) Team Leaders should hold all rough drafts for QC until the
QC team leader arrives for a scheduled visit. (All rough drafts
prepared for QC are to be counted on the action teams' Case Team
Progress Report.)
In order to save some time and hassle, each Deputy Assistant General
Counsel will be the contact point for the Quality Control personnel.
This will ordinarily replace the direct communication between QC and
the case writing attorney that was done in the past, although, per
discussions we all held in John Foote's office, if it is felt useful
or wise to include the case writer, it will be done. This is in the
discretion of the Deputy and the QC people.
- 2 -
Each Deputy should arrange his or her cases as described below
in Part III. If a major error (no jurisdiction -- rewrite --
evidence not supportive of a designated ag/mit factor) is
involved, the Quality Control personnel will converse with the
Deputy involved, to determine the best course to follow from
that point.
III
It has been rumored that the new Quality Control function will
be limited to proofreading the case summaries and no more. THIS
IS NOT THE CASE. It is no less vital now than when we first
began to insure that there is continuing accuracy, fairness, and
consistency in the content of case summaries. But it is equally
vital that we enable the Quality Control personnel to do more
work in less time. Therefore, review in each case will initially
consist of a look at five major areas: (1) jurisdiction, (2) for-
mat selection, (3) heading, (4) conformity between the summary and
the chronology, and (5) evidentiary support for ag/mit factors in
the summary.
This is not the limit of the QC function however. Each Deputy
will now be charged with batching all cases for QC into three
groups, according to his or her appreciation of the necessity of
review of the case writer involved. There are three categories
to be used: (1) attorneys requiring little substantive review,
(2) attorneys requiring some substantive review, (3) attorneys
requiring complete substantive review -- this ordinarily but not
exclusively being new people. This last category should be as
small as possible, to save QC time. But it should contain all
necessary cases, to save the Deputies' time as well.
Even on those people designated as requiring little QC review,
there will be occasional forays into the file, for de novo
checks. This will be done randomly, every SO often as neces-
sity and circumstances demand. There will be more frequent
de novo review on category two; and obviously complete de novo
review on category three.
Minor errors will henceforth be corrected by Quality Control
without return to the Deputy for concurrence. This means pri-
marily errors concerning dates, AFQT scores, and the like. QC
team members will not rewrite cases, nor will they make any
- 3 -
changes which would affect an ag/mit factor determination by
the attorney without consultation with the Deputy involved.
Whenever there is a conflict of opinion between QC and the
Deputy, or Assistant General Counsel concerning the handling
of a case, the Assistant General Counsel for QC will make the
final determination. This is done because such conflict needs
to be resolved uniformly through all the teams, and QC is in
the best position to do SO. QC will discuss all such conflicts
with the appropriate Assistant General Counsels.
IV
A calendar for June 1975 showing which Quality Control teams
will review which action attorney teams is now being prepared
and will be distributed.
Quality Control is a management tool which, when used effectively,
can assist all affected units in educating personnel, and main-
taining uniformity. Quality Control is not designed to simply
find errors in work, to criticise the author of a summary, or to
act simply as proofreaders. Quality Control personnel understand
that they serve as extensions of the action attorneys themselves.
We hope very much to have this new arrangement working swiftly to
accommodate all teams.
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
FORD
June 2, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Charles Hoodllf
FROM:
CHARLES E. GOODELL
CHARIMAN
SUBJECT:
Granting of Pardons to Applicants to the
Presidential Clemency Board Having Undesirable
Discharges
Introduction
Early in the life of your clemency program, the Presidential Clemency
Board, after full consideration and a discussion we had on the issue,
decided that it would recommend pardons and Clemency Discharges for
former servicemen with Undesirable Discharges applying for clemency to
the Presidential Clemency Board.
The Justice Department and the Department of Defense, in written
memoranda and in a meeting we had with Phil Buchen last week, have
expressed their disagreement with the decision you made last fall.
The legal staff of the Board is in agreement with the Pardon Attorney
that there is no question of your legal or constitutional power to
grant pardons in these cases.
Summary
The Board is unanimously of the opinion that it is vital to the success
of your program and fundamental to carrying out your intent that pardons
be the appropriate expression of clemency in these cases. To do other-
wise would preclude most applicants to the Board from receiving the only
significant remedy you can offer them. It would be seen as a repudiation
of the common understanding of your intent and commitment. It would also
cause serious discord among the Board members, both new and old, and
force a drastic reassessment of Board policy and treatment of these cases.
- 2 -
Background
Of the approximately 120,000 persons potentially eligible for the
Board, about 70% were administratively discharged for absence of-
fenses and received Undesirable Discharges. We estimate that 70%
or better of the 20,000 applications to the Presidential Clemency
Board are Undesirable Discharge cases.
Undesirable Discharges are awarded in two different circumstances.
When faced with a serviceman with an offense of unauthorized absence,
the military service may proceed to court-martial the offender and
convict him of the criminal violation. The sentence may include a
Bad Conduct Discharge or a Dishonorable Discharge, and imprisonment
up to three years. The service frequently may, however, permit the
person to elect an administrative separation, thereby avoiding the
costs of trial and possible incarceration. These are commonly de-
scribed as "Chapter 10" discharges in lieu of court-martial.
In other circumstances, the service may elect to discharge a person
for "unfitness" if he has a series of petty infractions, all minor,
but evidencing in toto that the individual is a disciplinary problem.
In both cases, the result is an Undesirable Discharge, which is a
discharge "under other than honorable conditions". It is considered
roughly the equivalent of a Bad Conduct Discharge, which is the usual
result when an AWOL is tried by court-martial. In both instances, the
Undesirable Discharge is given for an absence offense and the violation
of military criminal law, although the punishment is administrative
rather than judicial. It is important to remember that an Undesirable
Discharge carries with it the same federal disabilities respecting
veterans' rights as a Bad Conduct Discharge, the same opprobrium or
even worse in the eyes of the general public, and in some states is
regarded as evidence of a criminal violation for the purposes of state
rights and employment. Although the nature of the reason for the Unde-
sirable Discharge varies, all Board applicants, of course, have received
Undesirable Discharges for absence offenses.
