Ask the Scholar
Page 1 of 1
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
The original documents are located in Box 8, folder "Miscellaneous" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 8 of the Charles E. Goodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
CASES WITH QUESTIONABLE BASELINES
#
BASELINE AGG MIT. DECISION
HES, WALT, Doves
549
16 MO
)
/
14 MO
HES, o'c, WHIT, MAME
551
12 MO
-
9,10
9 Mo
=
958
3 2/2
1,5
24 Mo
"
737
24 MO
I
4,9
6 Mo
11
780
24 MO
5
11
24 Mo
743
H Mo
*
3 40
304
21 MO
8
Brood
FORD i GERALD LIBRARY
* BASELINE IS CORRECT
16 to 14
3 to ?
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
CASE SUMMARY
no Ag or M
PCB Attorney: Dancheck
Case No. 74-549-JDA-C
Telephone: (202) 456-2110
Branch of Service: N/A
Summary Completed: 12 Feb 75
Age: 22
Current Sentence: Youth Corrections Act
Present Status: Probationer per-
Two years imprisonment suspended on
forming alternate service
probation for 5 yrs. and $500 fine
Date of Application: 1 Nov 74
Court: U.S.D.C., W.D. North Carolina
(Charlotte Division)
Total Time Served: None
Discharge Status: N/A
Offense: Failure to submit to induction
Total Creditable Service: N/A
GERALD R. FORD LIDRA
Background:
Applicant is Caucasian, born in Detroit and reared in North Carolina.
He is the third born in a family of four brothers and one sister. The
family is middle-class, stable, intact and highly regarded in its com-
munity. Applicant maintains a close relationship with his parents. He
graduated from high school and attended college for one and one-half
years before withdrawing. Applicant states that he withdrew from college
because of the apparent purposelessness of the academic regimen. He
maintained a 3.0 average on a scale of 0 to 4. Applicant married on
7 Apr 73. 4s of the writing of the pre-sentence report there were no
children. Applicant was employed as a carpenter until his probation.
He is a recent convert to the Church of Latter-Day Saints. Applicant
is asthmatic. He intends to return to college. He has been performing
alternate service, a condition of his probation, at a state mental hospi-
tal. The duration of the alternate service condition of probation (full-
time employment) is three years. The United States Attorney will inter-
pose no objection to reduction of this requirement to two years.
Circumstances of Offense:
Applicant states in a 14 Oct 74 letter to the PCB that:
On December 6, 1972, I reported as ordered, for
induction, to the Charlotte AFEES. Upon admini-
stration of the oath of induction, I did not step
forward to signify my compliance with the oath.
2
Case No. 74-549-JDA-C
On or about November 5, 1972, I was at the
Charlotte AFEES for enlistment processing, but
I was refused enlistment because I did not re-
tract a claim of having asthma, which I had
made during my pre-induction physical. My
desire in enlisting was partially prompted by
the six month delayed entry plan it offered.
In a 1 Nov 1974 letter to the Board, applicant states:
My ideological thinking at the time of my
offense was still very confused, and I felt
that no country could demand warring services
of me, especially services demanded by the
Vietnam type approach to foreign policy.
I know that I should observe and honor the
laws and orders of our nation, as long as our
Constitution stands.
*****
A month prior to my induction date I had been
rejected as an enlistee into the Army because
of an asthma claim I had made during my pre-
induction physical. To be cleared for enlist-
ment I had to have medical proof that I was
not asthmatic which was impossible, as I even
today occasionally have mild attacks of asthma.
After arrest applicant sought enlistment but was denied entry because
of his entanglement with the federal criminal system. After convic-
tion, the trial judge announced that he would annul the conviction if
applicant would enlist. Applicant recalls his attempted enlistment
dilemma:
The recruiting officer told me that I had to be
cleared first, then enlist. The judge and re-
cruiter met, could not meet terms, and I was
left to be put in the situation in which I am
now in.
3
Case No. 74-549-JDA-C
Vietnam Service: N/A
Chronology:
5 Jun 52
Date of birth
Jun 69
Graduated from high school
Aug 70
Began college
Dec 71
Withdrew from college
5 Nov 72
Sought enlistment
6 Dec 72
Induction refusal
Sep 72 - Jan 73
Employment as carpenter
Jan 73 - Jun 73
Employment as carpenter on
apartment construction
7 Apr 73
Married
Jun 73
Employment as carpenter with
contractor
17 Oct 73
Arrested
4 Feb 74
Pleaded guilty
6 May 74
Judgment and sentence
6 Jun 74
Began alternate service
1 Nov 74
PCB application
6 May 79
Probation terminates
Awards and Decorations: N/A
on
Prior Criminal Convictions: None
Sentence History:
6 May 74 - Sentenced. Probation for 5 yrs., $500 fine.
Special Conditions: Perform alternate service
at non-profit hospital or institution for 3 yrs.,
pay fine, and not violate United States or North
Carolina laws.
6 May - 6 Jun 74 - Negotiations to effect enlistment unsuccessful
6 Jun 74 - Began alternate service
10 Jan 75 - Letter from United States Attorney. No objection to
reduction of probation and alternate service period to
2 yrs,
Sources: PCB application; letters from applicant (1 Nov 74 and 14 Oct 74);
letter from U.S. Attorney (10 Jan 75); Pre-sentence Report
12 to 9
3 to ?
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
CASE SUMMARY
M9,10 10
PCB Attorney: Dancheck
Case No. 74-551-KLJ-C
Telephone: (202) 456-2110
Branch of Service: N/A
Summary Completed: 25 Feb 75
Age: 28
Current Sentence: 3 yrs. probation,
Present Status: Probationer per-
$500 fine, special
forming alternative service
condition: 2 yrs.
Date of Application: 31 Oct 74
alternative service
Court: U.S.D.C., D. Colorado
Total Time Served: None
Discharge Status: N/A
Offense: Refusal to submit to induction
Total Creditable Service: N/A
Background:
Applicant is Caucasian, the third born in a middle class, intact family of
four children in Michigan. Applicant has always maintained a close relation-
ship with his parents. Before retirement the father had been an auditor for
the federal government. Applicant had a normal childhood and adolescence.
He is a high school and college graduate with a B.S. degree in sociology.
He entered law school, completed less than one semester but had to withdraw
after he was indicted for the Selective Service violation. He is described
as being of "bright average" intelligence. Available documents disclose no
mental or physical impairment. Applicant married in 1973. As of the writ-
ing of the presentence report, applicant had no children. Applicant has
had a variety of employment, both part time during school and full time
thereafter. His records reflect work as a stockboy, auto assembler,
assistant drug store manager and parking lot claims manager. Applicant
is now an assistant manager of a drug store. Applicant grounds his draft
resistance on obedience to his religious and moral convictions. He is
opposed to all war as a means of conflict solving.
Circumstances of Offense:
Applicant registered for the draft on or near his 18th birthday. On or
about Nov 68 he applied for and was subsequently granted 1-A-0 status (Non-
combatant Status). He sought his status as an accommodation to avoid a
dispute with his local board. He maintains that his local board would not
grant 1-0 status to Roman Catholics, a group that the local board did not
accept as traditionally pacifist. After accepting 1-A-0 status, applicant
Case No. 74-551-KLJ-C
had misgivings because he had compromised his beliefs. Applicant states
he began mentally preparing his case for a change in his status but his
induction notice prevented a filing. Applicant concedes that the local
board did halt the induction process and heard and rejected his petition
for reclassification. He contends though that he was inducted before he
could lodge an appeal from the local board decision. Applicant was
ordered to report for induction into the Armed Forces on 13 May 70. He
reported as ordered but refused to submit to induction. On 20 Jul 73,
applicant was arraigned on a one-count indictment. Applicant did not
enter a plea but stood mute. Applicant waived trial by jury. Trial
was held on 15 Dec 73. Applicant's motion for acquittal was denied. On
12 Sep 73 the district judge filed an opinion and order finding applicant
guilty. Sentence was announced on 16 Jan 74. Applicant has been ful-
filling his alternative service condition of probation since Jan 74 by part-
time volunteer work with an inner city social service organi ation similar
to "Big Brothers." This program seeks to provide father surrogates for
disturbed and delinquent minority youth. According to the probation
officer, applicant devotes 15 hours a week on the program. Applicant
states he enjoys this work and will continue in this program regardless
of any action taken by the Clemency Board.
Vietnam Service: N/A
Chronology:
31 Mar 46
Date of birth
Jun 64
Graduated from high school
Nov 68
Classified 1-A-0
Mar 69
Graduated from college
13 May 70
Order for induction
13 Oct 73
Married
20 Jul 73
Arraigned
15 Dec 73
Trial
12 Sep 73
Judgment of guilty
16 Jan 74
Sentence pronounced
31 Oct 74
PCB application
16 Jan 77
Probation expires
Awards and Decorations: N/A
Prior Criminal Convictions: None
2
Case No. 74-551-KLJ-C
Sentence History: N/A
Sources:
PCB application with letter
Presentence Report
Note: Selective Service Records destroyed
24 to 6
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY POARD
Case Summary
3 to
M 4, 9
PCB Attorney: Knudson
Case No: 74-737-CJC-C
Telephone No: (202) 456-2111
Age: 28
Summary Completed: 11 Feb 75
Present Status: On probation
Sentence: $3,000 fine, 5 yrs, probation
Date of Application: 20 Nov 74
Court: E.D. Calif.
Time Served: None
Offense: Failure to possess registration
card
Background:
Applicant, a Caucasian, was born on 10 May 46 in Hanford, California. He is
the third of five children in a family of good reputation. He graduated from
high school in Hanford on 4 June 64. From September 1964 to June 1966 he
attended the College of Sequoias in Visalia, California, and after two addi-
tional years at Fresno State College he received a B.A. degree on 7 June 68.
He was an above-average student. He has been active in church work since
eleven years of age and at one time considered being a minister. Applicant
states his church has been a strong influence on his life and that he objects
to the use of force and violence. He considers himself a conscientions
objector. He registered for the draft on 13 October 64. Selective Service
records indicate that he WAD classified II-S until 2 December 68, when in
vas classified I-A. On January 69 he requested a SS form to be used to apply
for C.O. status, this form was intended to replace the misplaced form which
he had requested on 27 November 68. On 22 January 69 he filed his applica-
tion for O. status. On 17 February 69 he submitted to a pre-induction
physical. Applicant is married and has one child, is in good health, is
employed on a part-time basis earning $340.00 per month, is & student, and
has no other criminal record. Applicant is willing to do alternative service.
Circumstances of the Offense:
On 3 March 69 he made a personal appearance before the SS Board, the purpose
of which was to discuss his status and his request for C.O. classification.
While at the SS office he requested a duplicate registration card but refused
to sign the form required for its issuance. Therefore, a card was not issued.
The SS form indicates that the card had been lost, but other SS records and
the applicant's letter to the PCB state that the card had been left at home or
was otherwise intentionally not on his person. His refusal to sign the form
was discussed during the appearance before the SS Board. At the meeting he
said he did not sign the form because he felt he would be contributing toward
2
the war and further stated that "If I decide not to carry the card, I want
you to understand why
This says I have registered with a death in-
sitution. Subsequently, the SS Board denied his application. Pursuant
to his request of 26 March 69 he met again with the SS Board on 5 May 69, and
again requested C.O. standing. By letter dated 4 June 69 lie appealed the SS
Board's decision to again reject his C.O. request. By letter of 18 June 69 he
was advised by the SS Board that it vds of the opinion that the facts presented,
supporting the appeal, did not warrant the recoponing or reclassification of his
case. He was further advised that his file was being forwarded to the Appeals
Board. (Appeal was forwarded on 19 May 69) On 22 October 69 the Appeals Board
decided to sustain the 1-A classification as determined by the Local SS Board.
On 8 December 69 he reported for, but refused to submit to induction. When he
refused to step forward, he signed a statement contending that he was a C.O.
On 25 June 70 he was indicted on two counts: (1) Failure to have registration,
and (2) failure to submit to induction. On 17 July 70 he went to the SS office
and signed a form requesting a duplicate registration card; upon doing so the
card was issued. On 17 August 70, he entered a plea of not guilty to the two-
count indictment and trial was sent for 23 February 71. On 17 June 71 applic-
ant entered a plea of guilty to the count of failing to have his registration
card. The count relating to his failure to subsit vas dismissed, SS records
do not disclose the reason. Applicant's correspondence indicates that the
count was dismissed when it was discovered that the applicant had been drafted
out of order. On July 71, judgment was entered which provided for 5 years
probation on condition of payment of a $3,000 fine at the rate of $50.00 por
month. Applicant acknowledges that his failure to sign the form and secure a
duplicate cord was an unlawful act; however, he states, his unwillingness to
sign the SS form was based on his conviction as a C.O. By 31 December 74
applicant had paid $2,000.00 approximately of his fine.
After sentencing, applicant went to Germany where he "worked in a ghetto
youth center" and his wife attended school. Three years later, in August
1974, they returned to California. At present, applicant is enrolled in a
program of city and regional planning, and, in addition, works part-time as
a draftsman.
Chronology:
10 May 46
Date of birth
7 Jun 68
College graduate
27 Nov 68
Request for SS 150 for C.O.
