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
1506009
label
Memoranda - Buchen, Philip
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1506009
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Memoranda - Buchen, Philip
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
1506009
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-11-30
month
11
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-04-01
month
4
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
e39cfddb3a13e375
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 7, folder "Memoranda - Buchen, Philip" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 7 of the Charles E. Goodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
Extra
CEG
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 18, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR: PHIL BUCHEN
Attached is a Summary of Case No. 75-1223,
an applicant to the Presidential Clemency Board.
The Board would appreciate guidance from
the President as to whether this is the type of
case that the President had in mind to receive
clemency.
I would appreciate your asking the President
to read the Summary and give the Clemency Board
his decision.
Charles Goodill
Charles E. Goodell
Chairman
Attachment
FORD d LIBRARY 03RALD
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
CASE SUMMARY
go Pres go
PCB Attorney: Broder
Case Number: 75-1223-BRO-M
Telephone Number: (202) 456-2110
Branch of Service: Army
Summary Completed: 10 Mar 1975
Age: 25
Total Time Served: 25 days pre-
Present Status: Civilian
discharge confinement
Date of Application: 21 Jan 1975
Discharge Status: Undesirable
Discharge in lieu of court-martial
Offenses: AWOL - 2 specifications:
27 Jan 1972 - 1 Mar 1972 (1 month,
5 days); 2 Mar - 26 Nov 1972 (8 months,
25 days)
Total absence: 10 months
Total Creditable Service: 1 year, 2 days
Background:
This married, Caucasian applicant, one of four brothers, was born in
Washington, D.C., on 10 Dec 1949. He has one child. Available records
disclose no other information about his family background, except that his
father did not live with his family. Applicant is a high school graduate
with a GT score of 141 and an AFQT score measuring 99 (Group I). He has
attended several years of college, and in a letter to the Board accompanying
his application he relates that he is presently studying to be an optometrist,
expecting to graduate in 1978. On 17 Feb 1971 applicant enlisted in the
Army for a period of two years. During his one year and two days of
creditable service he was awarded the M-16 expert rifle badge and a hand
grenade badge. Additionally, in Sept 1971, he was given the Self-Achievement
Award for his battalion. Applicant was rated twice as excellent for conduct
and efficiency. He has neither prior civilian nor prior military convictions,
and he has no non-judicial punishments.
Circumstances of Offense:
During the summer and fall of 1971 applicant was stationed at Ft. Carson,
Colorado, where he encountered many men returning from Vietnam. In a
letter to the Board dated 8 Jan 1975 applicant relates that he was troubled
by the attitude and bitterness of these men which caused him to reconsider
carefully the United States involvement in Southeast Asia. Applicant does
not characterize himself as a conscientious objector. Specifically, he states:
I believe there is a need for an armed forces to defend the
United States and I cannot classify myself as a conscientious
objector because this status indicates a belief that all war is
wrong and therefore a military force is unnecessary.
-2-
Case Number: 75-1223-BRO-M
Nonetheless, when applicant received orders for duty in Vietnam in Dec
1971,
"
[he] became more distressed and confused as to what course
of action
[he] should take. " Despite serious doubts about his own
feelings he reported to the overseas replacement station at Ft. Lewis,
Washington, in January 1972 where he ultimately received counselling
as to discharge by reason of conscientious objection. Having concluded
that he was not a conscientious objector, applicant "decided to go AWOL
until
[he] had cleared up
[his] own doubts. " He proceeded home
to his wife and daughter. A short time later he was returned to military
control, but went AWOL again because he 11
still needed more time to
resolve the conflicts
[he] felt about service to
[his] country. "
He surrendered from this second absence on 26 Nov 1972. In this letter
to the Board, applicant's own words best describe his feelings:
I examined the interests of the United States in this war.
The enemy was not a threat to our country and no U.S.
lives were jeopardized by this war. It was and still is a
civil war. It was said to be a matter of honor but I felt
our country's [sic] honor lay in serving a just cause, not
in serving the ends of another country's civil war.
*
*
*
*
*
As I examined this inner conflict, my questions were:
Can a man believe in the right to a military defense and
the duty of a citizen to serve and yet refuse to support a
particular military action? Does government policy make
a cause just? Am I in a situation where I cannot consciously
[sic] support a policy/action? If so, what measures are
justifiable?
*****
I accepted the adverse affect [sic] on my life and the
loneliness of my decision because I believe a citizen must
serve his country the best way he can, not the easiest.
Applicant's request for an Undesirable Discharge was granted on 21 Dec
1972. In his letter to the Board accompanying his application he states
that his discharge was not the result of, nor did it involve, any proced-
ural unfairness.
Victnam Service: None
-3-
Case Number 75-1223-BRO-M
Chronology:
10 Dec 1949
Date of birth
1968
High School graduation
17 Feb 1971
Two-year enlistment
Sept 1971
Self-Achievement Award
July 1971 - Dec 1971
Stationed at Ft. Carson, Colorado
27 Jan 1972
1 mo
AWOL
1 Mar 1972
Termination of AWOL
2 Mar 1972
9 mos
AWOL
26 Nov 1972
Surrender
26 Nov - 21 Dec 1972
Pre-discharge confinement
21 Dec 1972
Undesirable Discharge
Jan 1973
Attendance at community college
June 1973
Attended Maryland University
Sept 1973 - June 1974
Attended Ohio State University
Sept 1974 to date
Attends Optometry College in California
8 Jan 1975
Letter to Board
21 Jan 1975
PCB application; letter to Board
Awards and Decorations:
National Defense Service Medal;
Expert Badge M-16
Hand Grenade Badge
Prior Military Offenses: None
Sources:
1. Military Personnel Records jacket
2. Letters of Applicant dated 8 and 21 Jan 1975
Evelyn:
I believe these should be in their respective
case files - don't you?
Marilyn M. 9/10
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 24, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Charles E. Goodell
FROM:
Philip W. Buchen T.W.B.
This memorandum is in response to your request on behalf
of the Presidential Clemency Board ("Board") for guidance in
the disposition of cases similar to Case No. 75-1223. In that
case the applicant violated the Uniform Code of Military
Justice twice by absenting himself from his unit during the
Vietnam Era because he believed the war was unjust. Your
memo inquires whether the President intended the reconciliation
program to apply to offenders who evidence such anti-war
motives.
The language in the Proclamation and the Executive Order
establishing the program gives no indication whether an
offender's motives are relevant to the Board's deliberations.
Thus the President's intent is not affirmatively stated. The
absence of such language might be interpreted to infer that such
a matter was left to the Board's discretion. However, if such an
examination of motives were intended, it would have to apply
equally to the Departments of Justice and Defense in order not
to create a gross inequity in the overall administration of the
reconciliation program. An examination of the language in the
Proclamation establishing the guidelines for the Departments
indicates that distinguishing cases based on the motives of the
offenders was not intended because these guidelines are drawn
too tightly. Therefore, I conclude that there was no intention
that the Board distinguish between the motives of any applicant
in considering whether to recommend Executive clemency.
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
April 18, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR: PHIL BUCHEN
Attached is a Summary of Case No. 75-1223,
an applicant to the Presidential Clemency Board.
The Board would appreciate guidance from
the President as to whether this is the type of
case that the President had in mind to receive
clemency.
I would appreciate your asking the President
to read the Summary and give the Clemency Board
his decision.
Charles E. Goodell
Chairman
Attachment
CEG:mm
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
CASE SUMMARY
go Pres go
PCB Attorney: Broder
Case Number: 75-1223-BRO-M
Telephone Number: (202) 456-2110
Branch of Service: Army
Summary Completed: 10 Mar 1975
Age: 25
Total Time Served: 25 days pre-
Present Status: Civilian
discharge confinement
Date of Application: 21 Jan 1975
Discharge Status: Undesirable
Discharge in lieu of court-martial
Offenses: AWOL - 2 specifications:
27 Jan 1972 - 1 Mar 1972 (1 month,
5 days); 2 Mar - 26 Nov 1972 (8 months,
25 days)
Total absence: 10 months
Total Creditable Service: 1 year, 2 days
Background:
This married, Caucasian applicant, one of four brothers, was born in
Washington, D. C., on 10 Dec 1949. He has one child. Available records
disclose no other information about his family background, except that his
father did not live with his family. Applicant is a high school graduate
with a GT score of 141 and an AFQT score measuring 99 (Group I). He has
attended several years of college, and in a letter to the Board accompanying
his application he relates that he is presently studying to be an optometrist,
expecting to graduate in 1978. On 17 Feb 1971 applicant enlisted in the
Army for a period of two years. During his one year and two days of
creditable service he was awarded the M-16 expert rifle badge and a hand
grenade badge. Additionally, in Sept 1971, he was given the Self-Achievement
Award for his battalion. Applicant was rated twice as excellent for conduct
and efficiency. He has neither prior civilian nor prior military convictions,
and he has no non-judicial punishments.
Circumstances of Offense:
During the summer and fall of 1971 applicant was stationed at Ft. Carson,
Colorado, where he encountered many men returning from Vietnam. In a
letter to the Board dated 8 Jan 1975 applicant relates that he was troubled
by the attitude and bitterness of these men which caused him to reconsider
carefully the United States involvement in Southeast Asia. Applicant does
not characterize himself as a conscientious objector. Specifically, he states:
I believe there is a need for an armed forces to defend the
United States and I cannot classify myself as a conscientious
objector because this status indicates a belief that all war is
wrong and therefore a military force is unnecessary.