Discussion
In his memorandum to the Presidential Clemency Board of April 30, the
Pardon Attorney stresses the general policy of his office to recommend
pardons only for persons judicially convicted of a criminal offense.
Although the giving of pardons for Undesirable Discharges would be a
change in his usual policy, the very nature of your program is unique
and extraordinary. You consciously and purposefully broke with past
precedent, not only of previous Presidents' clemency proclamations,
but quite obviously with the normal practice of the Pardon Attorney.
Two other more noticeable differences are the fact, first, that the
Pardon Attorney's normal three year waiting period after completing
- 3 -
service of sentence is not required to apply for a pardon under the
clemency program; and second, the fact that the recommendations come
from a specially created Presidential Clemency Board, and not from the
institutionalized mechanism of the Pardon Attorney. Giving pardons
for Undesirable Discharges is another difference, but not in any sense
the only one, nor necessarily the most significant.
There are, of course, other precedents for the Pardon Attorney's
recommending and Presidents' granting pardons in the absence of a
judicially imposed penalty for a criminal offense. To do so under
the clemency program by no means involves creating a new precedent
for changing the Pardon Attorney's practice of refusing persons apply-
ing outside the program. The clemency program is unique, and its
precedents and policies are applicable only during its operation.
Afterward, the Pardon Attorney and you are free, legally and morally,
to continue past policy or to change it, as you believe appropriate.
The Justice Department and the Department of Defense have cited the
difference of treatment between applicants to the Board and those
receiving clemency from the Department of Defense phase of the pro-
gram: However, the difference of treatment presents only surface
questions of equity, not real ones. Because the applicant to the
Justice Department program, the applicant to the Department of Defense
program, and the three kinds of applicants to the Presidential Clemency
Board all are in different legal and practical circumstances, it is not
necessary and it is not possible to provide that they be in identical
positions once they have been granted clemency. For example, the Justice
Department applicant is a fugitive from justice, having failed to appear
to answer criminal charges placed against him for a Selective Service
violation. Yet when he receives clemency and satisfies the condition,
his charges are dropped and he has a totally clean record. The
Presidential Clemency Board applicant who has been convicted of his
Selective Service offense has that conviction remaining on his record
even if he receives a Presidential pardon. Similarly, there are es-
sential differences between the Department of Defense applicants and
the Board's. To treat these two classes of persons the same would do
serious inequity rather than afford equal justice.
The Department of Defense applicant is a fugitive from justice. In the
absence of the clemency program, he is in jeopardy of a Special Court-
Martial for AWOL, a Bad Conduct Discharge, and imprisonment up to 6
months, or a Dishonorable Discharge, and Imprisonment at hard labor for
3 years. By participating in the program, the fugitive serviceman auto-
matically and unconditionally is released from this penalty, and receives
an Undesirable Discharge without imprisonment or a federal criminal con-
viction. This is a highly beneficial result for the applicant. The
opportunity to earn a Clemency Discharge in exchange for participating
is inconsequential in comparison with this benefit.
- 4 -
It should be understood that the relief from criminal jeopardy is
automatic and that once discharged with an Undesirable Discharge,
the Department of Defense applicant is under no effective inducement
to complete his alternative service obligation and earn the additional
Clemency Discharge. The government, whether through the Department of
Defense or the Justice Department, has no realistic means of enforcing
the obligation to perform alternative service. *
By contrast, the Presidential Clemency Board applicants have already
received all the punishment legally permitted for their offense. Having
received their Undesirable Discharges, they are under no additional or
continuing jeopardy for their past absence offense. They apply to the
Board for a change in their legal and symbolic status.
In return for the performance of alternative service, the Board has
assumed that you will offer a pardon, as well as a Clemency Discharge.
The Clemency Discharge is of no value whatever. The Department of
Defense has officially characterized it as "under other than honorable
conditions", the same and the equivalent of an Undesirable Discharge.
This designation destroys. any advantage for the Clemency Discharge, as
compared with the Undesirable Discharge. It is also the belief of many
Board members and much of the public that the Clemency Discharge has a
worse popular connotation, because it clearly and unequivocally labels
the possessor as a "Vietnam deserter".
Because the Clemency Discharge has no practical value, the Board
unanimously decided that a remedy with substantial meaning must be
offered to the applicant with an Undesirable Discharge in return for
his performance of alternative service. To request and receive a
period of public service, at low pay and at a serious disruption in
an individual's life, in return only for the remedy of clemency in
the form of an empty Clemency Discharge, would be unjust and deceptive.
The Board, in its early days, debated at length the form and nature of
the clemency it was authorized to recommend. Because the Proclamation
does not anywhere explicitly state that a pardon was to be offered, you
and I discussed this issue last fall and it is my firm recollection you
decided that pardons would be granted in Undesirable Discharge cases.
Otherwise, the Presidential Clemency Board program would be virtually
meaningless for 80% of our applicants.
*The Department of Defense loses all jurisdiction once an individual is
discharged, and cannot prosecute his later failure to perform alternative
service under the United States Code of Military Justice. The Department
of Justice may theoretically prosecute for fraud, but this involves a
question of intent which is extraordinarily difficult to prove. In effect,
the Department of Defense program is universal, unconditional, and auto-
matic amnesty.
- 5 -
The Board has since proceeded to devise a system whereby it can
determine the period of alternative service appropriate in each case
as a condition for clemency. It has predicated its work on the
understanding that a pardon would be the form of clemency issued in
all cases, including Undesirable Discharge cases. If you are now
persuaded that only a Clemency Discharge is appropriate in this kind
of case, the Board must revise its procedures for about 70% of the
applicants. While the issue has not been discussed by the original
members in some time, it is fair to predict that such a decision will
cause much consternation and disruption in the Board. In my opinion,
it is the one remaining issue that could result in mass resignations
and protests from the Board. I am not overstating the importance of
this issue.
Conclusion
The impact of such a decision on the public should not be under-
estimated. However justifiably, the public is of the impression that
clemency from the Presidential Clemency Board means a pardon. To
change this for the vast majority of the 20,000 applicants will be
regarded as a change in policy - not as an elaboration or clarification.
It will be seen as the President's reneging on a promise they honestly
believe he has made, impairing the spirit of reconciliation that moved
him to announce the program, and seriously impairing his credibility.