2 Dec 68
Classified I-A
2 Jan 69
Requested Form 150 (c.o.) to replace
misplaced form mailed to him on 27 Nov 68
13 Jan 69
Notified to appear on 17 Feb 69 for
physical
22 Jan 69
Filed application for C.O.
17 Feb 69
Date to report for physical
3 Mar 69
Personal appearance with SS Board re:
classification - requesting new re-
gistration card; refused to sign SS form
3
5 May 69
Classified (I-A) after personal
appearance
5 May 69
Requested C.O. status
4 Jun 69
Letter of appeal
18 Jun 69
Board met. to review facts supporting
appeal and decided facts did not
unreant re-opening
13 Scp 69
Harried
22 Oct 69
Appeal for C.O. denied
8 Dec 69
Reported for induction but failed
and refused to submit
25 Jun 70
Indicted - 2 counts - failure to
have card in possession and failure
to submit to induction
17 Jul 70
Signed SS Form 6, Request for
Duplicate Registration, was issued
to him
17 Aug 70
Plea not guilty
17 Jun 71
Plea of guilty
12 Jul 71
Judgement
Sources: SS records, Pre-sentence reports, letters from applicant
BERALD R. FORD
-
24 & 24
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
3
to
-
CASE SUMMARY
Dg. 5 Mit 11
PCB Attorney: Knudson
Case No. 74-780-2WH-C
Telephone No.: (202) 456-2111
Age: 28
Summary Completed: 13 Feb 75
Present Status: Probation discharged
Current Sentence: Probation (5 Years)
(in Peace Corps)
Court: D.C., New Jersey
Date of Application: 17 Dec 74
Total Time Served: None
Offense: Failure to report for
induction
Background:
Applicant, a white male, was born in New Jersey on 14 May 46. He is the
youngest of four children and has a B.S. Degree which he earned in 1970.
Applicant is in good health, has no prior record, and expresses no interest
in religion. On 15 June 70, applicant enrolled in OTS and was assigned to
Lackland AFB, San Antonio, Texas. By letter dated 13 July 70 he requested
that he be disenrolled from OTS. He was disenrolled on 16 July 70 and was
awarded an Honorable Discharge on 23 July 70. The applicant states that he
resigned because he was disillusioned with the military and that he could
not, directly or indirectly, kill another human nor could he participate with
an organization that does. Applicant states that he was not a C.O., but that
e objected to the Vietnam war. Subsequent to his resignation from the
.S. Air Force he was reclassified I-A by his draft board.
Circumstances of Offense:
Applicant states that he moved to Canada in March 1971. By orders dated
18 Oct 71 he was instructed to report for induction 18 Nov 71. He failed to
appear. In 1973 he voluntarily returned to the United States and gave himself
up as a Selective Service Violator. Efforts were made to help the applicant re--
enter the Service, as the U.S. Attorney had agreed to drop the charges if he
were accepted by the military. The presentence report indicates that the
applicant's efforts to join the USAF and the U.S. Army were futile. On 19 July
1973, applicant entered a plea of guilty for failure to report for induction
and was released on his own recognizance. On 23 May 74, he was sentenced to
5 years probation with supervision. On 9 Sept 74, his probation was discharged
in order that he enter the Peace Corps, of which he is now a member.
2
Case No : 74-780-ZWII-C
Chronology:
14 May 46
Date of birth
70
Graduated from college
15 Jun 70
Enrolled in OTS
16 Jul 70
Disenrolled from OTS
23 Jul 70
Honorable Discharge USAF
18 Mar 71 8 Dec 72
Lived in Canada
18 Nov 71
Failed to report for induction
1 Jan 73 - 5 May 73
Lived in Paris, France and Canada
19 Jul 73
Plea of guilty
23 May 74
Sentenced
9 Sep 74
Probation discharged (entered
Peace Corps)
Sentence History:
19 July 73 - Pled guilty to failure to report for induction.
23 May 74 - Placed on five years supervised probation with condition to
complete two years work of national importance. The probation was
discharged on 9 Sept 74, when he entered the Peace Corps.
purces:
Presentence report, military records
FORD i GERALD LIBRAR
to
PREPARED FOR:
HONORABLE CHARLES E. GOODELL
CHAIRMAN
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD MEETING
OCTOBER 23-24, 1974
37 40
Sh
68
71
72
ib
8'
12
35 *
26
28
41
99
80
49
/ 9.8
16 *
100
* 7
*
X
*
\
4
91
9
17
20
21
30
31
41
57
58
74
79
83
91
94
102
I
I
To Mr. Goodell
Date
Time 12:25 A.M.
P.M
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
M
Leslie Stall
CBS
of
Area Code
& Exchange
296-1234
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL
WANTS TO SEE YOU
URGENT
GERAUD ACAINO Jorden
RETURNED YOUR CALL
Message Would like to
have an interview
with you.
D.Ebbie
Operator
GINN'S 4-006055
will Long ford UOY
SHHW
bee alps 6605
03ИОНЯ3. 131
132 OT COLLIAD
333.01 STAAW
atodel ,W
spay
I
знию
O'Connor
4,(8),3,1,6,7
Paller
3,1,18),
4,6
Nickolas
5,1
Straus
2,3,6A, SA
lebitiN
Everhard
4,(8)
Lally
4,6A
BERALD R. FORD LIBRARY
stort
Craig
5,6,7
Maye
4,18),5,6A,7 ing)
Lauffmann
2,4,5,7
down)
Adams
6,7
whis
Vinson
456
tiggs
5,7
vatimel
W
sanratio
dits CEG (8) 754,32
relle D
Poole
Pl
sealaktip
Handwerger
HJ,E/L
w
Mitchell
B
t
Lulus,
Tropp
AN
IC
what
Frote
zani I 1
print
PALIE ,(8) 4
just
Knisely Hom P
number
Barkir
Pid
[
amahl
Hilbert
Lergian unnil
Remirgton PIC
Quartel your
25
copies
>
PRESIDENT'S CLEMENCY PROGRAM
GERÄLD FORD
SEPARATION POLICY
1. Appendix 2 (Separation Policy) to Annex C (Personnel) to letter
DAPE-HR, HQDA, 18 September 1974, subject: LOI-Implementation of
Presidential Proclamation No. 4313, directed that the Commander,
Fort Benjamin Harrison, forward recommendations for other than
Undesirable Discharges under the President's Clemency Program to
Department of the Army for final action.
2. When the LOI was promulgated, there was no way to predict the
workload related to other than Undesirable Discharges or the prime
conditions meriting such alternate types of discharges. During
the first 45 days of the Clemency Program, it became apparent,
however, that for the duration of the Program, final determination
for other than Undesirable Discharges could better be made at Fort
Harrison for the following reasons:
a. The individual concerned was present for interview.
b. Individual records were located at the USA Enlisted
Records Center, Fort Benjamin Harrison.
C. Medical and legal implications could be reviewed
locally and in concert with the individual absentee.
d. The DOD Joint Alternate Service Board could offer
first hand recommendations to the Commander, ADMINCEN, in those
cases which merited special attention.
e. Delegation of authority to Commander, ADMINCEN, to
award other than Undesirable Discharges to absentees under the
Clemency Program would expedite decisions and insure uniformity
and consistency in processing.
3. Based on the rationale in paragraph 2 above, request was made
on 30 October 1974 and authority granted on 21 November 1974 for
Commander, ADMINCEN, to issue other than Undesirable Discharges
under the Clemency Program. Under this authority, 46 discharges
under the Clemency Program were issued between 16 September 1974
and 31 March 1975. Character of discharge and reasons for each
determination are summarized below; absentees' names have been
omitted to protect the personal privacy of the individuals con-
cerned:
14
CHARACTER OF
DISCHARGE
REASON(S)*
CHARA
Under age when enlisted in Army; applied for
DISC
Honorable
minority discharge but went AWOL although
Gen
discharge had apparently been approved.
Honorable
No supportable evidence; also served in RVN
and awarded CIB, VSM, GCMDL.
Gene
Honorable
Under age when enlisted; minority discharge.
Honorable
Applied for a Hardship Discharge but went
Gene
AWOL although it had been approved.
Honorable
Meritorious service; 7 yrs total SVC, served
in RVN as Door Gunner and awarded AM, ACB, CIB,
Gene
GCMDL, VSM, total of 4 1/2 years in RVN.
Gene
General
Meritorious service; 4 years total SVC, served
in RVN and awarded ARCOM, PH, VSM.
General
Should not have been inducted because of a
psychiatric problem.
Gene
General
Meritorious service; 7 years total SVC, served
in RVN 2 years and awarded BSM w/V, ARCOM w/10LC,
Gene
AM, GCMDL, CIB, VSM, VCM.
General
Absentee's brother killed in RVN, other brother
Gene
killed in car accident. Absentee was not in-
formed that he would have to waiver sole sur-
Gene
viving son restriction and went AWOL. Had 5
years, 5 months active Federal service.
Gene
General
Admin failure; served well beyond ETS because
medical and admin tie-ups. Had 9 years service
w/76 months in Germany and 11 months in Korea.
Gene:
General
No supportable evidence.
Cene
General
Meritorious service; 3 years total SVC, served
in RVN and awarded BSM w/10LC, ARCOM, AM, RVN
Cross of Gal.
Cene
General
Meritorious service and medical reasons; 2 yrs
Gener
total service, served in RVN and awarded PH, VSM.
General
Erroneous induction (mentally retardate).
Cener
15
CHARACTER OF
DISCHARGE
REASON (S)
General
Medical problem (enuresis) was ignored and he
was inducted although unsuitable for military
service.
General
No supportable evidence and admin failure; indi-
vidual was given written orders to go home and
await a port call.
General
Meritorious service; 2 years total service,
served 1 1/2 years in RVN and awarded ARCOM,
VSM, VCM.
General
Erroneous induction/combat service and wounds.
General
Meritorious service; 2 yrs total service, served
in RVN and awarded PH, VSM, VCM. Claimed he was
told to go home and await for orders which were
never forwarded.
General
No supportable evidence. Told to go home and
await orders which were never forwarded.
General
No supportable evidence. Told to go home and
await orders which were never forwarded.
General
No supportable evidence.
General
Hardship discharge was approved but individual
not informed and went AWOL eight days later.
General
Meritorious service; 17 years total service,
served in RVN and awarded BSM w/V, CMB, VSM, VCM.
General
Should have been previously discharged for medi-
cal and/or psychiatric reasons (unsuitable).
General
Erroneous induction; not medically qualified
for military service.
General
Held beyond ETS due to administrative failure.
General
No supportable evidence. Also was awarded BSM
w/V, PH, ARCOM.
General
Held beyond ETS for medical reasons (wounded
in RVN).
16
CHARACTER OF
DISCHARGE
REASON
CHA
General
No supportable evidence.
DI
General
Erroneous induction; should not have been
Und
inducted due to extreme family hardship.
General
Past administrative failure; told to go home
and await orders which were never forwarded.
General
Past administrative failure; told to go home
and await orders which were never forwarded.
required
86,
General
Meritorious service; 5 years total service,
served in RVN and awarded BSM w/V, ARCOM w/V,
CIB. Also told to go home and await orders
awar
which were never forwarded.
File
envi
General
Meritorious service; 7 years total service,
served in RVN and awarded SS, AM, ARCOM, CMB,
GCMDL.
admi
cont
General
Meritorious service; 1 year total service,
inst
served in RVN and awarded PH. Also told to go
in c
home and await orders which were never forwarded.
Stat
General
Meritorious service; 1 year total service,
Addi
served in RVN and awarded SS, BSM, CIB, VSM.
by H
bring
General
No supportable evidence; told to go home and
Discl
await orders which were never forwarded.
General
Meritorious service; 2 years total service,
served in RVN and awarded SS, ARCOM w/10LC,
GCMDL, 6 0/S Bars.
General
Meritorious service; 12 years total service,
served in RVN and awarded ARCOM, VCM, GCMDL,
4 0/S Bars.
General
Hardship/dependency discharge erroneously denied/
had 1 year total service, served in RVN and
awarded CIB, PH, VCM.
General
Meritorious service/past admin failure. Served
in RVN and awarded PH, CIB.
Admin Separation
Erroneous induction (minority discharge).
17
CHARACTER OF
DISCHARGE
REASON (S)
Undesirable
Given U/D in best interest of govt because she
had a legal defense to AWOL in that she was
under military control during a portion of the
AWOL period.
*a. "No supportable evidence" indicates a lack of
required legal documentation to prove violation of Articles 85,
86, 87, and related offenses under UCMJ.
b. "Meritorious service" designated as reason for
award of discharge when the absentee's Official Military Personnel
1
Files substantiated overall outstanding performance in a combat
environment.
C. "Administrative failure" denotes cases in which
administrative errors of omission or commission significantly
contributed to absentee's reason for unauthorized absence, or
instances in which military authorities clearly failed to act
in consonance with applicable service regulations or United
States Statutes.
Additionally, one Marine absentee was awarded a General Discharge
by Headquarters, Marine Corps due to a medical/physical disability
bringing the total of absentees awarded other than Undesirable
Discharges under the Clemency Program to 47 individuals.
18
The following is extracted from LOI for information only:
APPENDIX 2 (Separation Policy) to Annex C (Personnel)
1
SEPARATION POLICY
H
*
L
*
*
*
*
*
*
t
H.