-2-
Case Number: 75-1223-BRO-M
Nonetheless, when applicant received orders for duty in Vietnam in Dec
1971, "
[he] became more distressed and confused as to what course
of action
[he] should take. 11 Despite serious doubts about his own
feelings he reported to the overseas replacement station at Ft. Lewis,
Washington, in January 1972 where he ultimately received counselling
as to discharge by reason of conscientious objection. Having concluded
that he was not a conscientious objector, applicant "decided to go AWOL
until
[he] had cleared up
[his] own doubts. 11 He proceeded home
to his wife and daughter. A short time later he was returned to military
control, but went AWOL again because he 11
still needed more time to
resolve the conflicts
[he] felt about service to
[his] country. "
He surrendered from this second absence on 26 Nov 1972. In this letter
to the Board, applicant's own words best describe his feelings:
I examined the interests of the United States in this war.
The enemy was not a threat to our country and no U.S.
lives were jeopardized by this war. It was and still is a
civil war. It was said to be a matter of honor but I felt
our country's [sic] honor lay in serving a just cause, not
in serving the ends of another country's civil war.
As I examined this inner conflict, my questions were:
Can a man believe in the right to a military defense and
the duty of a citizen to serve and yet refuse to support a
particular military action? Does government policy make
a cause just? Am I in a situation where I cannot consciously
[sic] support a policy/action? If so, what measures are
justifiable?
*
*
*
I accepted the adverse affect [sic] on my life and the
loneliness of my decision because I believe a citizen must
serve his country the best way he can, not the easiest.
Applicant's request for an Undesirable Discharge was granted on 21 Dec
1972. In his letter to the Board accompanying his application he states
that his discharge was not the result of, nor did it involve, any proced-
ural unfairness.
Vietnam Service: None
-3-
Case Number 75-1223-BRO-M
Chronology:
10 Dec 1949
Date of birth
1968
High School graduation
17 Feb 1971
Two-year enlistment
Sept 1971
Self-Achievement Award
July 1971 - Dec 1971
Stationed at Ft. Carson, Colorado
27 Jan 1972
1 mo
AWOL
1 Mar 1972
Termination of AWOL
2 Mar 1972
9 mos
AWOL
26 Nov 1972
Surrender
26 Nov - 21 Dec 1972
Pre-discharge confinement
21 Dec 1972
Undesirable Discharge
Jan 1973
Attendance at community college
June 1973
Attended Maryland University
Sept 1973 - June 1974
Attended Ohio State University
Sept 1974 to date
Attends Optometry College in California
8 Jan 1975
Letter to Board
21 Jan 1975
PCB application; letter to Board
Awards and Decorations:
National Defense Service Medal;
Expert Badge M - 16
Hand Grenade Badge
Prior Military Offenses: None
Sources:
1. Military Personnel Records jacket
2. Letters of Applicant dated 8 and 21 Jan 1975
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 28, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chairman Charles E. Goodell
FROM:
Philip W. Buchen T.W.B.
By your memorandum to the President dated April 18, 1975,
you requested the President's personal consideration of
Case No. 041 which is pending before the Presidential
Clemency Board. The Board is narrowly divided on its
recommendation and both the majority and the minority have
supporting reasons which they want to insure are brought
to the President's attention.
Since the Board has not made a recommendation to the
President in this case, the President's review at this time
might be considered premature. Also, such review would
only serve to insure that the Board's final recommendation
would coincide with the President's final action. There is
no indication that such complete agreement is necessary.
An alternate course of action which the Board might adopt in
this case is to submit its majority and minority views to the
President along with a final recommendation. In this way,
the President would be fully informed of the Board members'
views before reaching his final decision.
The Counsel's office will delay action on the Board's memo
until the Board determines whether the proposed alternate
course of action is acceptable.
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
ACTION
April 18, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Cherles C Hoodell
FROM:
CHARLES E. GOODELL
SUBJECT:
Case #041
At the request of the members of the Presidential Clemency Board,
I am transmitting to you by special memorandum Case #041. The
Board has considered this case a number of times and is divided
on the proper recommendation. They ask that you consider the
case personally.
The Board, by a divided vote of 4 - 3, recommends a full and
immediate pardon. The majority believes that this applicant was
so mentally ill that he was not responsible for his action. They
also believe that his continuing psychological problems are such
as to make him unable to perform any alternative service. In
effect, a requirement to do service would be tantamount to a denial
of clemency. The minority believes that a period of alternative
service of at least three months is proper. They are not persuaded
by the evidence of mental infirmity. It is quite clear that absent
this infirmity the Board would have recommended that this particular
individual perform a term of service.
The summary prepared for the Board's use is attached.
OPTIONS:
(a) Approve an immediate pardon for Case #041.
(b) Approve a pardon conditioned on 3 months
alternative service.
DECISION:
(a)
(b)
Attachment
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
Case Summary
Case No. 74-041
-C
Sentence: 2 years; no jail time
Present Status: PCB furlough
Time Served: 8 months, 2 days
Offense: Failure to report for
civilian duty
Background
Applicant was born on 20 Oct 1946 in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. He is the
younger of two children. The applicant's father reportedly (presentence
report) is an alcoholic and thrice married. The second marriage followed
a period of four to five years during which the applicant lived with his pater-
nal grandparents. The second wife of applicant's father reportedly was such
a poor housekeeper (prison report) that a half-sister was hospitalized due
to living conditions. The third marriage is reportedly a happy one and the
applicant's stepmother took a strong interest in him. During high school
the applicant was seen as an "All American Boy". He was in the upper 15%
of his class, played football for two years, and was president of his senior
class. Upon graduation in 1965 the applicant entered the University of
Cincinnati. He continued there until spring of 1968 where he accumulated
142 quarter hours. Following a short period of work and another semester
of school, the applicant left the country to travel in Europe, Africa and
Lebanon. He was arrested and sentenced in Beirut, Lebanon, to a three year
prison term for smuggling hashish. A panel of medical experts found his
medical condition unstable and the sentence was reduced to nine months (pre-
sentence report). Subsequently the applicant appeared in Holland where he
joined a society that advocated the benefits of trephination. The applicant
performed this operation on himself (drove a hole in his skull), was sub-
sequently hospitalized for infection, returned to the United States and hos-
pitalized in Cincinnati, Ohio. The report of a prison psychiatrist indicates
the applicant is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia (prison report).
Circumstances of Offense
The applicant registered for the draft, received a student deferment, and
in 1967 was granted conscientious objector status. In July 1969 the appli-
cant was authorized civilian work at Citizens Hospital in Ohio but failed
to report.
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
May 15, 1975
FORD
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PHILIP W. BUCHEN
FROM:
CHARLES E. GOODELL
SUBJECT:
Pending Clemency Board Issues
Before the President
The President has acted on 65 recommendations from the Presidential
Clemency Board to date. There are now 236 recommendations pending,
including 114 recommendations sent to the President on March 26, 1975.
I understand they are being held because some question as re-arison
with reference to the President granting a pardon for the AWOL
offenses that led to an Undesirable Discharge. If you will recall,
this issue was resolved by the President in a meeting with Marsh,
Buchen and Goodell in late November or early December. You and
I discussed the issue in your office prior to meeting with the President.
I recall your reaching for a copy of the Constitution and reading the
language as follows:
"and he shall have power to grant reprieves and
pardons for offenses against the United States".
I explained that the elemency Board had then reached a serious impasse
because we unanimously felt that we could not require alternative
service of an applicant if all we had to offer him was a change from
an Undesirable Discharge to a Clemency Discharge. We distinguished
the cases being processed by the Department of Defense because that
program dealt with fugitives who had charges hanging over them.
Their participation in the clemency program benefitted them by the
military dropping the pending charges against them.
I believe it would be not only unfortunate, but a serious disruption
of the Elemency Board functions to reopen the issue of pardons for
AWOL offenses leading to Undesirable Discharges. The matter was
discussed in the presence of the President and a decision was made
which solved a major policy crisis in the Board last fall. Since
- 2 .
approximately 70% of our applications are from undesirable
dischargees, a decision to grant them only a Clemency Discharge
would expose the President to vehement criticism and perhaps even
ridicule. All of the members of the Elemency Board have repeatedly
stated in public the President's decision to grant pardons for AWOL
offenses leading to Undesirable Discharges. This is not the time
for a retraction or an apparent reneging on public commitments
with reference to clemency.
I understand that there are those advisors to the President who have
been advocating, in view of events in Vietnam, that the President
announce universal and 1
?
n/ot
advocate such a course,
Insert - page 2
following actions previo
....
date, 5 of which have been forwarded
1. Upgrade
to the President.
The Board has recomme
These are individuals who
volunteering for extra h
up and are now denied V
on the motion of the Boa
that these individuals ro
benefits.
2. Effect of Clemency O.
We proposed that any individual going to a Discharge Review Board
or Board for the Correction of Military Records having received a
Pardon from the President would be treated as follows:
(a) He would not have to make a separate, special
application to these boards. The application to the
clemency Board would be considered the functional
equivalent of the application to the military; (b) Any
review would be taken without regard to the acts for which
the President has issued a Pardon.