There is little question in my mind that a decision not to offer pardons
at this date will make a mockery of your program, and persuade much of
the general public that it was a failure.
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
at
June 11, 1975
Memorandum
TO:
Senator Charles E. Goodell
FROM:
Michael J. Remington
SUBJECT:
Full Board Presentations on Tuesday
morning, June 11, 1975: why the Board
is not deciding cases in order?
The full Board has not followed the order of cases on the docket
for two reasons: first, many files are presently being moved from
the New Hamphire Ave. building to the M St. building, and are thus
not available to the action attorneys; and second, one of the
scheduled cases (1177-LDL-M) was previously decided by the full
Board. Cases presently in transit are being rescheduled at the
end of the docket.
CONCLUSION: The full Board is doing the best job possible, under
the present circumstances, of following the docket.
Full Board Presentations
Presentation Order I
PCB Case Number
PCB Attorney
Board Meeting Date
Reason
Comments
1-
5060 MJL-M
Heller
6/18
Requested by Dougovito
Dancheek
/
2.
1870 OJL-M
Heller
6/18
Split Decision
2.
3.
1867 GTJ-M
Heller
6/18,
Requested by Puller
3.
4
423.MWB
Dancheck
6/18
Upgrade
Dancheck
5
2773.KJR M
McDonald
6/18
VA Benefits
4.
5
2718 AJT-M
Nystrom
6/18
VA Benefits
Dancheek
7.
-2853 CCA-M
Fitzgerald
6/18
VA Benefits
5
0)
4458 BRF-M
Goldman
6/18
VA Benefits
9.
2916 BGV €
Runckel
6/18
Requested by Craig
Dancheen
10.
1177 LDL-M
Knudson
(bafore the Board
6/18 ALREADY
Upgrade Discharge
on March 8, 1975).
DECIDED
6.
11
2286 BGR-M
Kruter
6/18
VA Benefits
7.
12
2289 BGW-M
Kruter
6/18
Upgrade
8
13
7627 MSJ-M
Kruter
6/18
VA Benefits
14.
2163 LJK-M
Nelson
6/18
VA Benefits
15.
2167 SWE-M
Nelson
FILES BEING
6/18
VA Benefits
MOVED FROM
16.
6908 WPD-M
Nelson
NEW HaMPSHIRE6/18
17.
6911 SWE-M
AVE. 70 M. ST.
Nelson
(These files have
6/18
VA Benefits
18.
7082 FJK-M
Nelson
been sealed) 6/18
19.
7444 AAR-M
Nelson
6/18
VA Benefits
9
20
1156 FRL-M
Klein
6/18
Ungrade
Page 4
PC3 Case Number
PCB Attorney
Board Meeting Date
Reason
Comments
21.
3659 RDP-M
Mirin (FILE BEING MOUED.6/18 6/18
VA Benefits
10.
22
7468 KAV-M
Pieret
6/18
VA Benefits
11.
23
1480 WFX-C
Rosenak
6/18
Additional information
(re: court)
12.
24
1489 JAW-M
Burstyn
6/18
Split Decision
13.
25
2233 GMX-M
Burstyn
6/18
Split Decision
Kt.
26
7624 JMT-M
Brackett
6/18
Upgrade
15.
27
7630 DHX-M
Gushin
6/18
Upgrade
16.
28
1566 FJJ-C
Gushin
6/18
Split Decision
17.
29
8082 JER-M
Frick
6/18
Upgrade
30.
1257 LCA G
Gallo
6/18
Obtain Selective Service
Klein
file for additional infor-
mation re: Felony
31.
3216 KKC-M
Gallo (FILE BEING MOVED/6/18
Additional information
re: Felony
18
32
1975 PWJ-M
Riggs
6/18
Requested by Mrs. O
33.
3822 DJC-M
Conway
6/18
VA Benefits
34.
3326 VRE-M
Conway
6/18
Split Decision
35.
3842 MEP-M
Conway
6/18
VA Benefits
36.
5991 KJL-M
Conway
6/18
Split Decision on
Upgrading
37.
8670-ARX-M
Conway
6/18
VA-Benefits
LOHFF
38.
8678 BSX-M
Cenway
6/18
VA Benefits
LOHFF
soodell
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
June 20, 1975
MEMORANDUM
TO
: Executive Secretaries of Each Team
And Distribution List A
THROUGH
FROM
: John Foote
: Assistant P General Counsels
SUBJECT
: Materials Sent To Xeroxing
Starting Monday, June 23, we are going to try to alleviate the problem
of time lost returning xeroxed finals, and ag/mit forms to the teams
for removal of the original and three copies.
Each xerox room will have four persons assigned to it who will, in
the future, do all of the xeroxing, collating, and stapling of summaries
and ag/mits. They will pull the original and three copies of the sum-
mary and ag/mit sheets, and place them in a box marked for delivery
to your team. The rest of the summaries will be sent directly to
Docketing and Distribution.
One problem that has existed in xerox that you can help solve is that
teams have been bringing the xerox room summaries and ag/mits in
separate batches. IN THE FUTURE, PLEASE SEE TO IT THAT THE
SUMMARY IS SENT TO XEROX WITH THE AG/MIT THAT GOES WITH
IT.
The reason for this is that we are going to begin putting all summaries
and ag/mits on the same size paper for ease of collating. It dees no
good to have them come to the xerox room at different times, since
that slows down the process of putting them all together in the shortest
possible time.
Thank you very much. We need your assistance greatly in seeing to it
that the summaries typed in final are quickly into Docketing and Distri-
bution.
Goodell
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
June 20, 1975
MEMORANDUM
TO
: Assistant General Counsels (DIST. LIST B)
FROM
: John Foote file
SUBJECT
: Assignment of Personnel to Xerox Duty
Starting Monday, June 23, at 9:00 AM, we are going to begin doing
all collating and stapling, and removal of the original and three
copies of summaries for delivery to the teams, at the xerox room.
We are presently understaffed there for this function.