2. Officer Personnel
A
t.
a. Upon completion of required processing and statements, all
eligible commissioned and warrant officers resignations in lieu
2
of court-martial will be accepted. They are to be furnished a
t
Discharge Certificate (Under other Than Honorable Conditions),
3
DD Form 794A.
0
0
b. In the preparation of separation orders, the standard order
m
format (TC 350 for Regular Army Officers; TC 351 for Reserve Offi-
B
cers) will be followed. The "Authority" lead line will include
a
Presidential Proclamation No 4314 and Sec Def Memo Subject: Imple-
mentation of Presidential Proclamation No. 4314, 16 September 1974. "
Authority lead will also include "By Direction of the President"
for officers and "By Direction of the Secretary of the Army" for
Warrant Officers.
c. Preparation of DD Form 214 will be accomplished as
described in
(same as for enlisted personnel).
"
d
H
P
19
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
PRESIDENT'S CLEMENCY PROGRAM
SEPARATION POLICY
1. Appendix 2 (Separation Policy) to Annex C (Personnel) to letter
DAPE-HR, HQDA, 18 September 1974, subject: LOI-Implementation of
Presidential Proclamation No. 4313, directed that the Commander,
Fort Benjamin Harrison, forward recommendations for other than
Undesirable Discharges under the President's Clemency Program to
Department of the Army for final action.
2. When the LOI was promulgated, there was no way to predict the
workload related to other than Undesirable Discharges or the prime
conditions meriting such alternate types of discharges. During
the first 45 days of the Clemency Program, it became apparent,
however, that for the duration of the Program, final determination
for other than Undesirable Discharges could better be made at Fort
Harrison for the following reasons:
a. The individual concerned was present for interview.
b. Individual records were located at the USA Enlisted
Records Center, Fort Benjamin Harrison.
C. Medical and legal implications could be reviewed
locally and in concert with the individual absentee.
d. The DOD Joint Alternate Service Board could offer
first hand recommendations to the Commander, ADMINCEN, in those
cases which merited special attention.
e. Delegation of authority to Commander, ADMINCEN, to
award other than Undesirable Discharges to absentees under the
Clemency Program would expedite decisions and insure uniformity
and consistency in processing.
3. Based on the rationale in paragraph 2 above, request was made
on 30 October 1974 and authority granted on 21 November 1974 for
Commander, ADMINCEN, to issue other than Undesirable Discharges
under the Clemency Program. Under this authori ty, 46 discharges
under the Clemency Program were issued between 16 September 1974
and 31 March 1975. Character of discharge and reasons for each
determination are summarized below; absentees' names have been
omitted to protect the personal privacy of the individuals con-
cerned:
14
CHARACTER OF
DISCHARGE
REASON(S)*
CHARA
Under age when enlisted in Army; applied for
DISC
Honorable
minority discharge but went AWOL although
Gen
discharge had apparently been approved.
Honorable
No supportable evidence; also served in RVN
and awarded CIB, VSM, GCMDL.
Gen
Honorable
Under age when enlisted; minority discharge.
Honorable
Applied for a Hardship Discharge but went
Gene
AWOL although it had been approved.
Honorable
Meritorious service; 7 yrs total SVC, served
in RVN as Door Gunner and awarded AM, ACB, CIB,
Gene
GCMDL, VSM, total of 4 1/2 years in RVN.
Gene
General
Meritorious service; 4 years total svc, served
in RVN and awarded ARCOM, PH, VSM.
General
Should not have been inducted because of a
psychiatric problem.
Gene
General
Meritorious service; 7 years total SVC, served
in RVN 2 years and awarded BSM w/V, ARCOM w/10LC,
Gene
AM, GCMDL, CIB, VSM, VCM.
General
Absentee's brother killed in RVN, other brother
Gene
killed in car accident. Absentee was not in-
formed that he would have to waiver sole sur-
Gene
viving son restriction and went AWOL. Had 5
years, 5 months active Federal service.
Gene
General
Admin failure; served well beyond ETS because
medical and admin tie-ups. Had 9 years service
w/76 months in Germany and 11 months in Korea.
Gene
General
No supportable evidence.
Gene
General
Meritorious service; 3 years total SVC, served
in RVN and awarded BSM w/10LC, ARCOM, AM, RVN
Cross of Gal.
Gene
General
Meritorious service and medical reasons; 2 yrs
Gene
total service, served in RVN and awarded PH, VSM.
General
Erroneous induction (mentally retardate).
Gene
15
CHARACTER OF
DISCHARGE
REASON (S)
General
Medical problem (enuresis) was ignored and he
was inducted although unsuitable for military
service.
General
No supportable evidence and admin failure; indi-
vidual was given written orders to go home and
await a port call.
General
Meritorious service; 2 years total service,
served 1 1/2 years in RVN and awarded ARCOM,
VSM, VCM.
General
Erroneous induction/combat service and wounds.
General
Meritorious service; 2 yrs total service, served
in RVN and awarded PH, VSM, VCM. Claimed he was
told to go home and await for orders which were
never forwarded.
General
No supportable evidence. Told to go home and
await orders which were never forwarded.
General
No supportable evidence. Told to go home and
await orders which were never forwarded.
General
No supportable evidence.
General
Hardship discharge was approved but individual
not informed and went AWOL eight days later.
General
Meritorious service; 17 years total service,
served in RVN and awarded BSM w/V, CMB, VSM, VCM.
General
Should have been previously discharged for medi-
cal and/or psychiatric reasons (unsuitable).
General
Erroneous induction; not medically qualified
for military service.
General
Held beyond ETS due to administrative failure.
General
No supportable evidence. Also was awarded BSM
w/V, PH, ARCOM.
General
Held beyond ETS for medical reasons (wounded
in RVN).
16
CHARACTER OF
DISCHARGE
REASON (S)
CHA
General
No supportable evidence.
DI
General
Erroneous induction; should not have been
Und
inducted due to extreme family hardship.
General
Past administrative failure; told to go home
and await orders which were never forwarded.
General
Past administrative failure; told to go home
and await orders which were never forwarded.
requ
86,
General
Meritorious service; 5 years total service,
served in RVN and awarded BSM w/V, ARCOM w/V,
CIB. Also told to go home and await orders
awai
which were never forwarded.
File
envi
General
Meritorious service; 7 years total service,
served in RVN and awarded SS, AM, ARCOM, CMB,
GCMDL.
admi
cont
General
Meritorious service; 1 year total service,
inst
served in RVN and awarded PH. Also told to go
in C
home and await orders which were never forwarded.
Stat
General
Meritorious service; 1 year total service,
Addi
served in RVN and awarded SS, BSM, CIB, VSM.
by H
brin
General
No supportable evidence; told to go home and
Disc
await orders which were never forwarded.
General
Meritorious service; 2 years total service,
served in RVN and awarded SS, ARCOM w/10LC,
GCMDL, 6 0/S Bars.
General
Meritorious service; 12 years total service,
served in RVN and awarded ARCOM, VCM, GCMDL,
4 0/S Bars.
General
Hardship/dependency discharge erroneously denied/
had 1 year total service, served in RVN and
awarded CIB, PH, VCM.
General
Meritorious service/past admin failure. Served
in RVN and awarded PH, CIB.
Admin Separation
Erroneous induction (minority discharge).
17
CHARACTER OF
DISCHARGE
REASON (S)
Undesirable
Given U/D in best interest of govt because she
had a legal defense to AWOL in that she was
under military control during a portion of the
AWOL period.
*a. "No supportable evidence" indicates a lack of
required legal documentation to prove violation of Articles 85,
86, 87, and related offenses under UCMJ.
b. "Meritorious service" designated as reason for
award of discharge when the absentee's Official Military Personnel
1
Files substantiated overall outstanding performance in a combat
environment.
C. "Administrative failure" denotes cases in which
administrative errors of omission or commission significantly
contributed to absentee's reason for unauthorized absence, or
instances in which military authorities clearly failed to act
in consonance with applicable service regulations or United
States Statutes.
Additionally, one Marine absentee was awarded a General Discharge
by Headquarters, Marine Corps due to a medical/physical disability
bringing the total of absentees awarded other than Undesirable
Discharges under the Clemency Program to 47 individuals.
18
The following is extracted from LOI for information only:
APPENDIX 2 (Separation Policy) to Annex C (Personnel)
1.
SEPARATION POLICY
Hei
LO
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ti,
Ha
2. Officer Personnel
Ar:
th
a. Upon completion of required processing and statements, all
eligible commissioned and warrant officers resignations in lieu
2.
of court-martial will be accepted. They are to be furnished a
to
Discharge Certificate (Under other Than Honorable Conditions),
we
DD Form 794A.
of
of
b. In the preparation of separation orders, the standard order
ma
format (TC 350 for Regular Army Officers; TC 351 for Reserve Offi-
Bo
cers) will be followed. The "Authority" lead line will include
ap
Presidential Proclamation No 4314 and Sec Def Memo Subject: Imple-
mentation of Presidential Proclamation No. 4314, 16 September 1974."
Authority lead will also include "By Direction of the President"
for officers and "By Direction of the Secretary of the Army" for
Warrant Officers.
c. Preparation of DD Form 214 will be accomplished as
described in
(same as for enlisted personnel).
"
d:
H
P
19
1. JORDAN
13
2. ADAMS
16
3. HESBURGH
22
4. LACY
27.5
5. MORROW
28.5
6. EVERHARD
29
7. MAYE
29.5
BERALD R. FORD LIBRARY
8. CRAIS
31.5
9. O'CONNOR
34.5
10. RIGGS
37
11. VINSON
39
12, PULLER
42
13. GOODEN
45.5
14. CARTER
49.5
15. DOVGOVITO
51
16. WALT
57.5
-
17. Fong
62.5
18. KAUFFMANN
67.5
GERALD LISAANY R. FORD
PARPON AS NC VB
TOT
AD
54 5.1 2,9 5.4
1
I 4.5 95
16
CR
41 5.6 4.7 59
10.5 7 9 5
31.5
Do
39 5.9 4.3 3.3
13.5 2 7.5 18
51
EV
48 5.2 5.7 5.2
3.5 2 12.5 11
29
Fo
35 6.6 8.6 4.1
165
16
16
14
62.5
60
48 5.7 7.2 3.6
3.5 10 15 SQ 17
45.5
HE
46 5.3 5.1 8.6
6.5 3.5 10 2
22
to
52 5.6 0.8 10.9
2
9
I
1
13
$
32 6.7 8.8 4.0
18 17.5 17 15
67.5
LA
46 5.6 1.5 5.0
6.5 7 2 12
27.5
MA
47 5.4 5.7 5.8
5 5. 12.5 7
29.5
MO
44 5.3 2.8 4.4
9 3.5 3 13
28.5
OC
40 5.9 2.9 5.9
12 12 4.5 b
34.5
PV
45 5.9 3.3 4.0
8 12 6 16
42
R1
41 6.2 4.3 6.4
10.5 15 7.5 4
37
VI
38 5.6 6.1 6.8
15 7 14 3
38
WA
39 6.7 8.9 5.4
B.5 17.5 18 9.5
57.5
CA
35 6.1 5.5 5.5
16.5 14 11 8
49.5
&
FORD
GERALD
1. Last September, President Ford announced a program of granting clemency
to specific groups of people. Who do you believe these people are?
(Answere as many as apply.)
WHO word
A. Draft evaders and deserters in Canada and other foreign
^
countries.
B. Draft evaders and deserters who were fugitives in this country.
C. People who protested against the war.
D. People who served in Viet Nam and got into trouble when
they came home.
E. Draft evaders and deserters who have been punished for
their offenses.
F. Watergate defendants.
2. Approximately 120,000 people were eligible for clemency under President
Ford's program, 5,000 of when applied before the March 31st. application
deadline. Most of those who applied had already been punished for their
draft evasion or desertion offenses. Their cases are being individually
reviewed, with about half being given immediate pardons and the rest offered
pardons after a few months of alternative service. Draft evaders and
deserters who had never been punished (including those who har gone to
Canada) are offered clemency after about two years of alternative service.
- 2 -
Which of the following statements best characterizes youropinion of the
President's clemency program?
A. I am not in favor of it, because nothing less than
unconditional amnesty is worth while.
B. I am not in favor of it; because it should be more generous.
C. I am in favor of it, but it should be more generous.
D. I am in favor of it as it is.
E. I am in favor of it, but it is too generous.
F. I am not in favor of it, because it is too generous.
G. I am not in favor of it, because there should not be any
program of clemency for draft evaders and deserters.
3. After clemency is granted to former draft evaders and deserters (most
of whom will have completed periods of alternative service), how will you
react to them?
A. I would respect them the same as I respect others in my
community.
B. I would respect them more than I respect others in my
community.
C. I would respect them less than I respect others in my
community.
- 3 -
How would you personnally react to them?
A. I would accept them as neighbors.
B. I would be happy to see them compete for job opportunities
equally with others in my community.