3. Nature of Clemency Discharge
The Proclamation and the President's evident intent is that the
Clemency Discharge be a truly neutral discharge, neither less-than-
honorable nor "under honorable conditions". The actual certificate
2 $ t
approximately 70% of our applications are from undesirable
dischargees, a decision to grant them only a Clemency Discharge
would expose the President to vehement criticism and perhaps even
ridicule. All of the members of the Elemency Board have repeatedly
stated in public the President's decision to grant pardons for AWOL
offenses leading to Undesirable Discharges. This is not the time
for a retraction or an apparent reneging on public commitments
with reference to clemency.
I understand that there are those advisors to the President who have
been advocating, in view of events in Vietnam, that the President
announce universal and unconditional amnesty at this time. I do not
advocate such a course, but 1 believe the President should take the
following actions previously recommended by the Glemency Board:
1. Upgrade
The Board has recommended twenty-one upgrade cases to date. (insent)
These are Individuals who served gallantly in Vietnam, often
volunteering for extra hazardous duty. They subsequently cracked
up and are now denied voterans benefits. We recommend unanimously,
on the motion of the Board members who are veterans of Vietnam,
that these individuals receive General Discharges with veterans
benefits.
2. Effect of Clemency on Future Discharge Review
We proposed that any individual going to a Discharge Review Board
or Board for the Correction of Military Records having received a
Pardon from the President would be treated as follows:
(a) He would not have to make a separate, special
application to these boards. The application to the
clemency Board would be considered the functional
equivalent of the application to the military; (b) Any
review would be taken without regard to the acts for which
the President has issued a Pardon.
3. Nature of Clemency Discharge
The Proclamation and the President's evident intent is that the
Clemency Discharge be a truly neutral discharge, neither less-than-
honorable nor "under honorable conditions". The actual certificate
- 3 -
used by Defense states that it is a Clemency Discharge given
"under clemency conditions" or some similar phraseology.
However, the Department has made it quite clear that they
consider the Clemency Discharge to be a discharge under other
than honorable conditions (the functional equivalent of an Undesirable
Discharge), not only for the purposes of continuing to preclude
veterans benefits (the President's desire), but also as a public
connotation and an official description within the government.
We recommend that the President make it clear that a Clemency
Discharge replaces a discharge under less than honorable conditions.
The Executive Order states that a Clemency Discharge is "in lieu of"
and "substituted for" a Bad Discharge. The Clemency Discharge
should be regarded as completely neutral, smither under honorable
conditions or less than honorable conditions.
4. The President should act upon the 236 recommendations made
by the clemency Board thus far and publicly announce that he has
signed the warrants implementing those recommendations.
CEG
FYI
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 16, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PHILIP W. BUCHEN
Charles E. Hoodell
FROM:
CHARLES E. GOODELL
SUBJECT:
Pending Clemency Board Issues
Before the President
The President has acted on 65 recommendations from the Presidential
Clemency Board to date. There are now 236 recommendations pending,
including 114 recommendations sent to the President on March 26, 1975.
I understand they are being held because some question has re-arisen
with reference to the President granting a pardon for the AWOL
offenses that led to an Undesirable Discharge. If you will recall,
this issue was resolved by the President in a meeting with Marsh,
Buchen and Goodell in late November or early December. You and
I discussed the issue in your office prior to meeting with the President.
I recall your reaching for a copy of the Constitution and reading the
language as follows:
"and he shall have power to grant reprieves and
pardons for offenses against the United States".
I explained that the Clemency Board had then reached a serious impasse
because we unanimously felt that we could not require alternative
service of an applicant if all we had to offer him was a change from
an Undesirable Discharge to a Clemency Discharge. We distinguished
the cases being processed by the Department of Defense because that
program dealt with fugitives who had charges hanging over them.
Their participation in the clemency program benefitted them by the
military dropping the pending charges against them.
I believe it would be not only unfortunate, but a serious disruption of
the Clemency Board functions to reopen the issue of pardons for
AWOL offenses leading to Undesirable Discharges. The matter was
discussed in the presence of the President and a decision was made
which solved a major policy crisis in the Board last fall. Since
- 2 -
approximately 70% of our applications are from undesirable
dischargees, a decision to grant them only a Clemency Discharge
would expose the President to vehement criticism and perhaps even
ridicule. All of the members of the Clemency Board have repeatedly
stated in public the President's decision to grant pardons for AWOL
offenses leading to Undesirable Discharges. This is not the time
for a retraction or an apparent reneging on public commitments
with reference to clemency.
I understand that there are those advisors to the President who have
been advocating, in view of the events in Vietnam, that the President
announce universal and unconditional amnesty at this time. I do not
advocate such a course, but I believe the President should take the
following actions previously recommended by the Clemency Board:
1. Upgrade
The Board has recommended twenty-one upgrade cases to date,
5 of which have been forwarded to the President. These are individuals
who served gallantly in Vietnam, often volunteering for extra hazardous
duty. They subsequently cracked up and are now denied veterans
benefits. We recommend unanimously, on the motion of the Board
members who are veterans of Vietnam, that these individuals receive
General Discharges with veterans benefits.
2. Effect of Clemency on Future Discharge Review
We proposed that any individual going to a Discharge Review Board
or Board for the Correction of Military Records having received a
Pardon from the President would be treated as follows:
(a) He would not have to make a separate, special
application to these boards. The application to the
Clemency Board would be considered the functional
equivalent of the application to the military; (b) Any
review would be taken without regard to the acts for
which the President has issued a Pardon.
3. Nature of Clemency Discharge
The Proclamation and the President's evident intent is that the
Clemency Discharge be a truly neutral discharge, neither less-than-
- 3 -
honorable nor "under honorable conditions". The actual certificate
used by Defense states that it is a Clemency Discharge given "under
clemency conditions" or some similar phraseology. However, the
Department has made it quite clear that they consider the Clemency
Discharge to be a discharge under other than honorable conditions
(the functional equivalent of an Undesirable Discharge), not only for
the purposes of continuing to preclude veterans benefits (the
President's desire), but also as a public connotation and an official
description within the government.
We recommend that the President make it clear that a Clemency
Discharge replaces a discharge under less than honorable conditions.
The Executive Order states that a Clemency Discharge is "in lieu of"
and "substituted for" a Bad Discharge. The Clemency Discharge
should be regarded as completely neutral, neither under honorable
conditions or less than honorable conditions.
4. The President should act upon the 236 recommendations made
by the Clemency Board thus far and publicly announce that he has
signed the warrants implementing those recommendations.
I firmly believe Presidential action on all of the above issues would
re-emphasize the fair, generous and significantly beneficial nature
of the President's approach to amnesty, stopping far short of
unconditional amnesty. Any arguments that such actions create
difficult precedents for existing agencies or open floodgates,
ignore the fact that the clemency program is by definition unique
and sets no precedents whatsoever in other agencies for those
beyond the purview of the clemency program itself.
Feb 27, 1975 - Memo from Jerry Jones to all concerned,
"The President has made the decision to extend the Clemency Board
application deadlines, as well as the deadlines of the Departments
of Defense and Justice, for a period to end March 31st. This is to
be the absolute final extension and the extension of time in no way
implies any broadening of authority"
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 22, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
CHAIRMAN CHARLES GOODELL
FROM:
PHILIP W. BUCHEN
T.W.B.
This memo is in response to your memo dated May 16, 1975,
in which you raised four issues concerning the President's
clemency program.
Although you believe the issue concerning pardons for
servicemen who received undesirable discharges was discussed
with the President last year, I have confirmed that positions
on this issue were never requested from the Departments
of Defense and Justice. Attached for your review are memos
from the United States Pardon Attorney and the Department of
Defense opposing your recommendation. In light of their
opinions, it would be desirable to hold a meeting of the interested
agencies for the purpose of reaching a resolution on this issue.
With respect to the issue you raised in item number three of
your memo, I believe it also should be discussed at the meeting
of all interested agencies. This issue had been raised with the
President in September, 1974. At that time he decided that a
clemency discharge would be equivalent to an undesirable discharge.
However, because that decision was made prior to the appointment of
the Board, I believe it would be appropriate to have an exchange
of views on this issue in a meeting with other interested agencies.
Also, your memo raises two issues (numbers one and two) which
were previously raised by you in a memorandum dated
February 24, 1975, to the President. On February 25 these issues
were discussed with the President. All interested agencies had the
opportunity to convey their views to the President in person or
by memo, and on February 27 the staff secretary by memo informed
all parties that the President did not approve the Board's
recommendations. Therefore, I feel that these issues are moot.
2
Finally, in response to item number four in your memo, it
is my intention to forward to the President the recommendations
of the Board as soon as final agreement is reached among all
parties on these issues.
You will be contacted concerning a convenient date for the
proposed meeting.
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
May 16, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PHILIP W. BUCHEN
FROM:
CHARLES E. GOODELL
SUBJECT:
Pending Clemency Board Issues
Before the President
The President has acted on 65 recommendations from the Presidential
Clemency Board to date. There are now 236 recommendations pending.
including 114 recommendations sent to the President on March 26, 1975.
I understand they are being held because some question has re-arisen
with reference to the President granting a pardon for the AWOL
offenses that led to an Undesirable Discharge. If you will recall,
this issue was resolved by the President in a meeting with Marsh,
Buchen and Goodell in late November or early December. You and
I discussed the issue in your office prior to meeting with the President.