To remedy the staffing problem, each of the teams in each building
is responsible for detailing one intern to work a two-hour shift assist-
ing in the xeroxing and collating and stapling process, according to
the following schedule:
1206 --
HOURS
2033 --
Broder
9 - 11 A M
Dancheck
Hickman
11 - - 1 P M
Hilbert
Klein
1
3 PM
Lohff
Kodak
3 - 5 PM
Owen
Each room will be equipped with automatic staplers as soon as they
are available, and with boxes for placement of completed summaries
both for return to the team and for forwarding to Docketing and
Distribution.
GOODELL
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
June 24, 1975
MEMORANDUM
TO
: Lee Stewart
Neil Broder
Dave Hickman
Len Dancheck
John Lohff
Mark
Owen
FROM
: Assignment John DISTRIBUTION Foote Changes A
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
SUBJECT
: to Quality Control
Effective Wednesday, June 25, at 9:30 A.M., the following persons
are reassigned from case writing teams to Quality Control, on a
permanent basis:
Dave Hickman - Jasper Brown
From: Neil Broder
-
Walter Lewis
Len Dancheck - Jack Dalton
John Lohff
-
David Brockway
Marc Owen
-
John Flaherty
Each Assistant General Counsel involved should prepare and forward
to Charlie Mott a Form 52 (Personnel Action) as set forth in a
recently distributed memorandum from Charlie on the use of those
forms. We must know what changes have been made, and this is the
surest way to keep track of them.
Thanks.
GOODELL
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
June 25, 1975
MEMORANDUM
TO
FROM
: Assistant Far General Counsels (DISTRIBUTION LIST B)
: John Foote
GERALD FORD
SUBJECT : The Hilbert-Blagg Rough Draft Experiment
Recently, we experimented with forwarding rough drafts in handwritten
form to QC. This was done between Chuck Hilbert and Ben Blagg of QC,
after talking the process over with Chuck, me, and Lee Stewart. The idea
is to free our resources for typing of finals only.
After talking again to the people involved, it has become clear that the
experiment was enough of a succéss to implement it across the entire staff.
Henceforth, cases should be sent to QC in handwritten form, after usual
review by your deputies. This review should include one further step
than before--if the summary is illegible, then it goes back to the attor-
ney for rewrite, or for typing in rough. It is our belief that very few
summaries will have to be rough typed but we want to leave you that
option.
Cases written in the future should be neatly written, double spaced, on
one side of the paper, so that QC can make corrections.
According to Chuck, this process has not resulted in an appreciable slow-
down in deputy review, or in typing of finals from handwritten QC'd roughs,
since the secretary can go directly to the attorney involved to ask questions.
What slowdown there will be will not be enough to make the project lose its
value to us.
Lee Stewart tells us that Quality Control is prepared for the alteration in
process.
June 25, 1975
Full Board Presentations
BEFORD
DINNED
PCB Case Number
PCB Attorney
Panel Chairman Board Meeting Date
Reason
1.
1077 HJL
Lindquist
R Morrow
,
No Reason
2.
1637 SJB-M
Brooks/Darter/Lindquist
I
6/10
VA Benefits
3.
2302 FBX-M
Cohen, E.
R
Morrow
615
For decision
4.
2335 PKA-M
O'Keefe
R
Morrow
615
For decision
5.
2415 RAR-M
Woolford
R
Morrow
615
For decision
6.
2419 TWX-M
Woolford
615
For decision
R
Morrow
7.
2539 PNG-M
Lindquist
I
6/13
Upgrade
8.
2552 GRW M
Yohan
R
6/5
VA Benefits
Question whallum
9.
2803 MJB-C
Asper
R
Morrow
6/5
For Decision
or w 6 Great
person
10.
2806 RAX M
O'Keefe
R
45
VA Benefits
11.
3137 SJX-M
Yohan
R
Morrow
616
No dec.
12.
3340 LBJ-C
Bryant
I
6/13
Split Decision
13.
3681 PDJ-M
Jaffe
R
morrow
615
No dec.
14.
3685 BJA M
Jaffe
I
6/13
VA Benefits
15.
3835 OMD M
Klejna
R
615
VA Benefits
16.
3860 M
Yohan
R
Morrow
6/5
VA Benefits
17.
3898 SDF. M
Kleina
I
6/13
un Benefits
18.
4157 VIL-M
McGowan
R
616
VA Bonikits
morrow
VA Benefits
19.
4250 VHO-M
Burr
I
Page 2
PCB Case Number
PCB Attorney
Panel Chairman Board Meeting Date
Reason
20.
4336 FCE-M
Burr
R Morrow 6/6
No dec.
21.
4470 SJW **
Cohen, E
I
6/10
"A Benefits
22.
4566 UVF y
0'Keefe
I
6/11
VA Benefits
23.
4508 SPR M
Levy
T
6/10
VA Benefits
24.
4671 DRY M
Burr
H
6/10
VA Benefits
25.
4689 ECE-M
Neudorfer
R
Morrous
6/5
No dec.
26.
4702 HTA-M
Asper
R
Morrow
6/5
No dec.
27.
4737 DGA-M
Neudorfer
R
6/5
VA Benefits
28.
4739 PGM **
Nouderfer
T
6/10
VA Benefits
29.
4903 BGW-M
Lindquist
R
Morrow
6/5
No dec.
30.
4913 MJF-M
Lindquist
R
Morrow
6/6
No dec.
31.
4920 BHE-M
Lindquist
I
6/10
Per General Walt
32.
4927 FFX-M
Lindouist
R
Morrow
6/5
No dec.
33.
5387 CRA-M
Lindquist
VA Benefits
34.
5505 MTV "
McCouan
VA Benefits
35.
7919 DDE M
Kocak
&
Morrow
6/6
VA Benefits
36.
13418 RDG-M
Woolford
I
6/11
VA Benefits
37.
14022 WBJ-M
Healey
HH
6/13
VA Benefits
38.
14059 VEX-M
McLendon
I
6/11
No Decision
Page 3
PCB Case Number
PCB Attorney
Panel Chairman Board Meeting Date
Reason
39.
14488 WSD V
Lee, D.
I
6/11
VA Benefits
40.
14318 MDL M
Weinetein
VA Benefits at
41.
1243 LDJ-M
Tessler
Split Decision
42.
2982 ONL M
Tessler
5
45
VA Benefits
43.
3914 EGE-M
Vogel
X
5/22
No Clemency--Puller
44.