C. I would invite them into my home.
D. I would allow them to teach my children.
FORD is LIBRARY QERALD
lot
2 no
vote
vote
walt.
no
no
Riggs
no
no
Kauffmann
no
no
Lally
Yes
yes
Indan
yes
yes
Vinami
yes
yes
ford
yes
no
Carter
no
no
craig
yes
yes
maye
no
no
O'connor
yes
yes
Puller
yes
yes
Everhand
of
no
Goodell
no
no
6
8
8
6
14 Present
mation Defeated
upseading Cases
will require unanimous
vote in order to present
them
to the President
Only 12 or so of W's cases,
76
67 67-W w
rq
76 cases
67
9-0
# 1077 - w
// #4739-W 4739 -w
# -8725.D
1637 - W
4859-W
9622-W
2302 - W
4903-W
9637-W
2335 - w
4913-11
-9649-D
2415 - w
4920-W
10006-W
2419 - w
4927-W
10040 -W
2468 - W
4942-W
-11606-D.
2539 -W.
4956-W
13418-W
2.552-W 2552 - w
4977-W
14022-W
2803-W
- 5060-D-
14059-W
2806-W
5233-W
14488-W
3049-W
5387-W
14518-W
3/37-W
5505-W
3340-W
- 5708-D
- -3587-D.
- 5765-D
3681-W
6481-W
BERALOR FORD LIBRARY
3685-W
6794-W
3835-W
-6798-0
3860-W
6830-W
3898-W
7165-4/
4011-W
7332-W
4157-W
8 7940-W
4250-W
7600-W
4336-W
7919-W
4470-W
-7972-0
4566-W
8147-W
4598-W
-8/81-D
4642-W
8507-W
4671-W
8513-W
4689-W
8516-W
4702-W
8518-W
4737.W
8519-W
RECORDATION WORK SHEET
Date
#
Tape
Feet
Minutes
Docket
FORD
Ad Ag C D E Fi Fo G H
Panel
Full Board
JL Ma Mo 0 PRVW
GERALD
Case Number)
Attorney
Final Baseline
Aggravating Circumstances
Mitigating Circumstances
1 Other Criminal Convictions
1 Lack of sufficient education or ability
to understand obligation or other
2 False Statement to the PCB
remedies available under the law
3 Use of Force by applicant collaterally
2 Personal or immediate family problems
to AWOL, desertion, or missing movement
or civilian draft evasion offense
3 Mental or physical condition
4 Desertion during combat
4 Employment or service to, the public
5 Manipulative or selfish reasons
5 Service-connected disability
6 Prior refusal to fulfill alternative
6 Extended period of creditable military
service
service
7 Violation of probation or parole
7 Tours of service in war zone
8 Multiple AWOL/UA
8 Personal or procedural unfairness
7
9 AWOL/UA or extended length
months
9 Denial of C.O. status
10 Failure to report for overseas
10 Acted for conscientious reasons
assignment
11 Voluntarily submitted to authorities
11 Undesirable Discharge issued as a
-
consequence not only of AWOL but also
12 Mental stress in combat
-
as a result of other specified offenses
13 Volunteered for or had extended time
12-None of the above
in combat
14 Above average military conduct and
proficiency or unit citation
15 Personal Decorations for valor
16 Wounds in Combat
None of the above
BaseLine
3
OR
MONTHS
AGGRAVATING 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NONE
MITIGATING 123 4 5 6 7 8 910 11 12 13 14 15 16 NONE
Decision Mos A/S Straight pardon tabled give reason No Clemency
Remarks
SCRIBE
AWOL length. - last AWOL
#10 sincere reasons " no.
CASE NUMBER
TAPE
FT
IN
1-9
CARD
MITIGATING FACTORS
CARD
2
10
1
ATTORNEY
11-25
10
DATE
#
PANEL
1 Lack of Education
FOND
123
11
26-29
30-31
32
2 Personal Problem
GERALD
123 12
3 M/P Conditions
123 13
AGGRAVATING FACTORS
4 Employment Service
123 14
1 Convictions
123 33
5 Disability
123 15
2 False Statement
123 34
3 Use of Force
123 35
6 Creditable Service
123 16
4 Combat Desertion
123 36
7 War Zone Tours
123 17
5 Selfish Reasons
123 37
8 Evidence of Unfair
123 18
6 A/S Refusal
123 38
9 Denial of CO Status
123 19
7 Probation/Parole V.
123 39
10 Conscientious Reasons
123 20
8 Multiple AWOL
123 40
11 Voluntarily Submitted
123 21
9 Extended AWOL
123 41
12 Mental Stress
123 22
10 Failure of O/A
123 42
13 Combat Volunteer
123 23
11
123 43
14 +Pro/+Con + Cites
123 24
12
12344
15 Decorations
123 25
13
123 45
16 Wounds
123 26
14
123 46
17
123 27
15
123 47
18
123 28
16
12348
19
123 29
17
123 49
20
123 30
18
123 50
21
123 31
19
123
51
22
123 32
20 None of the Above
123 52
23
123 33
24
123 34
FINAL BASELINE
53-54
25
123 35
APPEAL (Y,N)
55
26 None of the Above
123 3 36
DISPOSITION (P,A,M,T,R,S,C)
56
MONTHS A/S
57,58
BOARD MEMBERS
Goodell
123 3 37
Kauffmann
12346
123 55
Adams
12338
Craig
12347
12356
Dougavito
123 39
Everhard
12348
12357
Finch
123 40
Ford
12 3 49
123 58
Hesburgh
123 41
Lally
12350
123 59
Jordan
123 42
Morrow
12 3 51
12360
Maye
12343
Puller
12 3 52
12361
O'Connor
12344
Riggs
12 3 53
12362
Walt
12345
Vinson
12 3 54
12363
REMARKS
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
SOFTBALL SCHEDULE
Wednesday, May 7
Rosebell
Bureau of will bither Social Science Research
Ellipse
be
Check Edwards -
Wednesday, May 14
6:30
Congressman Peyser
/
Tyler School
Wednesday, May 21
Architects of U.S. Capitol
Ellipse
Wednesday, May 28
Sen. Republican Policy Committee
E. Potomac #2
Wednesday, June 4
Senator Taft
Ellipse
Wednesday, June 1.1
Open
Wednesday, June 18
Senator Helms
GERALD R. FORD
Tyler School
Ellipse
Wednesday, June 25
Senator Beall
Tyler School
Wednesday, July 2
Senator Jackson
Ellipse
Wednesday, July 9
CIEP-White House
Tyler School
Wednesday, July 16
Senator Charles Mathias, Jr.
Ellipse
Tuesday, July 22
Senator Bayh
Rose Park Field
Wednesday, July 23
Open
Tyler School
Wednesday, July 30
AMTRAK
Ellipse
Tuesday, August 5
Sen. Stone
Anacostia #4
Wednesday, August 6
Sen. Sparkman
Tyler School
Wednesday, August 13
Sen. Abourezk
Ellipse
Wednesday, August 20
Senator Hathaway
Tyler School
Wednesday, August 27
Republican National Committee
Ellipse
NOTE: Tyler School located at 10th & G Sts., S.E.
Rose Park Field located at 26th & O St., N.W.
E. Potomac #2 located near Jefferson Memorial
Anacostia #4 located off Penn. Avenue just past I-295 overpass.
FORD & LIBRARY
P.C.B
VETERANS
BENEFITS
okton
"Well, the majority blew it again."
to Chas 9.
tided
WITHDRAWAL SHEET (PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARIES)
FORM OF
CORRESPONDENTS OR TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
DOCUMENT
Notes
Typed notes regarding panel member, author unknown, 1 page.
N.D.
C
File Location:
Charles Goodell Papers, Box 8, Folder: "Miscellaneous" SMD - - 7/8/2015
RESTRICTION CODES
(A) Closed by applicable Executive order governing access to national security information.
(B) Closed by statute or by the agency which originated the document.
(C) Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in the donor's deed of gift.
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
NA FORM 1429 (1-98)
Ricks conslusions:
1
Public will accept
clemency
2
Approval + satisfaction
follows beel curve
from farnable to
informable $
FORD 118
GERALD
$
3
Higher educ. is
more generous
4
Vets marginally
less generous
S
Non + viet vets are
Same or more (+) than
vets.
BACK
6
VFW is not very
rep. of its total
pogulation
3.
19
Vets
vit
Non
Vets
Vets
Parton w/
50
SI
52
47
alt sew.
Uncond.
An.
20
17
19
25
No
23
25
25
20
clem.
I
Non wet magically
better (+) than ver.
2
Unit vet same us
total vet.
4.
Extend deadline
T Va Vit
IA
&V+
Non
Vet
Y
44
41
46
51
Z
50
53
50
43
I
Non vet is more
(+) than vet by
large %
2
Mone(+) among
yours + college
5
Uit wet more (+ than
vet. as whole
5:- Welcome
TIV
VV
NV
No
Less
13
15
12
10
14
More
5
5
7
4
6
Same
77
75
77
80
80
you
1
V.Vet (++)than public
at large
2
Ifadd "more"t "same"
85% will be (+)
holly Emerge 100
72% heard of clem. prog,
76% of the 72% - fugitives
college rous. -twice as often do non fagitive
17% w/ served in VN of deserted.
18% w/ convicted & punished,
VN Vets same as non vets,
Marginally more acceptable,
85% - will welcome - same
or more respect,
79% + 6%.
BERIALD F. FORD LIBRAS
WITHDRAWAL SHEET (PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARIES)
FORM OF
CORRESPONDENTS OR TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
DOCUMENT
Note
Handwritten notes, 1 page
N.D.
C
File Location:
Charles Goodell Papers, Box 8, Folder: "Miscellaneous" SMD - 7/8/2015
RESTRICTION CODES
(A) Closed by applicable Executive order governing access to national security information.
(B) Closed by statute or by the agency which originated the document.
(C) Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in the donor's deed of gift.
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
NA FORM 1429 (1-98)
GROSS
REMAIN To BE HEARD
AS OF
TYPE OF
TOTAL
ALREADY
CASE
NUMBER
HEARD
By PANEL
BY FULL BD.
8/25
TABLED
500
345
155
CASES
(+50)
(+50)
1.
8/25
FULL BD.
631
452
179
CASES
(+90)
(+90)
2.
8/25
VA/UP
360
205
155
CASES
(+36)
(+36)
3,
8/25
FLAGGED
167 NO DECISION CEG
5
70
(+500)
4.
PERSONAL
25
5
GERALD FORD
20
8/25
APPEARANCE
5.
8/19
RECONSIDER-
300
180
120
ATION
(1400)
(+400)
6,
(NEW (NFORMATAN)
8/25
No
66
36
30
JURIS/JURIS
7.
8/25
UNWRITABLE
750
120 REG.
(500 No INFO)
130 P/P*
8.
8/25
REGULAR
1750
1750
PANEL
9.
8/25
APPEAL
11
RECENSIDER-
10.
ATION
(+1000)
(+1000)
TOTAL
269
1990
(1450)
INCLUDED IN 1750
FOR THIS
week
SPECIAL
PANEL ) VA/UPGRADE OR PURPLE PANEL
19 CASES:
(Au SUMMARIES IN HAND)
33%
26 PROBABLY ELIGIBLE For UPURAGE/BENEFITS (1.6., THE No EVIDENCE CONTRARY )
25%
20 QUESTIONABLE
42%
33
LESS THAN 180 DAYS Good TIME; INELIGIE For BENEFITS
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
210 - <180
212 - 5180
29 CASE)
213 - 5180
12 E
217 - ELIGBLE
5 ME
219- - ELIGIBLE
12 IE < 180
220- 1 M.E., Lowplc
221 - ELIGIBLE
223 - ELIGIBLE
224 - ELIGIBLE
227 - <180
228 - EUGBLE
232 - <1.80
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
237 - ELIGIBLE
239 - (1.80
240. - 4.80
243- <1.80
244 - M.E., OTHER OFFENSE
245- - cl.go
247 - ELIGIBLE
249 - <1.80
250-M.e; MIXED p/c
251 - ELIGIBLE
252- - M.E., OTHER offense
253 - TIME UNCLEAR; MIXED P/C
254 - ELIGIBLE
256- <180
257- ELIGIBLE
258- - ELIGIBLE
260- - 4/80
DAYS SPENT BY CHAIRMAN GOODELL ON CLEMENCY BOARD ACTIVITIES.
September
17
18
19
20
23
24
25
26
27
30
10 days
October
2
3
4
7
8
9
FORD is LIBRARY OFRALD
10
14
15
18
21
22
23
24
25
29
30
31
18 days
November
1
4
5
6
7
8
11
14
15
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
26
27
29
19 days
CEG DAY, cont'd.
2
December
2
4
5
6
7
5 days
TOTAL
52 days
President Ford's clemency program for Vietnam-era
draft evaders and deserters has certain problem areas. We
GERALD R. FORD
have outlined them in general terms and proposed solutions
in this memo. And in addition, we have noted various other
steps that should be implemented to improve the program and
give it the appearance of being more fair.
1. As we understand the program from reports in
the local newspapers this week, the length of alternative
service for the resister is to be determined by the U. S.
Attorney in each judicial district with "central guidelines"
laid down by the Deputy Attorney General.
This approach only partially minimizes one of
the major problems of the pre-clemency program system: grossly
unequal prosecution depending on the prosecutorial philosophy
of the individual U. S. Attorney.
It is our view that prosecutors, as such, should
not be adjudicators of the lengths of alternative service.
Even with central guidelines, which presumably guide their
exercise of discretion in all cases, unreasonable disparities
can occur.