I recall your reaching for a copy of the Constitution and reading the
language as follows:
"and he shall have power to grant reprieves and
perdons for offenses against the United States".
I explained that the Clemency Board had then reached a serious Impasse
because we unanimously felt that we could not require alternative
service of an applicant if all we had to offer him was a change from
an Undestrable Discharge to Liamancy Discharge, we distinguished
the cases being processed by the Department of Defense because that
program dealt with fugitives who had charges hanging over them.
Their participation in the clemency program benefitted them by the
military dropping the pending charges against them.
I believe It would be not only unfortunate, but a serious disruption of
the Clemency Board functions to reopen the issue of pardons for
AWOL offenses leading to Undesirable Discharges. The matter was
discussed in the presence of the President and a decision was made
which solved a major policy crisis in the Board last fall. Since
- 2 -
approximately 70% of our applications are from undesirable
dischargees, a decision to grant them only a Clemency Discharge
would expose the President to vehement criticism and perhaps even
ridicule. All of the members of the Clemency Board have repeatedly
stated in public the President's decision to grant pardons for AWOL
offenses leading to Undesirable Discharges. This is not the time
for a retraction or an apparent reneging on public commitments
with reference to clemency.
I understand that there are those advisors to the President who have
been advocating, in view of the events in Vietnam, that the President
announce universal and unconditional amnesty at this time. I do not
advocate such a course, but I believe the President should take the
following actions previously recommended by the Clemency Board:
1. Upgrade
The Board has recommended twenty-one upgrade cases to date,
5 of which have been forwarded to the President. These are individuals
who served gallantly in Vietnam, often volunteering for extra hazardous
duty. They subsequently cracked up and are now denied veterans
benefits. We recommend unanimously, on the motion of the Board
members who are veterans of Vietnam, that these individuals receive
General Discharges with veterans benefits.
2. Effect of Clemency on Future Discharge Review
We proposed that any individual going to a Discharge Review Board
or Board for the Correction of Military Records having received a
Pardon from the President would be treated as follows:
(a) He would not have is make a suparate, special
application to these boards. The application to the
Clamency Board would be considered the functional
equivalent of the application to the military; (b) Any
review would be taken without regard to the acts for
which the President has issued a Pardon.
3. Nature of Clemency Discharge
The Proclamation and the President's evident intent is that the
Clemency Discharge be a truly neutral discharge, neither less-than-
- 3 -
honorable nor "under honorable conditions". The actual certificate
used by Defense states that it is a Clemency Discharge given "under
clemency conditions" or some similar phraseology. However, the
Department has made it quite clear that they consider the Clemency
Discharge to be a discharge under other than honorable conditions
(the functional equivalent of an Undesirable Discharge), not only for
the purposes of continuing to preclude veterans benefits (the
President's desire), but also as a public connotation and an official
description within the government.
We recommend that the President make it clear that a Clemency
Discharge replaces a discharge under less than honorable conditions.
The Executive Order states that a Clemency Discharge is "in lieu of"
and "substituted for" a Bad Discharge. The Clemency Discharge
should be regarded as completely neutral, neither under honorable
conditions or less than honorable conditions.
4. The President should act upon the 236 recommendations made
by the Clemency Board thus far and publicly announce that he has
signed the warrants implementing those recommendations.
I firmly believe Presidential action on all of the above issues would
re-emphasize the fair, generous and significantly beneficial nature
of the President's approach to amnesty, stopping far short of
unconditional amnesty. Any arguments that such actions create
difficult precedents for existing agencies or open floodgates,
ignore the fact that the clemency program is by definition unique
and sets no precedents whatsoever in other agencies for those
beyond the purview of the clemency program itself.
CEG:mm
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 22, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
CHAIRMAN CHARLES GOODELL
FROM:
PHILIP W. BUCHEN
T.W.B.
This memo is in response to your memo dated May 16, 1975,
in which you raised four issues concerning the President's
clemency program.
Although you believe the issue concerning pardons for
servicemen who received undesirable discharges was discussed
with the President last year, I have confirmed that positions
on this issue were never requested from the Departments
of Defense and Justice. Attached for your review are memos
from the United States Pardon Attorney and the Department of
Defense opposing your recommendation. In light of their
opinions, it would be desirable to hold a meeting of the interested
agencies for the purpose of reaching a resolution on this issue.
With respect to the issue you raised in item number three of
your memo, I believe it also should be discussed at the meeting
of all interested agencies. This issue had been raised with the
President in September, 1974. At that time he decided that a
clemency discharge would be equivalent to an undesirable discharge.
However, because that decision was made prior to the appointment of
the Board, I believe it would be appropriate to have an exchange
of views on this issue in a meeting with other interested agencies.
Also, your memo raises two issues (numbers one and two) which
were previously raised by you in a memorandum dated
February 24, 1975, to the President. On February 25 these issues
were discussed with the President. All interested agencies had the
opportunity to convey their views to the President in person or
by memo, and on February 27 the staff secretary by memo informed
all parties that the President did not approve the Board's
recommendations. Therefore, I feel that these issues are moot.
2
Finally, in response to item number four in your memo, it
is my intention to forward to the President the recommendations
of the Board as soon as final agreement is reached among all
parties on these issues.
You will be contacted concerning a convenient date for the
proposed meeting.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Evelyn-
mtq. 10:00- Thus. 5/29
w) Buchen etal
Ur.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 22, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
CHAIRMAN CHARLES GOODELL
FROM:
PHILIP W. BUCHEN
T.W.B.
This memo is in response to your memo dated May 16, 1975,
in which you raised four issues concerning the President's
clemency program.
Although you believe the issue concerning pardons for
servicemen who received undesirable discharges was discussed
with the President last year, I have confirmed that positions
on this issue were never requested from the Departments
of Defense and Justice. Attached for your review are memos
from the United States Pardon Attorney and the Department of
Defense opposing your recommendation. In light of their
opinions, it would be desirable to hold a meeting of the interested
agencies for the purpose of reaching a resolution on this issue.
With respect to the issue you raised in item number three of
your memo, I believe it also should be discussed at the meeting
of all interested agencies. This issue had been raised with the
President in September, 1974. At that time he decided that a
clemency discharge would be equivalent to an undesirable discharge.
However, because that decision was made prior to the appointment of
the Board, I believe it would be appropriate to have an exchange
of views on this issue in a meeting with other interested agencies.
Also, your memo raises two issues (numbers one and two) which
were previously raised by you in a memorandum dated
February 24, 1975, to the President. On February 25 these issues
were discussed with the President. All interested agencies had the
opportunity to convey their views to the President in person or
by memo, and on February 27 the staff secretary by memo informed
all parties that the President did not approve the Board's
recommendations. Therefore, I feel that these issues are moot.
2
Finally, in response to item number four in your memo, it
is my intention to forward to the President the recommendations
of the Board as soon as final agreement is reached among all
parties on these issues.
You will be contacted concerning a convenient date for the
proposed meeting.
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
May 16, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PHILIP W. BUCHEN
FROM:
CHARLES E. GOODELL
SUBJECT:
Pending Clemency Board Issues
Before the President
The President has acted on 65 recommendations from the Presidential
Clemency Board to date. There are now 236 recommendations pending,
including 114 recommendations sent to the President on March 26, 1975.
I understand they are being held because some question has re-arisen
with reference to the President granting a pardon for the AWOL
offenses that led to an Undesirable Discharge. If you will recall,
this issue was resolved by the President in a meeting with Marsh,
Buchen and Goodell in late November or early December. You and
I discussed the issue in your office prior to meeting with the President.
I recall your reaching for a copy of the Constitution and reading the
language as follows:
"and he shall have power to grant reprieves and
pardons for offenses against the United States".
I explained that the Clemency Board had then reached a serious Impasse
because we unanimously felt that we could not require alternative
service of an applicant if all we had to offer him was a change from
an Undesirable Discharge to a Clemency Discharge. We distinguished
the cases being processed by the Department of Defense because that
program dealt with fugitives who had charges hanging over them.
Their participation in the elemency program benefitted them by the
military dropping the pending charges against them.
I believe it would be not only unfortunate, but a serious disruption of
the Clemency Board functions to reopen the issue of pardons for
AWOL offenses leading to Undesirable Discharges. The matter was
discussed in the presence of the President and a decision was made
which solved a major policy crisis in the Board last fall. Since
. 2 -
approximately 70% of our applications are from undesirable
dischargees, a decision to grant them only a Clemency Discharge
would expose the President to vehement criticism and perhaps even
ridicule. All of the members of the Clemency Board have repeatedly
stated in public the President's decision to grant pardons for AWOL
offenses leading to Undesirable Discharges. This is not the time
for a retraction or an apparent reneging on public commitments
with reference to elemency.
I understand that there are those advisors to the President who have
been advocating, in view of the events in Vietnam, that the President
announce universal and unconditional amnesty at this time. I do not
advocate such a course, but I believe the President should take the
following actions previously recommended by the Clemency Board:
1. Upgrade
The Board has recommended twenty-one upgrade cases to date,
5 of which have been forwarded to the President. These are individuals
who served gallantly in Vietnam, often volunteering for extra hazardous
duty. They subsequently cracked up and are now denied veterans
benefits. We recommend unanimously, on the motion of the Board
members who are veterans of Vietnam, that these individuals receive
General Discharges with veterans benefits.