4088 DCB-M
Vogel
S
O'Connor
6/5
Split Decision
45.
4191 BDF-M
Vogel
S
O'connor
6/6
per Vinson
46.
8670 ARX M
Conway
S
6/6
VA Benefits
47.
3587 HWG-M
Miner
Split Decision
48.
5708 GMB M
Bratter
H
6/5
VA Benefits
49.
5765 SPR-M
Bratter
T
Ford
6/5
Split decision
50.
6481 DRE M
Weintraub
I
6/12
VA Benefits
51.
7972 FPF-M
Rollins
H
6/5
VA BeneFits
52.
8147 LRA-M
Young
T
Ford
6/5
Non- concurrence
53.
11606 FGB-M
Bratter
T
Ford
6/5
Split Decision
54.
3049 DJE M
Cohen
R
6/4
VA Bonefits
55.
3278 BWE-M
Stack
R
morrow
614
Walt--No Clemency
56.
6513 JNK-M
Stack
Morrow
6/5
No Decision
R
57.
6549 MJM-M
Stack
5/23
Split Decision
D
58.
6794 CJC-M
Fitch
6/4,
R
No Decision
Morrow
Page 4
PCB Case Number
PCB Attorney
Panel Charman Board Meeting Date
Reason
59.
6798 CEC-M
Ryan
T
Ford
6/6
Split dec.
60.
6830 HSL-M
Othmer
R
Morrow
6/4
Far dec.
61.
7165 PJW-M
Fuller/Fitch
R
Marrow
6/4
Desersion OF Defense
62.
7332 BRC-M
Carroll
R
Marrow
6/4
Split dec.
63.
7600 HAW-M
Clark
R
morrow
614
VA Benefits
64.
8507 TJA-M
Evans
R
Morrow
614
For Decision
65.
8725 YJW-M
Carroll
T
Ford
616
VA Benefits
66.
9622 AJW-M
Backus
R
Morrow
6/4
For Decision
67.
9637 JEF-M
German
R
Morrow
614
For Decision
68.
9649 MJX-M
Fitch
T
Pulle?
6/5
Split Decision
69.
10006 DJR-M
Carroll
R
Morior
614
For Decision
70.
10040 DGB-M
Fuller/Fitch
R
Morrow
614
For Decision
71.
2773 KIR-M
MeDonald
W
5/22
Requested by CraigVA BeneFits
72.
2853 CCA-M
Fitzgerald
W
5/22
VA Benefits
73.
2916 BGV-C
Runckel
G
5/23
Requested by Craig
74.
5060 MJL-M
Heller
T
Ford
6/5
Requested by Dougouite
75.
2468 RRV-M
Ross
June 25, 1975
Full Board Presentations
PCB Case Number
STATE
PCB Attorney
Panel
Board Meeting Date
Reason
1.
1077 HJL
Lindquist
2.
1637 SJB-M
Brooks/Darter/Lindquist
I
6/10
VA Benefits
3.
2302 FBX-M
Cohen, E.
4.
2335 PKA-M
O'Keefe
5.
2415 RAR-M
Woolford
6.
2419 TWX-M
Woolford
7.
2539 PWG-M
Lindquist
I
6/13
Upgrade
8.
2552 GRW-M
Yohan
9.
2803 MJB-C
Asper
10.
2806 RAX-M
O'Keefe
11.
3137 SJX-M
Yohan
12.
3340 LBJ-C
Bryant
I
6/13
Split Decision
13.
3681 PDJ-M
Jaffe
14.
3685 BJA M
Jaffe
HI
6/13
VA Benefits
15.
3835 OMD-M
Klejna
16.
3860 WMW-M
Yohan
17.
3898 SDE-M
Klejna
I
6/13
18.
4157 MJL-M
McGowan
19.
VA Benefits
4250 VHO-M
Burr
I
Page 2
PCB Case Number
PCB Attorney
Panel
Board Meeting Date
Reason
20.
4336 FCE-M
Burr
21.
4470 SJW
Cohen, E
I
6/10
VA Benefits
22.
4566 UWE M
0'Keefe
I
6/11
VA Benefits
23.
4598 SDR M
Levy
I
6/10
VA Benefits
24.
4671 DRY M
Burr
I
6/10
VA Benefits
25.
4689 ECE-M
Neudorfer
26.
4702 HTA-M
Asper
27.
4737 DGA-M
Neudorfer
28.
4739 FGW
Neuderfer
I
6/10
VA Benefits
29.
4903 BGW-M
Lindquist
30.
4913 MJF-M
Lindquist
31.
4920 BHE-M
Lindquist
I
6/10
Per General Walt
32.
4927 FFX-M
Lindquist
33.
5387 CEA-M
Lindquist
34.
5505 MJX-M
McGowan
35.
7919 DDE-M
Kocak
36.
13418 RDG-M
Woolford
I
6/11
VA Benefits
37.
14022 WBJ-M
Healey
I
6/13
VA Benefits
38.
14059 VEX-M
McLendon
I
6/11
No Decision
Page 3
PCB Case Number
PCB Attorney
Panel
Board Meeting Date
Reason
39.
14488 WSD M
'I 'aaq
I
6/11
VA Benefits
40.
14518 MDL-M
Weinstein
41.
1243 LDJ-M
Tessler
Split Decision
42.
2982 CNL
Tessler
VA Benefits
43.
3914 EGE-M
Vogel
No Clemency Puller
44.
4088 DCB-M
Vogel
Split Decision
45.
4191 BDF-M
Vogel
46.
8670 ARX M
Conway
VA Benefits
47.
3587 HWG-M
Miner
48.
5708 GMB-M
Bratter
49.
5765 SPR-M
Bratter
50.
6481 DRE M
Weintraub
I
6/12
VA Benefits
51.
7972 FPF-M
Rollins
52.
8147 LRA-M
Young
53.
11606 FGB-M
Bratter
54.
3049 DJE-M
Cohen
55.
3278 BWE-M
Stack
Walt--No Clemency
56.
6513 JNK-M
Stack
No Decision
57.
6549 MJM-M
Stack
Split Decision
58.
6794 CJC-M
Fitch
Page 4
PCB Case Number
PCB Attorney
Panel
Board Meeting Date
Reason
59.