We believe that it would be preferable for a
quaf$-judicial body of nationwide jurisdiction to be available
2.
to review the length of alternative service for resisters
who choose to accept this clemency. Such a body would in-
sure uniformity in alternative service terms. Justice
Department guidelines, even if issued as regulations, would
not do this without some provision for review.
The above comments are equally applicable
to the manner of implementing the clemency program in the
military departments. One board should be established to
review the terms of alternative service of the deserters
seeking clemency.
In our view, these boards should include
persons who are not Justice or military department officials
thereby de-emphasizing the law-enforcement influence.
2. Many resisters seeking clemency may not need
it; they may not have violated the selective service law.
Others may fear the consequences of disclosing themselves
for any number of reasons.
We believe that a public defender service
should be established for those persons who cannot afford
an attorney so that they can be adequately advised of their
legal rights. This problem underscores our point that pro-
secutors should not be adjudicators of clemency. The
3.
prosecutor's function is, by its nature, inconsistent with
the interests of the person seeking clemency. This problem
may be greater or worse for deserters depending on whether
the military would provide them with free legal advice not
subject to command pressure.
In either case the right to counsel, appointed by
the "court," must be insured and as probably a constitutional
Dequirement See, for example, Betonic 5. Sigemore, 496 F. 2/10017
3. This program leads us to conclude that, even if (5th Cir. 1974).
it were to work fairly, it gives the appearance of working
unfairly in the ways we mentioned above.
Beyond the steps we recommended above, we intend to
attempt to interest the American Bar Association in setting
up a project to monitor the adminis tration of this clemency
program and to provide counsel to young men seeking infor-
mation and legal advice on the clemency program. To be
meaningful, such a program would require much cooperation
from the Government. Funding might also be necessary,
perhaps from LEAA.
For a general discussion on an accused's right to
councel, see Argersinger 6. Hamlen, 407 U.S. 25,
925.0%2006, 32L Ed. 2d 530 (1972).
as 8 this Am- straws said
Total cases:
15,468
of these -
- 910
preased by
other agency
GERALD R. FORD
Total PCB
will have revered 14,558 14,
President has
5376
2402
Has signid
PREPARATION OF PRESIDENTIAL PACKETS
Initial Decision
Verification
i:
Presidential
Proofreading
Certification and Warrants
Approval
(11,921)
(4008/4774)
(1850/2829)
(842/2080)
( /
)
857
2409
1032
Panels
Verification
103
Proofreading
Warrants
White House
&
Preparation &
Letter Typing
Certification
767 returned;
net = 264
( 1 )
( 195,
(337/245)
Board Member
CEG Review
Full Boards
Holds
(76 )
(0)
( 5)
Atty. Holds
LMB Review
Personal Appearance
(3946)
( 299 )
Process
+
Computer
Strauss Review
as of C.O. B
(342)
(0/0)
VA Benefits
Holds
Special Panel
GERALD FORD ?
Friday, 8 aug
(610 )
H
No Clemency
Notes
Cases
r Jack estimates moving 1550 to Leone
(387)
during week ending 8/15.
Tabled Cases
2
On 8/12, computer will release 800
Holds
Review of Holds
Final Decision
to Jack + send 200 to Toby for review
REVIEW OF DECISIONS
41351
rules and regulations
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents having general applicability and legal effect most of which are
keyed to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL
REGISTER issue of each month.
Title 2-Clemency
Finally, it cannot be too often stated
should be submitted in five (5) copies,
CHAPTER II-PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY
that an applicant may apply to the
and directed to:
BOARD
Clemency Board without risk. His appli-
Office of the General Counsel
cation will be held in confidence, and he
PART 201-ADMINISTRATIVE
Presidential Clemency Board
may withdraw his application at any
The White House
PROCEDURES
time.
Washington, D.C. 20500
PART 202--SUBSTANTIVE STANDARDS
It is the intent of the Presidential
(Executive Order 11803, 39 FR 33297)
OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY
Clemency Board to provide notice to ap-
BOARD
plicants, and to maximize public cer-
In consideration of the foregoing, this
tainty and predictability, about the sub-
chapter will become effective imme-
Procedures and Standards
stantive standards which the Board will
diately.
In order to accommodate new regula-
apply in recommending to the President
Issued in Washington, D.C., on Novem-
tions being issued by the Presidential
proposed dispositions of applications for
ber 25, 1974.
Clemency Board, the heading of Title
executive clemency under Proclamation
2 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
4313 (published in the FEDERAL REGISTER
CHARLES E. GOODELL,
changed to read: Title 2-Clemency. In
on September 17, 1974, 39 FR 33293). It
Chairman,
addition, a new Chapter II, Presidential
is further the intent of the Board to
Presidential Clemency Board.
Clemency Board, is added, reading as
ensure equity and consistency in the way
1. Part 201 is added to read as follows:
set forth below.
that similarly situated applicants are
Sec.
This notice of rulemaking sets forth in
treated.
201.1
Purpose and scope.
Part 201 the administrative procedures
The Presidential Clemency Board
201.2
General definitions.
and in Part 202 the substantive stand-
therefore herein publishes the substan-
201.3
Initial filing.
ards to be used by the Presidential Clem-
tive standards to which it has committed
201.4
Application form.
ency Board (hereinafter "the Board")
itself in the implementation of the
201.5
Assignment of Action Attorney and
in accepting and processing applications
clemency program. Applicants for execu-
case number, and determination of
from individuals subject to the juris-
tive clemency under the program are in-
jurisdiction.
201.6
diction of the Board and in the deter-
vited to submit evidence suggesting that
Initial summary.
201.7
Final summary.
mination of its recommendations to the
one or more of the mitigating circum-
201.8
Consideration before the Board.
President concerning those individuals.
stances listed below apply to their case,
201.9
Recommendations to the President.
The Presidential Clemency Board has
or that one or more of the aggravating
201.10
Reconsideration.
made every reasonable effort to assure
circumstances listed do not apply to their
201.11
Referral to appropriate agencies.
case. Applicants are also invited to sub-
201.12
to both applicants and those individ-
Confidentiality of communications.
mit letters from third parties containing
201.13
Representation before the Board.
uals who may be subject to the jurisdic-
201.14
such evidence, or to ask other people to
Requests for information about the
tion of any of the three parts of the
clemency program.
Presidential clemency program every
write directly to the Board on their
Appendix A.
procedural consideration. Applicants will
behalf.
Appendix B.
be sent notice concerning the procedures
It is contemplated that the Board will
weigh the factors listed below in each
AUTHORITY: E.O. 11803, 39 FR 33297.
and standards used by the Board; their
privacy will be respected in every way
individual case. It is not contemplated,
§ 201.1 Purpose and scope.
possible within the bounds of the law.
however, that any one of these factors
This subpart contains the regulations
All information concerning the applicant
will necessarily be dispositive of a partic-
of the Presidential Clemency Board,
which is sought by the Board from gov-
ular case, and the Board reserves the
created pursuant to Executive Order
ernmental sources will be open to inspec-
option of considering other factors in
11803 (39 FR 33297) concerning the pro-
tion by the applicant or his representa-
mitigation not listed herein to be disposi-
cedures by which the Board will accept
tive. The records and files concerning the
tive of a particular case.
and process applications from individ-
applicant will be summarized by an at-
Actions taken and determinations
uals who avail themselves of the oppor-
torney on the staff of the Board, and
made by the Presidential Clemency
tunity to come within its jurisdiction.
sent to the applicant for his amendment
Board and members of the Board's staff
Certain other matters are also treated,
and correction. A sure process for the
prior to the issuance of these regulations
such as the assistance to be given to in-
appeal of adverse determinations has
have been in substantial compliance with
dividuals requesting determinations of
been established. In the Board's discre-
the provisions thereof.
jurisdiction, or requesting information
tion, the applicant or his representative
Because of the short duration of the
respecting those parts of the Presidential
may be allowed to persent an oral state-
Presidential clemency program, and for
ment to the Board prior to its determina-
other good cause appearing, it is hereby
Clemency Program which are adminis-
tion of his case. Each applicant will have
determined that publication of this
tered by the Department of Defense and
an opportunity to petition for recon-
chapter in accordance with normal rule-
the Department of Justice under Presi-
sideration of the decision to recommend,
making procedure is impracticable and
dential Proclamation 4313 (39 FR
grant, or deny executive clemency in his
that good cause exists for making these
33293).
regulations effective in less than thirty
case.
Individuals who may be subject to the
(30) days. Notwithstanding the abbrevi-
§ 201.2 General definitions.
jurisdiction of the Department of Jus-
ated rulemaking procedure, however,
"Action attorney" means an attorney
tice or the Departments of Defense or
comments and views regarding the pro-
on the staff of the Board who is assigned
Transportation will be assisted in con-
posed chapter are solicited, and may be
an applicant's case and is thereafter
fidence in determining their status with
filed to be received no later than 5 p.m.
responsible for all information-gathering
respect to the clemency program.
d.s.t., December 12, 1974. Comments
and communications concerning that
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 230-WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1974
41352
RULES AND REGULATIONS
applicant's case from the applicant's
torney determines that the Board has
complete, or misleading information in
initial filing until final disposition has
jurisdiction over the applicant, a file for
the complete Board file.
been made by the Board.
the applicant's case will be opened and
(d) An applicant's case will be con-
"Applicant" means an individual who
a case mumber for that file will be as-
sidered ready for consideration by the
is subject to the jurisdiction of the
signed. With the opening of the file, the
Board not earlier than twenty (20) days
Board, and who has submitted an initial
Action Attorney shall request from all
after the initial summary has been re-
filing.
appropriate government agencies the
celved by the applicant. Material which
"Board" means the Presidential
relevant records and files pertaining to
amends or supplements the applicant's
Clemency Board as created by Executive
the applicant's case before the Board.
initial summary must therefore be re-
Order 11803, or any successor agencies.
(b) In normal cases, the relevant
celved by the Board within twenty (20)
§ 201.3 Initial filing.
records and files will include for civilian
days to insure that it will be considered.
cases the applicant's files from the Selec-
unless within that period the applicant
In order to comply with the require-
tive Service System and the Bureau of
requests and receives permission for an
ments of Executive Order 11803 as to
Prisons, and for military cases the ap-
extension. Permission for late filing shall
timely application for consideration by
plicant's military personnel records,
be liberally granted, if the request is
the Board, an individual must make an
military clemency folder, and record of
received prior to Board action.
initial filing prior to January 31, 1975.
court martial. Applicants may request
The Board will consider sufficient as an
§ 201.7 Final summary.
that the Board consider other pertinent
initial filing any written communication
files, but such applicant-requested files
(a) Upon receipt of the applicant's re-
received from an individual or his repre-
will not be made available to the appli-
sponse to the initial summary, the Action
sentative which requests consideration
cant and his representative as of right.
Attorney will note such amendments,
of the individual's specific case or which
(c) Where the initial filing contains
supplements, or corrections on the ini-
demonstrates an intention to request
adequate information, Board staff may
tial summary as are indicated by the
consideration. Oral initial filings will be
assign a case number and request rec-
applicant.
considered sufficient if reduced to writ-
ords and files prior to receipt of the com-
(b) The final summary shall then con-
ing and received by the Board within
pleted application form.
sist of the initial summary with appro-
thirty (30) calendar days.
(d) If the Action Attorney determines
priate amendments and additions, and
that probable jurisdiction does not exist,
the summary of the materials submitted
§ 201.4 Application form.
he will promptly notify the applicant in
by the applicant as described in $ 201.6
(a) Upon receipt of an initial filing a
writing, stating the reasons therefor.
(b).
member of the Board's staff will make a
(e) An applicant who questions this
determination of probable jurisdiction.
§ 201.8 Consideration before the Board.
adverse determination of jurisdiction
Applicants who are clearly beyond the
should write the General Counsel of the
(a) At a regularly scheduled meeting
Board's jurisdiction will be so notified in
Board in accordance with the provisions
of the Presidential Clemency Board, a
writing. An applicant who questions this
c: $ 201.4(a).
quorum of at least five (5) members
adverse determination of probable juris-
being present, the Board will consider the
diction should promptly write the Gen-
§ 201.6 Initial summary.
applicant's case.
eral Counsel, Presidential Clemency
(a) Upon receipt of the necessary
(b) The Action Attorney will present
Board, The White House, Washington,
records and files, the Action Attorney
to the Board, a brief statement of the
D.C. 20500, stating his reasons for ques-
will prepare an initial summary of the
final summary of the applicant's case.
tioning the determination. The General
applicant's case. The files, records, and
The Action Attorney will then stand
Counsel of the Board shall make the final
any additional sources used in preparing
ready to answer from the complete file
determination of jurisdiction.
the initial summary will be noted there-
any questions from the members of the
(b) An applicant who has been noti-
upon; no material not so noted will be
Board concerning the applicant's case.
fied that probable jurisdiction does not
used in its preparation. The initial sum-
(c) At the Board's discretion, it may
lie in his case will be considered as hav-
mary shall include the name and busi-
permit an applicant or his representative
ing made a timely filing should the
ness telephone number of the Action At-
to present before the Board an oral state-
final decision be that the Board has
torney who prepared it, and who may be
ment, not to exceed ten (10) minutes in
jurisdiction over his case.
contacted by the applicant or his repre-
length. Neither applicant nor his rep-
(c) Applicants who are within the
sentative.
resentative may be present when the
probable jurisdiction of the Board will
(b) The Initial summary shall be sent
Board begins deliberations, but should
be sent by mail:
by certified mail to the applicant. The
remain available for further consulta-
(1) An application form (see appendix
summary will be accompanied by an in-
tion immediately thereafter for a period
"A"
struction sheet describing the method by
not to exceed one hour.