2. Effect of Clemency on Future Discharge Review
We proposed that any individual going to a Discharge Review Board
or Board for the Correction of Military Records having received a
Pardon from the President would be treated as follows:
(a) He would not have to make a separate, special
application to these boards. The application to the
Clemency Board would be considered the functional
equivalent of the application to the military; (b) Any
review would be taken without regard to the acts for
which the President has issued a Pardon.
3. Nature of Clemency Discharge
The Proclamation and the President's evident intent is that the
Clemency Discharge be a truly neutral discharge, neither less-than-
- 3 -
honorable nor "under honorable conditions". The actual certificate
used by Defense states that it is a Clemency Discharge given "under
clemency conditions" or some similar phraseology. However, the
Department has made it quite clear that they consider the Clemency
Discharge to be a discharge under other than honorable conditions
(the functional equivalent of an Undesirable Discharge), not only for
the purposes of continuing to preclude veterans benefits (the
President's desire), but also as a public connotation and an official
description within the government.
We recommend that the President make it clear that a Clemency
Discharge replaces a discharge under less than honorable conditions.
The Executive Order states that a Clemency Discharge is "in lieu of"
and "substituted for" a Bad Discharge. The Clemency Discharge
should be regarded as completely neutral, neither under honorable
conditions or less than honorable conditions.
4. The President should act upon the 236 recommendations made
by the Clemency Board thus far and publicly announce that he has
signed the warrants implementing those recommendations.
I firmly believe Presidential action on all of the above issues would
re-emphasise the fair, generous and significantly beneficial nature
of the President's approach to amnesty, stopping far short of
unconditional amnesty. Any arguments that such actions create
difficult precedents for existing agencies or open floodgates,
ignore the fact that the elemency program is by definition unique
and sets no precedents whatsoever in other agencies for those
beyond the purview of the clemency program itself.
CEG:mm
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 12, 1975
Dear Chairman Goodell:
On the basis of the recommendations contained in your
memorandum dated June 2, 1975, the President has decided
that the Presidential Clemency Board may recommend
pardons to him in meritorious cases for those applicants to
the Board, under the Program for the Return of Vietnam Era
Draft Evaders and Military Deserters, who were discharged
from the Military Departments for their absentee offenses.
The grant of pardons in these cases would be conditioned on
the satisfactory completion of any period of alternate service
recommended by the Board and approved by the President.
In reaching this decision, the President was aware that to
grant pardons to those who received undesirable discharges
for their offenses is an unusual exercise of his power to grant
clemency. However, the President concluded that in meritorious
cases the unique purposes of his Proclamation, to show mercy and
to offer these young Americans the chance to contribute a share
in the rebuilding of peace, required an unusual exercise of clemency.
Sincerely,
PhilyW.Buchen Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
The Honorable Charles E. Goodell
Chairman
Presidential Clemency Board
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
THE WHITE HOUSE
The Honorable Charles E. Goodell
Chairman
Presidential Clemency Board
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
July 2, 1975
Dear Phil:
The Presidential Clemency Board is fortunate to have the
services of approximately 130 legal interns who represent
a broad geographical section of the United States. Because
many of our legal interns are from other parts of the
United States, and will return to their respective homes
once their stay with the PCB is over in order to finish
their legal education, I would very much like to make their
stay in Washington, D.C. as instructive as possible.
Members of my staff are now in the process of putting
together a number of interesting programs that are speci-
fically designed for our legal interms, I would very much
appreciate it if Bill Casselman could give an informal
talk to our interns on the nature of his work as a White
House Counsel. Bill has informally indicated to a member
of my staff that he could do so.
In addition, at some further time I think that an informal
meeting between Jay French and our legal interns would also
be very beneficial. Jay has been very much involved with
the Presidential Clemency Board from its inception, and
I believe that our interns would particularly profit from
his observations about the origins and aims of the program.
With kind regard, I am
Sincerely,
Charles E. Goodell
Chairman
Mr. Philip W. Buchen
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
July 21, 1975
Dear Phil:
Thank you for your letter of July 17, 1975. I
am aware that the President wishes the Clemency Board
program to be completed by September 15.
We have now processed 9,000 cases, and we will
complete all the cases for which we have files by September 15.
There will be some carryover, for which we must make provision,
because there are no files whatsoever on some cases. I
have a special project working to reconstruct files where
necessary in order to minimize that problem.
We sent 413 cases to the President last week,
totaling 1,067 cases to the President to date. As you
know, we guarantee an applicant 30 days in which to correct
the summary of his record after receipt thereof. We began
virtually full time operations the first week in June,
disposing of 1200 to 1500 cases a week. Those cases are
now "ripe" and the President will be receiving upwards
of 1,000 recommendations per week from the Clemency Board
hereafter.
You need have no concern about the matter of
late applications. The Clemency Board established a policy
from the outset that any confirmed inquiry to an official
Government agency should be considered an application if
followed up by a written application by May 31, 1975. Our
projected applications, taking account of the fallout that
we have had thus far, are between 16,000 and 17,000. The
Clemency Board has not changed its rules in order to accom-
modate late applicants. I suspect that Jay French's inquiry
arises from a single case which the full Board heard last
week. The applicant had inquired as to how to apply for
elemency to the United States consulate in Canada prior
to March 31, 1975, the deadline for applications. He was
given misinformation. He returned to the United States
on April 12 and turned himself in to the U.S. Attorney.
-2-
The Board unanimously accepted the application since,
on the basis of our established rule, he submitted his
application prior to March 31, 1975.
I am not about to permit revision of rules
contrary to the President's directives, and I certainly
do not intend to complicate our problem of completing
disposition of all cases for which we have adequate infor-
mation by September 15. It will be done.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Goodell
Chairman
Mr. Philip W. Buchen
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
August 15, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PHILIP BUCHEN
FROM:
CHARLES E. GOODELL
SUBJECT:
Presidential Clemency Board's Final
Recommendations
Under section 9 of Executive Order 11803 ("Establishing a
Clemency Board..."), the Presidential Clemency Board is
charged to "submit its final recommendations to the
President not later than December 31, 1976". Since the
Board contemplates a completion of its caseload by
September 15, we are preparing a final report to the
President to be submitted by that date.
That report will describe to the President what kinds of
people applied to the Board and what kinds of problems
generated their offense, the procedure by which the Board
reached its recommendations on clemency applications, some
broad problems which we have learned about as we see patterns
emerging from the cases, and some recommendations as to what
the President might do to remedy those broad problems,
It is the President's prerogative, not the Board's, to re-
lease or to elect not to release all or part of the Board's
final recommendations to him. On that assumption, I envision
submitting those recommendations in a two-part package:
(1) A final report written in a form appropriate for
public release, in contemplation of its release
by the White House very shortly after submission
to the President. The Board itself will submit the
report to the President, and will not publicly
release anything. Although the existence of a
report will obviously be known to the press, the
President will retain the option of releasing it or
not.
(2) An options memorandum forwarding the Board's
recommendations for action by the President. This
memorandum will not be released to the public.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
- 2 -
To avoid confusion about who will publicly release what
materials at what time, we should establish procedural ground
rules well before the Board's recommendations are formulated.
Please let me know whether you concur on the procedure which
I propose, and, if not, what alternatives you proffer.
CC.: DONALD RUMSFELD
RTropp: mm
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 26, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
CHARLES E. GOODELL
FROM:
PHILIP W. BUCHEN T.W.B.
SUBJECT:
Your memorandum of August 15
As I read your memorandum, you interpret Section 9 of
Executive Order 11803 differently from the way I think
it must be interpreted. Section 9 calls for "final
recommendations to the President" by a specified date
which you now indicate will be no later than September 15.
The only recommendations called for by the Order are those
specified in Section 3. The Board's recommendations shall
be "as to whether executive clemency should be granted or
denied in any case [and] if clemency is recommended
the form that such clemency should take." Thus, according
to the Order, once the Board makes its recommendations
as to granting or denial of clemency in each case which
has come before it, its work will have been completed.
You, on the other hand, appear to read the Order as
requiring recommendations of how the President should
deal in the future with broad problems which you may have
detected as a result of the activities of the Board. This
is an interpretation which I do not believe is supported
in any way by the language of the Order or the President's
intent, and I believe you should confine the remaining
activities of the Board to completing review of the cases
before you in accordance with Section 3 of the Order. By
following this appropriate course, we avoid any question
about preparing either a further report to the President
for him to release or a confidential memorandum to him.
CC: Donald Rumsfeld
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 26, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
CHARLES E. GOODELL
FROM:
PHILIP W. BUCHEN P.W.B.
SUBJECT:
Your memorandum of August 15
As I read your memorandum, you interpret Section 9 of
Executive Order 11803 differently from the way I think
it must be interpreted. Section 9 calls for "final
recommendations to the President" by a specified date
which you now indicate will be no later than September 15.
The only recommendations called for by the Order are those
specified in Section 3. The Board's recommendations shall
be "as to whether executive clemency should be granted or
denied in any case [and] if clemency is recommended
the form that such clemency should take." Thus, according
to the Order, once the Board makes its recommendations
as to granting or denial of clemency in each case which
has come before it, its work will have been completed.