6798 CEC-M
Ryan
60.
6830 HSL-M
Othmer
61.
7165 PJW-M
Fuller/Fitch
62.
7332 BRC-M
Carroll
63.
7600 HAW-M
Clark
64.
8507 TJA-M
Evans
65.
8725 YJW-M
Carroll
66.
9622 AJW-M
Backus
67.
9637 JEF-M
German
68.
9649 MJX-M
Fitch
69.
10006 DJR-M
Carroll
70.
10040 DGB-M
Fuller/Fitch
71.
2773 KJR-M
McDonald
Requested by Craig
72.
2853 CCA-M
Fitzgerald
73.
2916 BGV-C
Runckel
Requested by Craig
74.
5060 MJL-M
Heller
75.
2468 RRV-M
Ross
LIBRARY
July 1, 1975
FORD
Full Board Presentations,
R.
PCB Case Number
PCB Attorney
Panel
Date
Chairman
Reason
1.
1243 LDJ-M
Tessler
Split Decision
2.
3914 EGE-M
Vogel
X
5/22
No Clemency--Puller
3.
6798 CEC-M
Ryan
T
6/6
Ford
Split Decision
4.
9622 AJW-M
Backus
R
6/4
Morrow
For Decision
5.
9637 JEF-M
German
R
6/4
Morrow
For Decision
6.
9649 MJX-M
Fitch
T
6/5
Ford
Split Decision
7.
10006 DJR-M
Carroll
R
6/4
Morrow
For Decision
8.
10040 DGB-M
Fuller/Fitch
R
6/4
Morrow
For Decision
9.
2916 BGV-C
Runckel
G
5/23
No Decision
10.
5060 MJL-M
Heller
T
6/5
Ford
Requested by Dougovito
11.
1077 HJL
Lindquist
R
Morrow
No Reason
12.
2415 PAR-M
Woolford
R
6/5
Morrow
For Decision
13.
2302 FBX-M
Cohen
R
6/5
Morrow
For Decision
14.
2419 TWX-M
Woolford
R
6/5
Morrow
For Decision
15.
3137 SJX-M
Yohan
R
6/6
Morrow
No Decision
16.
3681 PDI-M
Jaffe
R
6/5
Morrow
No Decision
17.
4088 DCB-M
Vogel
S
6/5
O'Connor
Split Decision
18.
3587 HWG-M
Miner
Split Decision
19.
3278 BWE-M
Stack
R
6/4
Morrow
Walt--No Clemency
20.
8507
TJA-M
Evans
R
6/4
Morrow
For Decision
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
July 1, 1975
MEMORANDUM TO
:
FROM
:
John Foote
Charles P E Goodell
SUBJECT
:
Case Heard in Absence of
Case Attorney
Case # C
After inquiry I have discovered that only one case was
presented Friday to a panel, without the case attorney's
being present, and in which there was a disposition other
than pardon. Three such cases were heard without attorneys
but one of those was presented later at the behest of the
attorney, and the other received an outright pardon (with no
consideration for upgrade).
Enclosed you will find the summary, and a note by the
attorney concerning his conversation with the applicant to
obtain information about reasons for offense. Since this was
a no clemency decision, I think perhaps it is a case which
should be re-presented.
Attachment
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
Case Summary
PCB Attorney: Robert V. Ostrom
Case Number: 3863-BEG-C
Telephone: (202) 634-4608
Age: 30
Summary Completed: 13 May 75
Present Status: Civilian
Current Sentence: 1 year probation
Date of Application: 18 Feb 75
Court: USDC, So. Dist. Ohio
Total Time Served: None
Offense: Failure to keep draft board
notified of current address
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is white, married, and was born on 2 Aug 44 in a small farm
community in Mississippi. He is the second oldest of 4 children raised in a
stable family until age 17, when his parents separated. Applicant has a tenth
grade education. An achievement test in the tenth grade placed the applicant
in the low average group. A fundamental evaluation test in the tenth grade'
placed him below average in all phases except mathematics. There is no record
of any disciplinary problems in high school or elementary grades. On 21 Mar
68 applicant was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment for Armed Bank Robbery and
for Interstate transportation of a stolen automobile. On 30 Sept 74, applicant
was granted parole for these offenses. According to the parole officer, no
other information is available as to applicant's present status. (Phone conversation
with applicant's parole officer)
CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENSE:
Applicant has never been in the military service. He was arrested on 13 Apr 65 on
an information charging applicant with failure to keep his local draft board
informed of his current address. Applicant pleaded guilty and was sentenced on
15 Jul 65 to one year probation. Applicant offered no excuse for failing to
keep his draft board notified, merely stating "he didn't get around to doing it".
CHRONOLOGY:
2 Aug 44
Date of Birth
1961
Completed 10th grade education
Mar 64
Left vicinity of draft board
15 Jul 65
Sentenced one year probation for failing to keep
his draft board advised of his current address.
SOURCES:
U.S. Probation Officer
Presentence Report
Clemency Board File
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
Presidential Libraries Withdrawal Sheet
WITHDRAWAL ID 01989
REASON FOR WITHDRAWAL
Donor restriction
TYPE OF MATERIAL
Memorandum
CREATOR'S NAME
Edward Cohen
RECEIVER'S NAME
Charles Goodell
DESCRIPTION
Re retroactive awarding of the purple
heart
CREATION DATE
07/07/1975
COLLECTION/SERIES/FOLDER ID
019300016
COLLECTION TITLE
Charles Goodell Papers
BOX NUMBER
1
FOLDER TITLE
Case Processing
DATE WITHDRAWN
11/20/1990
WITHDRAWING ARCHIVIST
WHM
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
July 10, 1975
MEMORANDUM TO:
Senator Goodell
FROM
:
Louis D. Coffelt
Leonard Shea
Henry Tribbitt
SUBJECT
:
Case 8082 - JER-M (Frick, Ralph J.)
The undersigned are on detail from the Veterans Administration
(Board of Veterans Appeals). The feelings below expressed are based
on the limited amount of information in the applicant's file.
Infinitely more information would be available in ordinary cases
being presented on appeal to the B.V.A.