(2) Information about the Presiden-
which the summary was prepared, and
(d) After due deliberation, the Board
tial Clemency program and instructions
by a copy of the guidelines that have
will decide upon its recommendation to
for the preparation of the application
been adopted by the Board for the de-
the President concerning the applicant's
form (see appendix "B")
termination of cases. Applicants will be
case, stating the reasons for its recom-
(3) A statement describing the Board's
requested to review the initial summary
mendation.
procedures and method of determining
for accuracy and completeness, and ad-
§ 201.9 Recommendations to the Presi-
cases.
vised of their right to submit additional
dent.
(d) The applicant will be urged to re-
sworn or unsworn material. Such addi-
turn the completed application form to
tional material may be submitted in any
(a) At appropriate intervals, the
length, but should be accompanied by a
Chairman of the Board will submit to
the Board as soon as possible. In the
absence of extenuating circumstances,
summary of not more than three (3)
the President certain master warrants
completed application forms must be
single-spaced, typewritten, letter-sized
listing the names of applicants recom-
received by the Board within thirty (30)
pages in length. If a summary of suitable
mended for executive clemency, and a
length is not submitted with the addi-
list of the names of applicants considered
calendar days of receipt.
tional material, the Action Attorney will
by the Board but not recommended for
§ 201.5 Assignment of Action Attorney
prepare such a summary.
clemency. The Chairman will also sub-
and case number, and determination
mit such terms and conditions for execu-
(c) At any time after the mailing to
of jurisdiction.
the applicant of his initial summary, the
tive clemency if any, that have been rec-
(a) Upon receipt of all necessary in-
applicant's complete Board file, and the
ommended in each case by the Board.
formation, the applicant's case will be
files from which the summary was pre-
(b) Following action by the President,
assigned to an Action Attorney. who will
pared, may be examined at the offices of
the Board will send notice of such action
make a preliminary determination of
the Board by the applicant, his repre-
in writing to all persons whose names
the Board's jurisdiction. If the Action At-
sentative, or by any member of the
were submitted to the President. Per-
Board. An applicant or his representative
sons not receiving executive clemency
1 Filed as part of the original document.
may submit evidence of inaccurate, in-
will be so notified.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 230-WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1974
RULES AND REGULATIONS
41353
§ 201.10 Reconsideration.
service number; military service and
If you believe that you are eligible to be
service number, if applicable; informa-
considered by the Presidential Clemency
(a) An applicant may petition the
tion concerning the draft evasion of-
Board but are not sure, you should apply to
Board for reconsideration of his grant or
the Board. If it turns out that you are not
fenses or absence-related military of-
denial of executive clemency, or of the
eligible for consideration by the Board, you
fenses and the disposition thereof; and
may possibly qualify under another part of
terms and conditions thereof.
the mailing address of either the appli-
the clemency program. You do not have to
(b) Such petitions for reconsideration,
cant or his representative. If the appli-
identify your current location. We will then
including any supplementary material,
cant submits such information as part
be able to notify you of the proper agency to
must be received by the Board within
of his initial filing, the completion of the
contact. If you are appealing a conviction or
thirty (30) days of the mailing of the no-
application form itself is not necessary.
a military discharge you may continue your
tification in $ 201.9(b).
appeal, and still apply to the Board at the
(c) At a regularly scheduled Board
§ 201.13 Representation before the
same time.
meeting, a quorum being present, the
Board.
I. The Board will not give its files to any
other federal agency. It will keep any in-
Board will consider the applicant's peti-
(a) Although an applicant may bring
formation you provide in strictest confidence,
tion for reconsideration.
his case before the Board without a rep-
except evidence of a serious crime which is
(d) In appropriate cases, the Board
resentative or legal counsel, each ap-
not covered in the Presidential Clemency pro-
may permit an applicant or his repre-
plicant is entitled to representation and
gram.
sentative to present before the Board an
will be encouraged to seek legal counsel
II. Although you may apply to the Board
oral statement not to exceed fifteen (15)
experienced in military or selective serv-
without attorney or any other representative
minutes in length.
ice law. Upon request, Board staff
if you wish, we encourage you to obtain the
help of legal counsel. If you do not have a
(e) After due deliberation, the Board
will attempt to refer an applicant to a
counsel but desire one, we will be glad to
may either:
skilled volunteer representative.
refer you to a lawyers' organization which
(1) As to any person granted executive
(b) An applicant who does not wish
will help you find one. These organizations
clemency, let stand or mitigate the terms
to file his application in person may have
will help you get legal assistance even if you
and conditions upon which executive
his representative do so on his behalf.
cannot afford to pay.
III. To apply to the Board, you need only
clemency was granted;
§ 201.14 Requests for information about
supply the information necessary to find
(2) As to any person denied executive
the clemency program.
your file from other departments. If you do
clemency, recommend to the President
not wish to file your application personally,
(a) Upon receipt by the Board of an
that he grant executive clemency in ac-
you may select a representative of your own
cordance with such terms and conditions
oral or written request for information or
choice to do it for you. but you must tell us
consideration concerning an individual
that he is authorized. The Board will main-
as may be appropriate; or
who is clearly beyond the jurisdiction of
tain its own file on your case and that file
(3) As to any person denied executive
the Board, a member of the Board's staff
will be available for examination by you or
clemency, again not recommend the ap-
shall inform the individual:
your own attorney.
plicant for executive clemency.
(1) That jurisdiction does not lie;
IV. You are encouraged to submit evidence
(2) Whether jurisdiction may lie
which you feel helps your case, and to submit
§ 201.11 Referral to appropriate agen-
letters from other people on your behalf. You
cies.
within the Presidential clemency pro-
may submit evidence in order to correct in-
After the expiration of the period
gram, and if so, with which agency;
accurate, incomplete, or misleading informa-
(3) That in the event the individual
allowed for petitions for reconsideration,
tion to the Board's file.
prefers not to contact personally such
V. A personal appearance by you before
the Chairman of the Board shall forward
for further action to the Secertaries of
other agency that an Action Attorney
the Board will not be necessary.
will obtain from such other agency in-
If you have any questions, please call or
the Army, Navy, and Air Force, the
formation concerning the individual's
write the Presidential Clemency Board. The
Secretary of the Department of Trans-
status with respect to the Presidential
White House, Washington, D.C. 20500, (202-
portation, the Director of the Selective
clemency program, and provide to the
456-6476) If application is made by a repre-
Service System, and the Attorney
sentative on your behalf, it is not necessary
individual that information.
General, as appropriate, the President's
that your home address and telephone num-
determination as to each recipient of
(b) The Action Attorney shall submit
ber be included. Your representative should
to the Executive Secretariat of the Presi-
indicate his capacity (attorney, friend, etc.)
executive clemency.
dential Clemency Board a summary of
and give us his address and telephone num-
§ 201.12 Confidentiality of communica-
the communication with, and informa-
ber.
tions.
tion provided to, such individuals.
Application for people not in custody
should be completed and mailed to the Board
(a) The Board has determined that it
APPENDIX B
no later than midnight, January 31, 1975.
will take all steps possible to protect the
INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICATION FOR CLEMENCY
Special procedures will be established for
privacy of applicants and potential ap-
On September 16, 1974 the President an-
persons incarcerated whether or not they
plicants to the Presidential clemency
have been released on furlough.
program. No personal information con-
nounced a program of clemency. Depending
on your case, you may apply to the Presi-
2. Part 202 is added to read as follows:
cerning an applicant or potential ap-
dential Clemency Board, the Department of
plicant and related to the Presidential
Justice, or the Department of Defense.
Sec.
clemency program will be made known
You may be eligible for clemency by the
202.1 Purpose and scope.
202.2 Board decision on whether or not to
to any agency, organization, or individ-
Presidential Clemency Board if you have
recommended that the President
ual, whether public or private, unless
been convicted of a draft evasion offense
such as failure to register or register on time:
grant executive clemency.
such disclosure is necessary for the
failure to keep the local board informed of
202.3
Aggravating circumstances.
normal and proper functioning of the
current address; failure to report for or sub-
202.4
Mitigating circumstances.
Presidential Clemency Board. How-
mit to pre-induction or induction examina-
202.5
Calculation of length of alternative
ever, information which reveals the
service.
tion; failure to report for or submit to or
existence of a violation of law (other
complete service, during the period from
AUTHORITY: E. O. 11803, 39 FR 33297.
than an offense subject to the Presi-
August 4, 1964 to March 28, 1973; or if you
dential clemency program) will of neces-
have received an undesirable, bad conduct,
§ 202.1 Purpose and scope.
sity be forwarded to the appropriate
or dishonorable discharge for desertion, ab-
This part articulates the standards
authorities.
sence without leave, or missing movement,
and for offenses directly related, between Au-
which the Presidential Clemency Board
(b) In order to have his case con-
gust 4, 1964 to March 28, 1973.
will employ in deciding whether to rec-
sidered by the Board, an applicant
If you are now absent from military serv-
ommend that the President grant execu-
need submit only information sufficient
ice or have a charge against you for a Selec-
for a determination of jurisdiction, and
tive Service violation and have not been con-
tive clemency to a particular applicant,
for the retrieval of necessary official
victed or received a discharge, you may still
and in then deciding whether that grant
records and files. The application
be eligible for clemency under another part
of celemency should be conditional, and,
of the President's program. If you have any
form will therefore require the ap-
questions, please contact the Board and we
if so, upon what specified period of alter-
plicant's name; date of birth; selective
will try to answer your questions.
native service.
FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL. 39, NO. 230-WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1974
41354
RULES AND REGULATIONS
§ 202.2 Board decision on whether or
(5) Service-connected disability,
months, the applicant's baseline period of
not to recommend that the President
wounds in combat, or decorations for
alternative service.
grant executive clemency.
valor in combat.
(6) Tours of service in the war zone.
[FR Doc.74-27863 Filed 11-26-74;8:45 am]
(a) The first decision which the Board
will reach, with respect to an application
(7) Substantial evidence of personal
before it, is whether or not it will recom-
or procedural unfairness in treatment of
Title 7--Agriculture
mend to the President that the applicant
applicant.
CHAPTER VII-AGRICULTURAL STABILI-
be granted executive clemency. In reach-
(8) Denial of conscientious objector
ZATION AND CONSERVATION SERVICE
ing that decision, the Board will take
status, of other claim for Selective Serv-
(AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT), DE-
notice of the presence of any of the ag-
ice exemption or deferment, or of a claim
PARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
gravating circumstances listed in $ 202.3,
for hardship discharge, compassionate
SUBCHAPTER B-FARM MARKETING QUOTAS
and will further take notice of whether
reassignment, emergency leave, or other
AND ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS
such aggravating circumstances are bal-
remedy available under military law, on
PART 722-COTTON
anced by the presence of any of the miti-
procedural, technical, or improper
gating circumstances listed in $ 202.4.
grounds, or on grounds which have sub-
Subpart-1975 Crop of Extra Long Staple Cot-
ton; Acreage Allotments and Marketing Quotas
(b) Unless there are aggravating cir-
sequently been held unlawful by the
judiciary.
STATE RESERVES AND COUNTY ALLOTMENTS
cumstances not balanced by mitigating
circumstances, the Board will recommend
(9) Evidence that an applicant acted
Section 722.562 is issued pursuant to
that the President grant executive clem-
in conscience, and not for manipulative
the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938,
ency to each applicant.
or selfish reasons.
as amended (52 Stat. 31, as amended; 7
(10) Voluntary submission to authori-
U.S.C. 1281 et seq.). This section estab-
§ 202.3 Aggravating circumstances.
ties by applicant.
lishes the State reserves and allocation
(a) Presence of any of the aggravating
§ 202.5 Calculation of length of alter-
thereof among uses for the 1975 crop of
circumstances listed herein either will
native service.
extra long staple cotton. It also estab-
disqualify an individual for executive
lishes the county allotments. Such de-
(a) Having reached a decision to rec-
clemency or may be considered by the
terminations were made initially by the
Board as cause for recommending to the
ommend that the President grant ex-
respective State committees and are
President executive clemency conditioned
ecutive clemency to a particular appli-
hereby approved and made effective by
cant, the Board will then decide
upon a length of alternative service ex-
the Administrator, ASCS, pursuant to
whether clemency should be conditioned
ceeding the applicant's "baseline period
delegated authority (35 FR 19798, 36 FR
of alternative service," as determined
upon a specified period of alternative
6907, 37 FR 624, 3845, 22008)
under $ 202.5.
service and, if SO, what length that pe-
riod should be.
Notice that the Secretary was prepar-
(b) Aggravating circumstances of
ing to establish State and county allot-
which the Board will take notice are:
(1) The starting point for calculation
ments was published in the FEDERAL REG-
(1) Prior adult criminal convictions.
of length of alternative service will be
ISTER on July 17, 1974 (39 FR 26160) in
(2) False statement by applicant to
24 months.
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553. The views
the Presidential Clemency Board.