You, on the other hand, appear to read the Order as
requiring recommendations of how the President should
deal in the future with broad problems which you may have
detected as a result of the activities of the Board. This
is an interpretation which I do not believe is supported
in any way by the language of the Order or the President's
intent, and I believe you should confine the remaining
activities of the Board to completing review of the cases
before you in accordance with Section 3 of the Order. By
following this appropriate course, we avoid any question
about preparing either a further report to the President
for him to release or a confidential memorandum to him.
CC: Donald Rumsfeld
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 5, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
CHARLES E. GOODELL
FROM:
PHILIP W. BUCHEN
P.W.B.
This is in response to a memorandum dated June 2, 1975, from the
Clemency Board's General Counsel to Jay French, of my staff,
forwarding a letter dated May 29 from Forrest R. Browne, Director,
Federal Personnel and Compensation Division, General Accounting
Office, advising you that GAO intends to conduct a survey of the
Presidential Clemency Board.
The request of the GAO has been considered by the Department of
Justice and this office. Based on the following discussion, I have
prepared a suggested response for you to send to Mr. Browne.
(See Tab A.)
In large measure, the operations of the Presidential Clemency Board
are based upon the President's exclusive constitutional authority to
grant Executive clemency. To the extent the GAO survey seeks
information about this area of the Board's operations, such informa-
tion is not subject to disclosure without the President's permission.
A small part of the operations of the Board involves upgrading dis-
charges of former servicemen. To the extent the GAO survey con-
cerns information about this part of the Board's activities, such
information falls within a legitimate area of interest to the Congress
because the Congress has the constitutional authority to "make rules
for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. 11
See Article I, Section 8, Constitution.
If the GAO decides that it would like to have access to material of
this specific nature, it will be necessary to review each document
to determine whether it may be subject to a claim of privilege.
FORD i LIBRARY
Page 2
Privileged material is generally intra-executive advisory, deliberative
material, or material directed to the President. The Counsel's office
should review all material which you determine is privileged.
DRAFT
Dear Mr. Browne:
This is in response to your letter dated May 29 informing
me that the General Accounting Office intends to perform a survey
of the Presidential Clemency Board.
The operations of the Board are largely based upon the
President's exclusive constitutional authority to grant "reprieves
and pardons for offenses against the United States. " To the extent
the GAO survey concerns information based upon this authority,
such information is not subject to disclosure. A smaller part of
the Board's actions, however, concern upgrading discharges of
former servicemen. Information about this area of the Board's
activities would be available to GAO, unless it was determined
that such information involved intra-executive advisory, deliberative
material, or material directed to the President.
If the General Accounting Office would like to conduct a
survey of matters involving the upgrading of discharges of former
servicemen, the Board and its staff would be pleased to assist in
any way possible.
Sincerely,
Ecielgn- a copy has been
1
given to Rick.
Mi - 9/8
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 5, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
CHARLES E. GOODELL
FROM:
PHILIP W. BUCHEN
P.W.T.
This is in response to a memorandum dated June 2, 1975, from the
Clemency Board's General Counsel to Jay French, of my staff,
forwarding a letter dated May 29 from Forrest R. Browne, Director,
Federal Personnel and Compensation Division, General Accounting
Office, advising you that GAO intends to conduct a survey of the
Presidential Clemency Board.
The request of the GAO has been considered by the Department of
Justice and this office. Based on the following discussion, I have
prepared a suggested response for you to send to Mr. Browne.
(See Tab A.)
In large measure, the operations of the Presidential Clemency Board
are based upon the President's exclusive constitutional authority to
grant Executive clemency. To the extent the GAO survey seeks
information about this area of the Board's operations, such informa-
tion is not subject to disclosure without the President's permission.
A small part of the operations of the Board involves upgrading dis-
charges of former servicemen. To the extent the GAO survey con-
cerns information about this part of the Board's activities, such
information falls within a legitimate area of interest to the Congress
because the Congress has the constitutional authority to "make rules
for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. 11
See Article I, Section 8, Constitution.
If the GAO decides that it would like to have access to material of
this specific nature, it will be necessary to review each document
to determine whether it may be subject to a claim of privilege.
Page 2
Privileged material is generally intra-executive advisory, deliberative
material, or material directed to the President. The Counsel's office
should review all material which you determine is privileged.
DRAFT
Dear Mr. Browne:
This is in response to your letter dated May 29 informing
me that the General Accounting Office intends to perform a survey
of the Presidential Clemency Board.
The operations of the Board are largely based upon the
President's exclusive constitutional authority to grant "reprieves
and pardons for offenses against the United States. 11 To the extent
the GAO survey concerns information based upon this authority,
such information is not subject to disclosure. A smaller part of
the Board's actions, however, concern upgrading discharges of
former servicemen. Information about this area of the Board's
activities would be available to GAO, unless it was determined
that such information involved intra-executive advisory, deliberative
material, or material directed to the President.
If the General Accounting Office would like to conduct a
survey of matters involving the upgrading of discharges of former
servicemen, the Board and its staff would be pleased to assist in
any way possible.
Sincerely,
DRAFT.
September 25, 1975
MEMORANDUM TO
: Phil, Buchen
Counsel to the President
Paul O'Neill
Deputy Director, OMB
Edward H. Levi
Attorney General
FROM
: Charles E. Goodell
FORDO & 071770 LIBRARY
SUBJECT
: Final Report and Other PCB
Policy Issues Which Remain Unresolved
As the result of several discussions with the White House, OMB and the
Justice Department, it was my understanding that the Presidential
Clemency Board was required by statute to issue a final report.
Previously I expressly assured all concerned that the PCB final report
would not be a political document but rather would be a narrative
describing the Board's activities during the past year. Since there was
no disagreement on the necessity and desirability of issuing such a
document, I fully expected that necessary support would be provided to
assure that the report would be issued quickly and without much fanfare.
As of this date I am uncertain that this belief is shared by
others involved in the transition of Presidential Clemengy activities
to the Justice Department. On September 19, I addressed a memorandum to
the Attorney General requesting that certain key staff members be retained
on detail to the Justice Department, beyond September 29th, the date Board
members will meet at 2033 M Street, Novement, to review the latest
draft of the final report. Although I have not received any formal
THARE
arer ,ES
the Federal orig Advisory Commission Act OT МИСИАЯ requires
a Final Report from 1069 the PCB. Phil Buchen & l
discussed that IssumeD matter some time ago & agreed,
The Final Report will be descriptive, informative
of the process 19530 bne followed, Irniq and factual, It will
bevioaemU not be contr oversiel and will contain no
recommendations, 9ds bns amo dolv anoteascałb Israves to JIVEST edit aA
[sat] the 909 Full Jadj bonzo Board is Vm 28W meeting 31 description bisod in Washington
voluntarily & at their HB own between expense ed VIsuol on bluow monday,
Sept 29 ntusat & give final bris directions to the staff
and final approval of the report add по in VIINA accordance ,Inemusob
w/ those botena twodshy directions, beneet ad bluow droger odd Jaris Stuars
at forled still me I 23sb abds to 8A
03
mubnexomem At besepible the moment, there appears to be a misapprikan
brsog # by those directing st the THE PCB clean Issenso my earry over
operation that 03 there will be no Final Regort, Perhaps
that reflects a Jon higher dguodsIA misunderstanding. the any
event, they are in the Rocess of Decemating the
small staff necessary to away the Final Report. the of
- 2 -
response from the Attorney General, I have received verbal messages
through intermediaries working for the Pardon Attorney, indicating
that my request was denied. These same people, acting on what they
believe are instructions from their superiors, have also released or
re-assigned both the professional and clerical staff working on the
final report. Obviously, without the necessary professional and clerical
support, it will be impossible to issue a report satisfactory for
submission to the President., I am certain that such a result was not
intended by any of the principals with whom this matter was discussed.
However, it now becomes essential critical that specific written instructions
be issued as quickly as possible to insure that the final report can
be completed.
In my opinion there have been too many people involved in
preparing the report to permit the whole issue to be swept under the rug.
ever
and
Therefore, I suggest that efforts be made to completetche final report.
#
I believe this can be accomplished within the next 4 weeks. The remaining
work required is as follows. Phase 1 will involve final editing and
incorporation of changes and suggestions made by the Board members on
September 29. Nine professionals, including Baskir, Knisely, Horn and
Strauss, and three secretaries (two with MTST experience) would be
required through October 3. Phase 2 involves proofreading and final
preparation of the report for printing. It requires 5 provessionals,
including Baskir and Strauss, and three secretaries, and should be
completed by October 17. Phase 3 involves review of galleys and arranging
for and monitoring the actual printing. It will involve Baskir ) and one
- 3 -
professional and one secretary, it should be completed by November 1.
I am also concerned about the apparent lack of progress that has
been made since September 15 in completing the residual work of the
Clemency Board. To my knowledge no additional recommendations have been
sent to the President since September 15. The previous rate was 1,000
a week. Packets 12 through 41 previously submitted by the Clemency Board
have been returned. Although a few of these packets require re-typing
in order to separately list persons with felony convictions, the vast
majority of these transmittals require no additional work. If the
transition is to be completed by November 1, the remaining 6000 recommendations
not transmitted as of September 15 must be in the President's hands by
October 1.
Although the Presidential Clemency Board went out of formal
existence on September 15, I do not consider the Board's work concluded
until the final report has been completed and the President has acted
on all 15,000 Board recommendations. You can understand my continuing
concern and interest that the transition phase be completed on schedule
in a manner which does not jeopardize the work of the Board or the
President's objectives with regard to eCemency.