At your request, a review of the applicant's file was conducted
and the following thoughts are submitted:
Based on data currently available in the P.C.B. file, this ap-
plicant, in all probability would not receive V.A. benefits in view
of unexplained willful and persistent misconduct. It is believed
that serious consideration should be given to securing Veterans
Administration records in appropriate cases.
Louis D. Coffelt
Lemord Alea
Leonard Shea
Henry Tribbett
FORD
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
CASE SUMMARY
PCB Attorney: Ralph J. Frick
Case No: 8082-JER-M
Telephone: (202) 456-2110
Branch of Service: USMC
Summary Completed: 30 Apr 75
Age: 25
Total Time Served: 0 days pre-discharge
Present Status: Civilian
confinement
Date of Application: 21 Feb 75
Discharge Status: Undesirable Discharge
in lieu of Court-Martial
Offense: AWOL
6 Jun 70 - 27 Oct 70 (143 days)
(4 months 23 days)
Total Creditable Service: 2 years, 5 months,
14 days
Background:
This Caucasian applicant was born in Iowa on 10 Nov 49, the first of eleven
children. He is married (Jun 71), has 10 years of education, and has been
employed by a food plant in Iowa since Mar 71. His AFQT score was 40 (Group
III), GT score 92, and his physical profile places him in excellent physical
condition. He enlisted in the Marine Corps on 31 Jul 67 for a period of four
years.
Vircumstances of Offense:
12 Sep 68 applicant commenced the first of four unauthorized absences as
apparent result of fear of returning to combat in Vietnam (applicant's
affidavit, dated 21 Feb 75). Applicant had been wounded in combat in Jul 68
and hospitalized in Vietnam, then Japan, and finally returned to the Naval
Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, for recuperation and leave. At the termination
of this leave, he failed to return to his attached unit at the Memphis Naval.
Air Station. After an 11-day absence, the applicant voluntarily returned to
military control, but two days later again departed AWOL for a period of
30 days. He again returned voluntarily on 24 Oct 68 and was tried and
convicted by Summary Court-Martial for the two prior AWOL's. In Apr 69, the
applicant received orders for Paris Island, South Carolina, but again departed
AWOL and was finally apprehended by civil authorities on 25 Aug 69. He was
tried and convicted by Special Court-Martial in Nov 69 for this third AWOL,
and sentenced to include two months confinement at hard labor. His final AWOL
occurred on 6 Jun 70. He voluntarily surrendered to military control on 26 Oct
70 and was pending court-martial on 1 Dec 70 when he submitted a request for
Discharge in lieu of court-martial. The request was approved and the Undesirable
Discharge was ordered executed on 21 Dec 70.
-2-
No: 8082-JER-M
/ietnam Service:
Applicant served in Vietnam against hostile forces from 4 Jan 68 until he
sustained combat wounds in Jul 68 from a booby trap. He served in his
MOS as rifleman in 5 major combat operations and was awarded the Purple
Heart for his combat wounds to his foot and buttocks. His efficiency ratings
during Vietnam Service were excellent.
Chronology:
10 Nov 49
Date of birth
Jun 65
Withdrew from high school
31 Jul 67
Enlisted USMC
4 Jan 68 - 18 Jul 68
Vietnam Service (wounded in
action)
12 Sep 68 - 23 Sep 68
UA (AWOL) 11 days
24 Sep 68 - 24 Oct 68
UA (AWOL) 30 days
11 Dec 68
Summary Court-Martial
12 Apr 69 - 25 Aug 69
UA (AWOL) 4 mos., 15 days
18 Nov 69
Special Court-Martial
6 Jun 70 - 26 Oct 70
UA (AWOL) 4 mos., 23 days
1 Dec 70
Undesirable Discharge
requested
21 Dec 70
Undesirable Discharge
executed
1 Feb 75
PCB application executed
Awards and Decorations:
National Defense Service Medal
Vietnam Service Medal with one star
Vietnam Combat Medal with one star
Purple Heart
Marksmanship Shooting Badge
Prior Military Offenses:
11 Dec 68 Summary Court-Martial for AWOL, 12 Sep 68 - 23 Sep 68 and 24
Sep 68 - 24 Oct 68. Awarded 30 days CHL (suspended for 6 mos.),
reduction to E-1, partial forfeiture
18 Nov 69
Special Court-Martial for AWOL, 12 Apr 69 - 25 Aug 69.
Awarded CHL for 2 months, partial forfeiture
5 mos., 26 days: Total time absent without authority in these instances.
1 mon
5 days: Total time in confinement for these offenses.
Sources:
Army Official Personnel File
Clemency Board File
Affidavit from Applicant
July 10, 1975
MEMORANDUM TO:
Senator Goodell
FROM
:
Louis D. Coffelt
Leonard Shea
Henry Tribbett
SUBJECT
:
Case 8082 - JER-M (Frick, Ralph J.)
The undersigned are on detail from the Veterans Administration
(Board of Veterans Appeals). The feelings below expressed are based
on the limited amount of information in the applicant's file.
Infinitely more information would be available in ordinary cases
being presented on appeal to the B.V.A.
At your request, a review of the applicant's file was conducted
and the following thoughts are submitted:
Based on data currently available in the P.C.B. file, this ap-
plicant, in all probability would not receive V.A. benefits in view
of unexplained willful and persistent misconduct. It is believed
that serious consideration should be given to securing Veterans
Administration records in appropriate cases.
Louis D. Coffelt
Leonard Shea
&
FOA,
and
Henry Tribbett
ecg
Goodell
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
July 16, 1975
MEMORANDUM TO
: Assistant General Counsels
(And Distribution List A)
FROM
: Lawrence M. Baskir IMB
General Counsel
SUBJECT
: New Information Arriving From Applicant --
SOP on Re-presentation
Gretchen Handwerger has assured me that any and all correspondence
from applicants is being forwarded directly to the case attorney involved,
or if he or she is no longer with us, to the Team Leader involved, About
30 letters a day arrive. With this volume of correspondence there should
have been at least one or two cases in which a re-presentation was neces-
sary based upon newly submitted information. However, not one has come
to my attention. It is possible that case writers are putting these cases
back into the system on their own motion (a violation of procedure) or
they are not putting them in at all. Either response is inadequate.