(2) That starting point will be re-
and recommendations received in re-
(3) Use of force by applicant collater-
duced by three times the amount of
sponse to such notice have been duly
ally to AWOL, desertion, missing move-
prison time served.
considered.
ment, or civilian draft evasion offense.
(3) That starting point will be further
In order that farmers may be informed
(4) Desertion during combat.
reduced by the amount of prior alterna-
as soon as possible of 1975 farm allot-
(5) Evidence that applicant committed
tive service performed, provided that a
ments so that they may make plans ac-
the offense for obviously manipulative
prescribed period of alternative service
cordingly, it is essential that this section
and selfish reasons.
has been satisfactorily completed.
be made effective as soon as possible.
(6) Prior refusal to fulfill alternative
(4) That starting point will be further
Accordingly, it is hereby found and de-
service.
reduced by the amount of time served on
termined that compliance with the 30-
(7) Prior violation of probation or pa-
probation or parole, provided that a pre-
day effective date requirement of 5 U.S.C.
role requirements.
scribed period of alternative service has
553 is impracticable and contrary to the
been satisfactorily completed.
public interest, and § 722.562 shall be
§ 202.4 Mitigating circumstances.
(5) The remainder of those three sub-
effective November 22, 1974. The mate-
(a) Presence of any of the mitigating
tractions will be the "baseline period of
rial previously appearing in this section
circumstances listed herein will be con-
alternative service" applicable to a
under centerhead "1974 Crop of Extra
sidered by the Board as cause for recom-
particular case before the Board: Pro-
Long Staple Cotton; Acreage Allotments
mending that the President grant exec-
vided, That the baseline period of alter-
and Marketing Quotas" remains in full
utive clemency to a particular applicant,
native service shall not exceed a judge's
force and effect as to the crop to which
and will in exceptional cases be further
sentence to imprisonment in any case:
it was applicable.
considered as cause for recommending
And provided further, That the baseline
Section 722.562 is revised to read as
clemency conditioned upon a period of
period of alternative service shall be, not-
follows:
alternative service less than the appli-
withstanding the remainder of the cal-
cant's "baseline period of alternative
§ 722.562 State reserves and county al-
culation above, not less than a minimum
lotments for the 1975 crop of extra
service," as determined under § 202.5.
of three (3) months.
long staple cotton.
(b) Mitigating circumstances of which
(6) In exceptional cases in which
(a) (1) State reserves. The State re-
the Board will take notice are:
mitigating circumstances are present, the
serves for each State shall be established
(1) Applicant's lack of sufficient edu-
Board may consider such mitigating cir-
and allocated among uses for the 1975
cation or ability to understand obliga-
cumstances as cause for recommending
crop of extra long staple cotton pursuant
tions, or remedies available, under the
clemency conditioned upon a period of
to & 722.508.
alternative service less than an appli-
law.
(2) It is hereby determined that no
cant's baseline period of alternative serv-
(2) Personal and family hardship
State reserve is required for trends, ab-
ice.
normal conditions, inequities, and hard-
either at the time of the offense or if the
(7) In cases in which aggravating cir-
ships or small farms. The amount of the
applicant were to perform alternative
cumstances are present and are not, in
State reserve held in each State and the
service.
the Board's judgment, balanced by
amount of allotment in the State pro-
(3) Mental or physical illness or con-
mitigating circumstances, the Board may
ductivity pool resulting from productiv-
dition, either at the time of the offense
consider such aggravating circumstances
ity adjustments under § 722.529 (c) and
(d) is available for inspection at each
or currently.
as cause for recommending clemency
State ASCS office.
(4) Employment or volunteer activities
conditioned upon a period of alternative
(b) County allotments. County allot-
of service to the public since conviction
service exceeding, either by three (3) ad-
ments are established for the 1975 crop
or military discharge.
ditional months or by six (6) additional
of extra long staple cotton in accordance
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 230-WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1974
3/6/75
Docket I: Cases for which personal appearance at PCB has been requested by attorney:
Date PCB
Date PCB
Date
PCB Case No.
Summary Mailed
Summary Received
Response Received
PCB Attorney
1 74-032-GDE-C
RIPE
Most recent response 2/3/75
Broder
2
74-067-MLT-C
RIPE
Lohff
3 74-007-BMW-C
12/29
Heitz
4 74-089-TSA-C
12/29
Hickman
FORD LIBRARY
R.
GERALD
3/6/75
Docket II: Tabled cases:
Date PCB
Date PCB
Date
PCB Case No.
Summary Mailed
Summary Received
Response Received
PCB Attorney
1
74-202-FFR-M 9 mos
12/26
12/30
Starek
2
74-216-HWX-M
3 mos
12/26
12/31
Broder
3
74-445-BLH-M
6 mos
12/26
Broder
4
74-371-GEX-M
6 mos
12/26
12/30
Broder
5
74-211-HTN-M
6 mos
12-27
Starek
6
74-295-ARA-M
3 mos
12/27
12/31
Broder
7
74-214-HGX-M
6 moo
12/27
12/31
Broder
8
74-375-HDK-M
6 mos
12/31
Starek
-
9
74-433-NKL-M
P
12/24
Lohff
10
74-385-HWM-M
(T) tabled
12/26
12/31
Lohff
- 11
74-512-PBW-M
3 mos
12/16
11/18
Hickman
- 12
74-109-BSW-M
8 mos
RIPE
Starek
13
74-197-ELH-M
10 mos
RIPE
Starek
-
14
74-180-CCA-M
3 mos
RIPE
Robinson
15
220
3 mos
3/6/75
Docket III: Recent applications:
Date PCB
Date PCB
Date
PCB Case No.
Summary Mailed
Summary Received
Response Received
PCB Attorney
1
74-710-HEX-C 3 mos
RIPE
Strauss
2
74-82-SRX-C
3 mos
RIPE
Poole
3
74-099-WAN-C Pass
RIPE
(Oppenheimer case withdrawn)
Poole
4
74-042-HJX-C 3 mos
1/28
Heitz
5
74-083-SJL-C 6
10/15
Klein
6
74-010-BSH-C 3 mos
RIPE
12/29
Kodak
7
74-029-EKA-C 12 / mos
RIPE
Lohff
8
74-528-CWA-C 9 mos
2/5
Lohff
3/6/75
Docket IV: Cases for whom summaries have been written and mailed:
Date PCB
Date PCB
Date
PCB Case No.
Summary Mailed
Summary Received
Response Received
PCB Attorney
1
74-456-RML-M
1/8
Broder
2
74-165-BGL-M
1/8
1/13
Broder
3
74-338-DDW-M
1/8
1/10
Robinson
4
74-246-RWL-M
1/8
Dancheck
5
74-181-CPL-M
1/8
1/11
Broder
6
74-301-BCL-M
1/8
Dancheck
7
74-334-CJW-M
1/11
1/15
Dancheck
8
74-365-DAD-M
1/11
1/15
Dancheck
9
74-309-BAA-M
1/11
Dancheck
10
74-194-DML-M
1/11
1/15
Broder
11
74-425-MRE-M
1/11
1/17
Robinson
12
74-441-PRX-M
1/11
1/16
Robinson
13
74-190-DLX-M
1/10
Puller
14 74-191-DCM-M
1/10
Puller
15 74-415-MCC-M
1/11
Robinson
16
74-236-MIL-M
1/11
1/13
Lohff
17 74-153-KTL-M
1/28
1/30
Lohff
Docket IV
-2-
3/6/75
Date PCB
Date PCB
Date
PCB Case No.
Summary Mailed
Summary Received
Response Received
PCB Attorney
18 74-281-PCS-M
1/28
Heitz
19 74-469-SRX-M 6 mos
1/28
1/30
Klein
20 74-394-JDR-M
1/28
1/31
Heitz
21 74-504-RDE-M
1/28
1/30
Lohff
22 74-386-HGE-M
1/28
Lohff
23 74-510-RRL-M
1/28
Heitz
24 74-336-CJV-M
1/28
1/31
Kodak
25 74-380-HJL-M
1/28
Dancheck
26 74-220-JRX-M
8I/II
Dancheck
27 74-518-ORX-M
1/28
Heitz
28 74-399-HJD-M
1/28
1/31
Heitz
29 74-142-SDE-M
1/31
Kodak
30 74-145-SMJ-M
1/31
Hickman
31
74-181-CPL-M
1/31
Broder
32
74-262-F-SME-M
1/31
Poole
33 74-371-GEX-M
1/31
Broder
34 74-474-SRX-M
P
1/31
Klein
35 74-488-WSJ-M
1/31
Kodak
36 74-388-IJM-M
1/31
Lohff
Docket IV
-3-
3/6/75
Date PCB
Date PCB
Date
PCB Case No.
Summary Mailed
Summary Received
Response Received
PCB Attorney
37 74-445-BLH-M
1/31 (remail)
Broder
38 74-280-VEM-M
2/3
Heitz
39 74-583-WCX-C
2/3
Kodak
40 74-506-MWS-M
2/3
Lohff
41 74-526-BJW-C
2/3
Heitz
42 74-493-WJD-M
2/3
Kodak
43 74-261-EJP-M
2/3
Poole
44 74-558-MMH-C
2/4
Lohff
45 74-264-BKE-M
2/4
Lohff
46 74-612-HRM-M
2/4
Kodak
47 74-439-LRP-M P
2/4
Klein
48 74-342-DJX-M
2/4
Heitz
49 74-630-SDL-C
2/4
Kodak
50 74-296-AGJ-M
2/4
Broder
51 74-334-CWW-M
2/4
Kodak
52 74-523-BFX-C
2/4
Heitz
53 74-495-WAL-M
2/4
Hickman
54 74-419-BVL-M
2/4
Heitz
55 74-409-LJE-M
2/4
Broder
3/6/75
Pocket IV
-4-
Date PCB
Date PCB
Date
PCB Case No.
Summary Mailed
Summary Received
Response Date
PCB Attorney
56 74-300-LDS-M
2/4
Broder
57 74-958-ZFJ-C
2/4
Klein
58 74-627-WFX-M
2/4
Broder
Presidential Clemency Board meetine
may 8-10,1975
8th 9th
LIBRARY GERALD R. FORD
10
Dn adams
Yes Yes Yes
I. Dongovito
Les Yes Yes
I. may
Tes Yes Yes
Mrs. 'Cornor Les Yes Yes
Seneral walt Yes B. "Yes Yes
father bleaburgh no no no
Weinon Jondan he no no
Rahert Linch he no no.
4/18/75
FORD
Case Summery Distribution
j
GERALD
by the ofternal of may 16,
600 Case summaries were
distributed to board members.
200 cases for panels w,x, y,z
were mailed to board member.
prior to the last meeting a
double check was completed by
5/14 to mesure members had
them.
Panel D distribution:
Cases 1-50 - mailed 5/15
" 5/-100 delivered bg.
Courier 6 air -
on 5/16
Panel É
1-50
would 5/13
51-75
veriled 5/15
76-100
vis courier 5/16
Pauel F
1-50
mail 5/13
51-100
via courier 5/16
Panel G
1-75
mailed 5/15
76-100
via Courier 5/16
M. OWEN
AM, 5 June (Fai)
Panel R, Lally, monow, Walt
FORD i LIBRARY
/. Lally - Walt stand offs (not frequent
this morning, but 202 3 set-jaw
sessions): Walt seemed to cow
movern and Lally several times
into going up months simply
for prevention of a more
serious standoff.
2. Applying aggravating 5 where
no reasons were available
(most these cases flagged)
3. Gen. Walt wanted, is one case,
to apply aggraiating 10 when:
(a) the ship movement (Nary)
missed was not necessary
overseas, and
(b) wanted to assume that
during the 2 1/2 month AWOL,
the ship didgo orrseas.
4. aggravating L! cases whe Hagged
pending final disposition of the
substantive issues involving that factor
121 150
PRESENTATION LIST
DATE: 7-10-75 THURS
PANEL: K
DOCKET BLOCK: 9AM
MO/DA
DAY OF WEEK
TIME
CASE NO.
ATTORNEY
COMMENTS
1.
555-LVA-C
GOTTKE
P
2.
566 566-NCA-C - NCA-C
THOMPSON
P
3.
13091-SFW-M
THOMPSON
8
4.
1173-CEF-M 1173 - CEF-
TERELLE
3 mus
5.
3784-CNM-M
TERELLE
8 mos,
6.
4112-SJA-C
TERELLE
P
GERALD LIBRARY P. FORD
7.
4145-KJA-M
TERELLE
P
8.
4716 - HGET-M
TERELLE
6 mos
9.
13864-PJA-M
TERELLE
P
10.
1675- - RMJ-
COLE
P
11.
5186-WAX-M 5186- WAX-
SPENCER
P Hot chechs
12.
5450-KCR-M
EDWARDS, DOUG
13.
6910 MJW- M
EDWARDS, DOUG
14.
5523- KCR-
EDWARDS, L.R.
15.
7125-CTC-M
DUCOMB
16.
13856-PRL-M
DUCOMB
17.
6626-HLR-M
SMITH, BRIAN
P
18.
6882- 6882-FGC-M FGC-
SMITH, BRIAN
P
19.
7140-CTC-M
JAROSLOVSKY
20.
7246-UCR-M
VAROSLOUSKY
21.
11805-JEX-M
JAROSLOUSKY
22.