Prof phase i [Straws] Horn, [Kinsely Quartel Baokir
Quartel, Beek, Ebel, Pergian,
Thru Oct 3rd Remington
2 secretaries MTST robitype
2nd phase -:
+ Mary Essex
Strans & Bashir
Them Oct 17th,
3 of 5 professionals
3 secretaries
3rd Phase- : Baskir + / (Remington or Ebel)
them Nov 1st l secretary,
Access to typewriters, paper & -Xerox
nothing is moving
Packets #12 #41 / 6500 (2400 signed)
Pardons not going out from Dog,
1000/wk to Pres prior to Sept 15.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 6, 1975
RECEIVED NOV 10 1975
Dear Charlie:
Thank you for your recent memorandum concerning the disposition
of the papers of former members of the Presidential Clemency
Board. However, there are two problems that should be resolved
prior to the disposition of these papers outside of Government
control.
As I am sure you are aware, the question of ownership of Presidential
papers is now in litigation. Enclosed are the guidelines used by the
previous Administration which describe the categories of materials
that staff members can take with them on departure. Inasmuch as
the present litigation does not appear to affect these guidelines, we
have continued to follow them in order to preserve the status quo.
In view of the unique nature of the Board's functions, these guide-
lines should be applied in this instance.
The second problem relates to the confidentiality of the materials
which the guidelines authorize to be taken on departure. Although
the Board's papers are not now subject to the specific safeguards
of the Privacy Act of 1974, P.L. 93-579, any disposition of these
papers should also take into account the protection of individual
privacy which the Act seeks to assure. In effect, the Board has
already made this determination by its regulation guaranteeing the
confidentiality of communications to the Board from applicants
and potential applicants, 2 CFR 100. 12(a).
In view of this regulation and in order to comply fully with the
spirit of the Privacy Act, appropriate guidelines should be developed
-2-
prior to the disposition of any of these materials to points outside
government control. My staff would be pleased to discuss further
these matters with you at your convenience.
With best wishes,
Sincerely,
Thil
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
The Honorable Charles E. Goodell
Hydeman, Mason & Goodell
1225 - 19th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
§ 101.11
Title 2-Clemency
(3) As to any person denied executive
plicant is entitled to representation and
clemency, again not recommend the ap-
will be encouraged to seek legal counsel
plicant for executive clemency.
experienced in military or selective serv-
ice law. Upon request, Board staff
§ 101.11 Referral to appropriate agen-
will attempt to refer an applicant to a
cies.
skilled volunteer representative.
After the expiration of the period
(b) An applicant who does not wish
allowed for petitions for reconsideration,
to file his application in person may have
the Chairman of the Board shall forward
his representative do so on his behalf.
for further action to the Secertaries of
the Army, Navy, and Air Force, the
§ 101.14 Requests for information about
Secretary of the Department of Trans-
the clemency program.
portation, the Director of the Selective
(a) Upon receipt by the Board of an
Service System, and the Attorney
oral or written request for information or
General, as appropriate, the President's
consideration concerning an individual
determination as to each recipient of
who is clearly beyond the jurisdiction of
executive clemency.
the Board, a member of the Board's staff
shall inform the individual:
§ 101.12 Confidentiality of communica-
(1) That jurisdiction does not lie;
tions.
(2) Whether jurisdiction may lie
(a) The Board has determined that it
within the Presidential clemency pro-
will take all steps possible to protect the
gram, and if so, with which agency;
privacy of applicants and potential ap-
(3) That in the event the individual
plicants to the Presidential clemency
prefers not to contact personally such
program. No personal information con-
other agency that an Action Attorney
cerning an applicant or potential ap-
will obtain from such other agency in-
plicant and related to the Presidential
formation concerning the individual's
clemency program will be made known
status with respect to the Presidential
to any agency, organization, or individ-
clemency program, and provide to the
ual, whether public or private, unless
individual that information.
such disclosure is necessary for the
(b) The Action Attorney shall submit
normal and proper functioning of the
to the Executive Secretariat of the Presi-
Presidential Clemency Board. How-
dential Clemency Board a summary of
you
ever, information which reveals the
the communication with, and informa-
not
existence of a violation of law (other
tion provided to, such individuals.
you
than an offense subject to the Presi-
chd
dential clemency program) will of neces-
APPENDIX A1
tha
sity be forwarded to the appropriate
APPENDIX B-INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICATION
tain
authorities.
FOR CLEMENCY
will
(b) In order to have his case con-
On September 16, 1974, the President an-
you
sidered by the Board, an applicant
IV
nounced a program of clemency. Depending
need submit only information sufficient
on your case, you may apply to the Presi-
whis
for a determination of jurisdiction, and
dential Clemency Board, the Department of
lette
for the retrieval of necessary official
Justice, or the Department of Defense.
records and files. The application
You may be eligible for clemency by the
form will therefore require the ap-
Presidential Clemency Board if you have
been convicted of a draft evasion offense
5
plicant's name; date of birth; selective
such as failure to register or register on time;
the
service number; military service and
failure to keep the local board informed of
If
service number, if applicable; informa-
current address; failure to report for or sub-
writ
tion concerning the draft evasion of-
mit to pre-induction or induction examina-
Whit
fenses or absence-related military of-
tion; failure to report for or submit to or
456
fenses and the disposition thereof; and
complete service, during the period from
sent
the mailing address of either the appli-
August 4, 1964 to March 28, 1973; or if you
that
have received an undesirable, bad conduct,
cant or his representative. If the appli-
ber
or dishonorable discharge for desertion, ab-
cant submits such information as part
sence without leave, or missing movement,
indic
of his initial filing, the completion of the
and for offenses directly related, between Au-
and
application form itself is not necessary.
gust 4, 1964 to March 28, 1973.
ber
If you are now absent from military serv-
Ap
§ 101.13 Representation before the
ice or have a charge against you for a Selec-
shoul
Board.
tive Service violation and have not been con-
no
(a) Although an applicant may bring
victed or received a discharge, you may still
Speci
his case before the Board without a rep-
perso
resentative or legal counsel, each ap-
1 Filed as part of original document.
have
6
Chapter I-Presidential Clemency Board
$ 102.3
be eligible for clemency under another part
PART 102-SUBSTANTIVE STANDARDS
of the President's program. If you have any
OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY
questions, please contact the Board and we
BOARD
will try to answer your questions.
If you believe that you are eligible to be
Sec.
considered by the Presidential Clemency
102.1 Purpose and scope.
Board but are not sure, you should apply to
102.2 Board decision on whether or not to
the Board. If it turns out that you are not
recommend that the President grant
eligible for consideration by the Board, you
executive clemency.
may possibly qualify under another part of
102.3 Aggravating circumstances.
the clemency program. You do not have to
102.4
Mitigating circumstances.
identify your current location. We will then
102.5 Calculation of length of alternative
be able to notify you of the proper agency to
service.
contact. If you are appealing a conviction or
a military discharge you may continue your
AUTHORITY: E.O. 11803, 39 FR 33297.
appeal, and still apply to the Board at the
SOURCE: 39 FR 41353, Nov. 27, 1974, unless
same time.
otherwise noted. Correctly designated, 39 FR
I. The Board will not give its files to any
44709, Dec. 27, 1974.
other federal agency. It will keep any in-
formation you provide in strictest confidence,
§ 102.1 Purpose and scope.
except evidence of a serious crime which is
This part articulates the standards
not covered in the Presidential Clemency pro-
which the Presidential Clemency Board
gram.
will employ in deciding whether to rec-
II. Although you may apply to the Board
ommend that the President grant execu-
without attorney or any other representative
tive clemency to a particular applicant,
if you wish, we encourage you to obtain the
and in then deciding whether that grant
help of legal counsel. If you do not have a
of celemency should be conditional. and,
counsel but desire one, we will be glad to
refer you to a lawyers' organization which
if so, upon what specified period of alter-
native service.
will help you find one. These organizations
will help you get legal assistance even if you
§ 102.2 Board decision on whether or
cannot afford to pay.
not to recommend that the President
III. To apply to the Board, you need only
grant executive clemency.
supply the information necessary to find
your file from other departments. If you do
(a) The first decision which the Board
not wish to file your application personally,
will reach, with respect to an application
you may select a representative of your own
before it, is whether or not it will recom-
choice to do it for you, but you must tell us
mend to the President that the applicant
that he is authorized. The Board will main-
be granted executive clemency. In reach-
tain its own file on your case and that file
ing that decision, the Board will take
will be available for examination by you or
notice of the presence of any of the ag-
your own attorney.
IV. You are encouraged to submit evidence
gravating circumstances listed in $ 102.3,
which you feel helps your case, and to submit
and will further take notice of whether
letters from other people on your behalf. You
such aggravating circumstances are bal-
may submit evidence in order to correct in-
anced by the presence of any of the miti-
accurate, incomplete, or misleading informa-
gating circumstances listed in § 102.4.
tion to the Board's file.
(b) Unless there are aggravating cir-
V. A personal appearance by you before
cumstances not balanced by mitigating
the Board will not be necessary.
circumstances, the Board will recommend
If you have any questions, please call or
write the Presidential Clemency Board. The
that the President grant executive clem-
White House, Washington, D.C. 20500, (202-
ency to each applicant.