Therefore, the following SOP is established concerning cases in which
new information suggests re-presentation.
I. The case writer obviously will read the correspondence from the
applicant and determine whether the submission is in any possible
way relevant to the decision reached by the Board. Relevance
should here be taken to mean any information which MIGHT have
affected the marking of an ag or mit factor, or which might have
altered the term of alternative service assessed an applicant.
&
FORD
II. If the case writer believes that there is any possibility that the
GERALD
information newly submitted is relevant, he or she will present
this to his or her team leader. The Assistant General Counsel
involved will make a determination that there is NO likelihood
that the information could have affected the decision in a case.
If that is the determination, the information is simply added to
the file.
I
II. If the Assistant General Counsel determines that there is ANY
possibility that the information could have affected the decision,
he will forward a copy of the case summary and a copy of the new
information submission to me.
- 2 -
IV. I will review the summary and the submission and make
a determination of whether the information is such as to
warrant re-presentation. I will then indicate my con-
clusion to Senator Goodell, who will actually call the case
back before the Board if he concurs.
V. Once the Senator has determined that the case requires
re-presentation to the Board, he will forward the case
summary and new information submission back to the
Action Attorney involved. The Action Attorney will insure
that the case is recycled according to current procedures
on recycling cases.
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
Presidential Libraries Withdrawal Sheet
WITHDRAWAL ID 01990
REASON FOR WITHDRAWAL
Donor restriction
TYPE OF MATERIAL
Memorandum
CREATOR'S NAME
Edward Cohen
RECEIVER'S NAME
Charles Goodell
DESCRIPTION
Re retroactive awarding of the purple
heart
CREATION DATE
07/16/1975
COLLECTION/SERIES/FOLDER ID
019300016
COLLECTION TITLE
Charles Goodell Papers
BOX NUMBER
1
FOLDER TITLE
Case Processing
DATE WITHDRAWN
11/20/1990
WITHDRAWING ARCHIVIST
WHM
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
Presidential Libraries Withdrawal Sheet
WITHDRAWAL ID 01991
REASON FOR WITHDRAWAL
Donor restriction
TYPE OF MATERIAL
Memorandum
CREATOR'S NAME
Edward Cohen
RECEIVER'S NAME
Charles Goodell
DESCRIPTION
Re retroactive awarding of the purple
heart
CREATION DATE
07/31/1990
COLLECTION/SERIES/FOLDER ID
019300016
COLLECTION TITLE
Charles Goodell Papers
BOX NUMBER
1
FOLDER TITLE
Case Processing
DATE WITHDRAWN
11/20/1990
WITHDRAWING ARCHIVIST
WHM
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY ,BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
August 4, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
ACTION ATTORNEYS
FROM:
LAWRENCE M. BASKIR 111B
SUBJECT:
Clarification of Section 101.8(d) - "The 30 Day
Regulation"
Section 101.8(d), Rules and Regulations, provides for presentation de novo
of a case if the applicant provides significant contradictory, amending,
or supplementary information to the case summary within thirty days after
the postmark date. This section also applies when the action attorney
obtains such information other than directly from the applicant. The
provisions of this section should, of course, be interpreted as liberally
as possible in favor of the applicant.
The question arises then as to what the permissible disposition may be
upon representation to a new panel. If the information upon which the
rehearing is based is favorable to the applicant, the panel is limited by the
previous disposition. However, the panel is not so bound if the subsequent
information obtained by the action attorney could have, if presented at
the original hearing, resulted in a finding of no clemency. In all but the
rarest of cases, this is A-1 information.
FORD
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
August 11, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR: All Staff
/
THP.
FROM
: James H. Poole, Associate General Counsel
SUBJECT
: Special "UP" Panel
General Walt, as chairman of the subject "up" panel, has decided
that case-attorneys need not appear nor present cases to the said
special panel. Decisions of the panel will be based solely upon
the case summaries and should more information be necessary, the
case will be tabled and the case-attorney will be contacted. However,
in any instance where the case-attorney has new, relevant information
not contained in the case summary, he should reduce such information
to writing and contact Neil Broder (634-4356) who will act as General
Counsel for this special "up" panel.
FORD
Page 1.of 1
Special Panel - VA Benefits & Upgrade
Panel Members: Walt, Dougovito, Ford, Puller, & Maye
Poole, Broder
8/15/75Morning
UPGRADE/Yes
Total=(3)
3685-BJA-M
5997-AJC-M
9565-CRL-M
Scribe: Rita L. Greenfield/rlg rlg
FORD
&
110
Page 1 of 1
Special Panel - VA Benefits & Upgrade
Panel Members: Walt, Dougovito, Ford, Puller, & Maye
Poole, Broder
8/15/75Morning
POSSIBLE/Tabled Total=(24)
1637-SJB-M
14022-WBJ-M
2367-BMD-M
14488-WSD-M
2950-JEX-M
3835-DMD-M
3860-WMW-M
4250-WHO-M
4671-DRX-M
5505-MJX-M
5817-WGM-M
7936-DRA-M
1576-EHL-M
1726-LMW-M
2212-LEJ-M
2521-VRL-M
2566-FLG-M
Scribe: RitaL. Greenfield/rls/ly
3659-BDP-M
4075-ABF-M
7686-DRE-M
7746-SCS-M
8084-JGB-M
9826-WCL-M
13418-RDG-M
Page 1 of 1
Special Panel - VA Benefits & Upgrade
Panel Members: Walt, Dougovito, Ford, Puller, & Maye
Poole, Broder
8/15/75-Morning
NO UPGRADE Total=23 Medical= 4
871-WJX-M
2539-PWG-M
2552-GRW-M
3898-SDE-M
4157-MJL-M
4566-UWE-M
4598-SDR-M
4737-DGA-M (Medical)
4739-FGW-M
4777-RDR-M
4833-WCE-M
5387-CEA-M
5839-PTS-M
7919-DDC-M
Scribe: Rita L. Greenfield/rlg Nly
2468-RRV-M
3432-RWL-M
3501-CGR-M
3526-0DW-M
7355-AEL-M (Medical)
9808-TCD-M
9989-CMA-M (Medical)
10357-HWW-M
14518-MDL-M (Medical)