456-6476). If application is made by a repre-
§ 102.3 Aggravating circumstances.
sentative on your behalf, it is not necessary
that your home address and telephone num-
(a) Presence of any of the aggravating
ber be included. Your representative should
circumstances listed herein either will
indicate his capacity (attorney, friend, etc.)
disqualify an individual for executive
and give us his address and telephone num-
clemency or may be considered by the
ber.
Board as cause for recommending to the
Application for people not in custody
President executive clemency conditioned
should be completed and mailed to the Board
no later than midnight, January 31, 1975.
upon a length of alternative service ex-
Special procedures will be established for
ceeding the applicant's "baseline period
persons incarcerated whether or not they
of alternative service," as determined
have been released on furlough.
under § 102.5.
7
WHITE HOUSE OFFICE PAPERS
By custom and tradition, all White House Office
of newspapers or magazine clippings; and copies
papers are regarded as the personal property of
of records of a personnel nature relating to a per-
the President and subject to such control and dis-
son's employment or service. Personal files should
position as he may determine. At the close of the
not include any copies, drafts or working papers
Administration, the entire collection of papers now
that relate to official business or any documents or
being created may be expected to be deposited in
records, whether or not adopted, made or received
a Presidential library similar to the libraries that
in the course of official business.
preserve the papers of the last six Presidents. To
3. Each staff office shall forward regularly to
provide the President with a complete and accu-
Central Files three copies of all outgoing official
rate record of his tenure in office, the White House
business consisting of correspondence and memo-
staff must oversee the preservation of the papers
randa. One copy of all other outgoing related
it generates.
materials should also be filed.
The procedures set forth in this document rep-
4. Each staff office shall forward regularly to
resent the collective thinking of many members of
Central Files any incoming official business from
the staff as to how best to preserve papers and
sources other than White House staff offices after
documents for the President. Compliance with
action, if any, has been taken. Each staff office, if
these procedures is an expression of loyalty by the
it SO desires, may keep a copy of such incoming
staff to the President. For these procedures to be
official business for its own working files.
effective, it will require cooperation and assistance
5. Each staff office shall forward regularly to
of every staff member.
Central Files any originals of incoming official
The security classification of each document
business from other White House staff offices after
prepared in the White House is determined by the
action, if any, has been taken and if such originals
individual staff member writing it in accordance
were not intended to be returned to the sender.
with Executive Order 10501-or other applicable
If desired, a copy may be kept for the staff's work-
Executive Orders. He is responsible for insuring
ing files.
that the classification assigned to his work reflects
6. Each staff office shall forward to Central Files
the sensitivity of the material concerned, and also
at such times as it determines to be appropriate
for making certain that this classification is not
all working files of official business which are in-
excessively restrictive.
active and no longer needed. These files will be
stored by office as well as listed by subject matter.
White House Office Papers: Filing with Central
They will, of course, always be available for later
Files
reference.
7. Each staff office at its own discretion may seg-
1. It is requested that the maximum possible
regate any materials that. it believes to be partic-
use be made of Central Files, and the procedures
ularly sensitive and which should not be filed by
listed below be followed. This will aid in the faster
subject matter. Such sensitive materials should be
and more complete retrieval of current informa-
forwarded to the Staff Secretary on the same basis
tion, eliminate unnecessary duplication of files,
as outlined in paragraphs 3 through 6 in an en-
prevent excessive xeroxing, and maximize preser-
velope marked SENSITIVE RECORDS FOR
vation of White House papers.
STORAGE with the office or individual from
2. Each staff member shall maintain his per-
which they are sent marked on the outside and (as
sonal files separate from any working files he may
appropriate) a list of inventory in general terms
keep on official business and clearly designate them
attached. This list of inventory should also be
as such. Personal files include correspondence un-
sent to Central Files SO that notations can be made
related to any official duties performed by the staff
in subject files that certain material is missing from
member; personal books, pamphlets and periodi-
the file. These materials will be filed in locked con-
cals; daily appointment books or log books; folders
tainers and will only be made available to the in-
dividual or office from whom they were received.
3. A staff member, upon termination of employ-
8. No defense material classified under Execu-
ment, may at his discretion make copies for his
tive Order No. 10501 with a classification of TOP
personal use of a carefully chosen selection of the
SECRET or Restricted Data under the Atomic
following types of documents within his files:
Energy Act of 1954 should be forwarded to Cen-
(A) Documents which embody original intel-
tral Files. All such material should be forwarded
lectual thought contributed by the staff member,
to the Staff Secretary for storage.
such as research work and draftsmanship of
9. No exceptions to the above shall be made
speeches and legislation.
without the express consent of the Counsel to the
(B) Documents which might be needed in
President. Additional advice on the operation of
future related work by the individual.
Central Files may be obtained from Frank
4. No staff members shall make copies as per-
Matthews, Chief of Central Files (Ext. 2240).
mitted in paragraph three of any documents which
contain defense material classified as CONFI-
White House Office Papers: Disposition of Papers
DENTIAL, SECRET OR TOP SECRET under
Upon Leaving Staff
Executive Order No. 10501, Restricted Data under
1. Upon termination of employment with the
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, or information
staff, each staff member will turn over his entire
supplied to the government under statutes which
files to Central Files with the exception of any
make the disclosure of such information a crime.
personal files he might have maintained.
5. Each staff member who decides to make copies
2. Personal files include: correspondence unre-
of such documents described in paragraph three
lated to any official duties performed by the staff
shall leave a list of all such documents copied with
member; personal books, pamphlets and periodi-
Central Files. This will enable retrieval of a docu-
cals; daily appointment books or log books; folders
ment in the event that all other copies of it and the
of newspaper or magazine clippings; and copies
original should be later lost.
of records of a personal nature relating to a per-
6. The discretionary authority granted in para-
son's employment or service. Personal files should
graph three is expected to be exercised sparingly
not include any copies, drafts, or working papers
and not abused. All White House Office papers,
that relate to official business; or any documents or
records, whether or not adopted, made or received
including copies thereof, are the personal property
in the course of official business. The White House
of the President and should be respected as such.
Office of Presidential Papers, staffed by represen-
Any copies retained by a staff member should
tatives of the National Archives, is available to
be stored in a secure manner and maintained
assist staff members in the determination of what
confidentially.
are personal files. Any question in this regard
7. All confidential and sensitive materials will
should be resolved with their assistance by con-
be protected from premature disclosure by specific
tacting John Nesbitt, supervisory archivist of the
provisions of the Presidential Libraries Act of
Office of Presidential Papers (Ext. 2545).
1955 (44 U.S.C. 2108).
RECEIVED NOV 10 1975
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 7, 1975
Dear Charlie:
Thank you for providing me with a copy of your letter to Byron
Pepitone dated August 20 in which you set forth the Clemency
Board's recommendations for handling referrals to Selective
Service who are required to perform short terms of alternate
service.
The Director of Selective Service has assured me that he shares
the Board's concern and interest in these cases. Indeed, after
considering these recommendations, Mr. Pepitone issued instruc-
tions that referrals with three to six months of alternate service
should be permitted to keep their regular employment by working
twenty hours a week at their alternate service jobs. This new
procedure satisfies the first and second recommendations con-
tained in your August 20 letter. Mr. Pepitone did not implement
the Board's third recommendation, that sixteen hours would be
the equivalent of a forty-hour week, because he felt that it created
too great an inequity between persons who are already working at
full-time alternate service jobs or who have fulfilled their obliga-
tions and those who would be permitted to take advantage of such
a change in the rules.
I appreciate the principal concern underlying the Board's recom-
mendations to insure that large numbers of referrals with short
terms of service find employment. However, to date, only 542
referrals from the Clemency Board have enrolled at Selective
Service and it has been reasonably successful in locating alternate
service jobs. I think we now should give the Director of Selective
November 7, 1975
Page Two
Service an opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of the Board's
recommendations as larger numbers of referrals report for alter-
nate service.
Sincerely,
Thil
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
Charles Goodell, Esquire
Room 601
1225 - 19th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
THE WHITE HOUSE
MASHINGTON,OF NOV DC
ALWAYS
USE ZIP
1375
code
STATES
Charles Goodell, Esquire
Room 601
1225 - 19th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
November 14, 1975
Mr. Robert C. Carter
601 Eye Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C.
Dear Bob:
Enclosed you will find a copy of a letter from Phil
Buchen on the alternative service recommendations made
to Selective Service by the Clemency Board.
I think it would be helpful if either one of you, or
both, expressed your strong feelings on the issue
directly to Phil Buchen. He obviously has decided not
to intervene at this time or to hold a meeting with us
to discuss intervention. Selective Service is telling
him that things are going swimmingly. If that turns
out to be over-optimistic, it will be too late to do
anything about it.
You might also consider meeting with Byron Pepitone.
Byron's letter arrived after our discussion at Jim
Maye's party. In light of the letter, I think you two
would be more effective by yourselves without me. That
also leaves me more freedom to go directly to the
President, in the event you run into a stone wall. I
am hesitant to do that, however, until all other avenues
have been explored. After you have received this and
discussed it with each other, perhaps one or both of
you might like to discuss the matter further by phone.
I should be available all next week.
With warm regard, I am
Sincerely,
Charles E. Goodell
CEG:daw
Enclosure