13137-5DR-M
JAROSLOUSKY
23.
14578-EME-M
JAROSLOUSKY
24.
15706-BML-M
JAROSLOUSKY
25.
9686-CGT-M 9686 CGT-M
WAGGENER
26.
14187 14187-TJK-M TJK-M
WAGGENER
27.
14188-THM-M
BAUGHMAN
28.
14417- PMX-M
POWELL
29.
15196-LDW-M
COWEN
30.
15755- HKR-M
GRAY
Panel Counsel:
AGC Team:
HILBERT
KAUFFMAN (c)
J.HP.
P.C.B. PANELS/FULL BOARD SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF
AUGUTS 4 - AUGUST 8
MONDAY, AUGUST 4 - A.M. and P.M. - READING
TUESDAY, AUGUST 5 -
PANEL E (125 cases
PANEL F (125 cases)
PANEL G (125 cases)
PANEL H (125 cases
Kauffmann (Chairman)
Ford (Chairman)
'Connor (Chairman)
Maye (Chairman)
Puller
Riggs
Walt
Dougovits
Carter
Craig
Everhard
Vinson
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 6 - A.M. and P.M. - FULL BOARD CASES
Begin at 9:00 A.M. to consider:
1. Cases from the full board packet dated July 2, 1975, beginning with case
no. 57 on the July 2, 1975 Docket (Neil Border's Team) PCB Case No. 7859
subsequent cases on the same docket are: 7924, 8139, 8167, 8181, 8372, 9553
9584, 9828, 9974, 11196; (Dancheck's Team) 2864 and 4054
2. Full Board Docket No. - 7 = 35 cases
3. Full Board Docket No. - 8 = 25 cases
4. Full Board Docket No. - 9 = 25 cases
5. Full Board Docket No. -10 = 25 cases = 124 cases
THURSDAY. AUGUST 7 - A.M. - FULL BOARD CASES
FORD
(Carry-Over of Wednesday Full Board Cases to be considered)
P.M. - READING
GERALD
FRIDAY, AUGUST 8 -
PANEL E (125 cases)
PANEL F (125 cases)
PANEL G (125 cases)
PANEL H (125 cases
Kauffmann (Chairman)
Ford (Chairman)
0' Connor (Chairman)
Maye (Chairman)
Puller
Riggs
Walt
Dougovits
Carter
Craig
Everhard
Vinson
PLEASE NOTE: The Minimum Number of cases for a Panel to complete each day
(Tuesday and Friday) this week is 100 if you are able, please
complete the entire 125 docked each day.
LayPaini
CASES IN PCB PIPELINE AS OF 11 Aug 75
225/18104
98/17,879
0/17,781
0/17.781
0/17,781
1
Projected
Applications
Initial File
DD or BCD
Records Received
Applicants
Logged, File
Request Out
File Request
Files Not Completed
2
Not Requested
Out
35/17,781
(116)/17746
0/17630
417/17630
605/17213
Files Available
Files Enroute/
C + d
2
Files Rcd. by
Cases Assigned,
For Distribution
Distributed to
Unwritable
;
AA Teams, Not Yet
No Significant
AA Teams
Assigned to AA's
Action
42/16308
7 1963/16566
Miscellaneous
Jurisdictional
Cases in AA
Question or
Pipeline
Correspondance
352/14603
0/14251
0/14251
3
Draft Case b Partially
539/14251
365/13712
Draft Hand-
Draft
e
f
Written, or in Pro-
Written
Typed
Cases TO/IN
Cases Awaiting
cess of Rewrite
4
Quality Control
Final Typing
Tabled
290
733/13042
485
/12,309
Flagged/ 41
4
305/133
Jurisdiction
4
Cases Typed in "inal
8801/11824
Docketed
Decided By
Cases Awaiting
and Xeroxed
Board Panel
27
To Up342de
Xeroxing
Panel
Set
337
1051/1051
Aside
Cases to be
Cases Sent to
SIGNED
Heard By
President,
BY
Board
Awaiting Signature
PRESIDENT
TABLED - 387 = 25%=290
1031/2082
GERALD
(Heard)
245
Cases Heard
LIBRARY
By Full Board
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
August 22, 1975
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
DIRECTIONS TO ROOSEVELT ROOM FROM SENATOR GOODELL'S OFFICE
1. Exit room 360, make a left out the door.
2. Proceed down the hallway to the first elevator on your left (approximately
2/3 the distance down the hallway).
3. Take the elevator to the ground floor, "G".
4. Make a left out the elevator through the double doors into the driveway.
5. Make a left outside the double doors down the drive to the guard shack.
The guard will check your name against the list but you will not need to
show your I.D. here.
6. Proceed down the drive across the street to the White House. Enter
through the nearest doors (diagonally across the street from the guard shack).
7. Inside the White House you will encounter Guard no. 2. This guard will
request to see an I.D. card so you should have it ready.
8. Opposite guard no. 2's desk, is the elevator you should take to the first
floor "1".
9. Make a right out the elevator to the hallway then a left down the hallway
through the square archway (approximately 1/2 the distance down the
hallway).
10 The Roosevelt Room is
arckwayx inside the door on your left just beyond the second archway.
GOOD LUCK
Bob
Sequoia
Monday 8/25/75
Walt
No
Puller
FORD
Yes & wife
Everhard Yes & friend
LIBRARY & GERALD
Riggs
Yes & friend (?)
Vinson
Yes & son
Craig
Yes & ? (date)
Carter
Yes & ? (date if in town)
Lally
UNABLE TO CONTACT
Morrow
Yes & spouse
Kauffmann Yes & spouse
Ford
Yes & friend (?)
O'Connor Yes & husband
Adams
Yes & friend (?)
Dougovito Yes & wife
Maye
Yes & spouse
Hesburgh UNABLE TO CONTACT
Jordan
NO
Jim Poole
8/28/75 Thursday,
Docket 14
#3255- ok FB WI
# 11203 - no er
# 12121 - ok FB er
13
FORD LIBRARY
# 10015 - ok FB OF
Docket 18
# 9988 - no at
# 3265. no 07
# 3356 - no Cit
# 6649
President has signed that's why
it was removed from dochet. Cot
Docket 19
# 1664 - ok FB EA
# 1773 - DRFB are
# 1810 - ok FB CF
# 7544 - No are
Docket 20
# 5722 - no Oct
# 10459 - olc FB Cit
Docket 21
# 8891 - Mo Cer
# 11174 - ols FB CA
8/29/F
Docket 22
# 1153 - ole FB er
DERALD FORD LIBRARY
# 3066 - of FB as
# 816 - ok FB as
# 5724 - no as
# 7689 - no aA
# 10374 - ok FB or
# 10442 - no eg
# 774 - ok FB ar
# 3014 - ok FB at
# 046 - ok FB er
# 1374 - ok FB @r
# 3029 - ohe FB of
# 7383 - no ar
when as
# 10462 - ORFB or
# 8195 - allo at
# 2311 - old FB or
# 045 - ok FB of
memorandum
OF CALL
TO:
Goodell t Basker
YOU WERE CALLED BY-
YOU WERE VISITED BY-
OF (Organization)
Prof. anthony
PHONE
NO.
PLEASE CALL
CODE/EXT.
WILL CALL AGAIN
IS WAITING TO SEE YOU
RETURNED YOUR CALL
WISHES AN APPOINTMENT
MESSAGE
said he thinks you
have done an
excellent john
RECEIVED BY
GSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6 J
GPO £ 1969-c48-16-80341-1 4/11 332-889
DATE
TIME 40
2:
STANDARD FORM 63
63-108
REVISED AUGUST 1967
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
September 10, 1974
PANEL/FULL BOARD SCHEDULE FOR SEPTEMBER 10th THRU SEPTEMBER 15th.
WEDNESDAY-SEPTEMBER 10th-Full Board Cases. Packets 25, 26, 27, and 28.
THURSDAY-SEPTEMBER 11th- 9:00am to 1:00pm will be Full Board.
1:00pm to 2:00pm- Lunch.
2:00pm to 3:00pm-Personal Appearance, P.C.B.
Case # 854-AMX-M.
3:00pm to 6:00pm will be Full Board Cases.
FRIDAY-SEPTEMBER 12th- Full Board Cases all day.
SATURDAY-SEPTEMBER 13th- Remainder of regular panel cases. Panels A,B,C.
PANEL A
PANEL B
PANEL C
Vinson
Everhard
Walt
Kauffman
Puller
Maye/Ford
Craig
Riggs
O'Connor
Morrow
SUNDAY-SEPTEMBER 14th- Purple Panel and the Upgrade Panel will meet.
MONDAY-SEPTEMBER 15th- Full Board will meet all day.
5868
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- of Remarks
November 5, 1975
AUDIT BY GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
There are two ways to remedy the prob-
DISTURBING REPORTS ON THE
Section 22. Authorizes the General Ac-
lem. One backed by several members of
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY PRO-
counting Office to conduct comprehensive
the House Civil Service Committee would
GRAM
audits of the Corporation loan and guaran-,
eliminate the President's authority to offer
tee applicants, borrowers and recipients of
alternate pay plans: any increase recom-
loan guarantees.
mended by the federal pay commission would
HON. JOHN M. ASHBROOK
go into effect automatically. Under exist-
AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
OF OHIO
ing law, the President can submit an alter-
Section 23. Provides for appropriation,
nate plan and it goes into effect unless
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
without fiscal year limitation, of $1 billion
vetoed within 30 days by either the House or
Wednesday, November 5, 1975
to finance the purchase of Corporation stock.
Senate.
Also authorizes the appropriation of such
Another solution-one that we prefer-
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Speaker, in stark
sums as may be necessary to pay the differ-
would separate congressional pay from that
contrast to the sacrifices exacted of over
ence, if any, between the cost of Corporation
of federal employes. The President would
56,000 servicemen killed in Vietnam, over
obligations and the interest received by the
continue submitting alternate plans from
300,000 wounded, the POW's and the
Corporation on its loans, and to reimburse
those of the pay commission, but the self-
the Corporation to the extent of any de-
MIA's, reports of soft and preferential
interest factor would be removed from con-
faults. Authorizes such additional sums as
treatment of Vietnam era draft dodgers
gressional debate.
may be necessary to establish and operate
and deserters under the clemency pro-
There is room for debate on the merits
the Corporation and otherwise carry out the
and economic effects of alternate pay plans.
gram could easily provide the American
purposes of the Act.
And Congress, which must raise revenues to
voter with a key issue in the 1976 elec-
run the government, should have the final
tions. A recent AP dispatch began:
say. But it is unfair to the 3.5 million
Two-thirds of the deserters who joined
civilian workers and military personnel to
President Ford's clemency job program have
STAR SUPPORTS IMPROVEMENTS
have the decision hinge on the politics of
dropped out, been kicked out, or processed
IN PAYSETTING POLICY FOR
congressional pay raises.
out by the military without reporting for
MEMBERS AND FEDERAL EMPLOY-
jobs, and will escape punishment without
completing their assigned work.
EES
According to the dispatch almost 4,503
THE LATE HON. JOHN J. ROONEY
HON. HERBERT E. HARRIS II
deserters who joined the program, or
2,035 men, have either dropped out or
OF VIRGINIA
SPEECH OF
been kicked out. Selective Service officials
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
HON. FRED B. ROONEY
add that these "were terminated for non-
Wednesday, November 5, 1975
performance, for lack of cooperation and
OF PENNSYLVANIA
because they chose not to fulfill their
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, with the
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
agreements in many cases." Another
votes and debate on several aspects of
Tuesday, November 4, 1975
1,000 men handled by the military never
the issue of salaries of Members of Con-
gress and Federal employees not far be-
Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, since
reported for jobs at all. This total of ap-
hind us, I am pleased to share with my
August of 1963 until the 94th Congress
proximately 3,035 men have been given
convened, whenever the name Rooney
discharges and will escape punishment
colleagues a recent editorial from the
was called in this Chamber it was fol-
for desertion and will not be compelled
Washington Star endorsing efforts em-
lowed by the words "of New York" or "of
to complete their assignments under the
bodied in two of my bills. The Star calls
Pennsylvania" to distinguish between
program.
for two revisions: eliminating the Presi-
John J. Rooney of Brooklyn and myself.
A New York Times article of Septem-
dent's authority to propose an annual
comparability amount differing from
In part, because we shared the same
ber 15 commented further:
name, John Rooney and I were great
The military is prevented from prosecut-
that of his or her advisers and separat-
ing Members' salaries from that of Fed-
friends during the years we served to-
ing program dropouts since they have all
eral employees.
gether in the House. His death Sunday,
been officially separated from the service, and
the Government, for political as well as legal
I have introduced two bills that do
October 26, following surgery at George-
reasons, has indicated it will not prosecute
town University Hospital meant, to me,
exactly that: H.R. 9905, which removes
even the most flagrant examples of bad faith
the loss of a good and dear friend.
the President's authority from the pro-
among those who have broken the agreement.
Through shared names, we came, also,
cedure under which annual compara-
to share mutual enjoyment of Irish
This phase of the clemency program
bility adjustments are made and H.R.
humor, interest in each other's biennial
was handled by the Department of De-
10042, which would abolish the current
congressional campaigns, and during one
fense and involved unpunished deserters.
method for changing Members' salaries.
campaign several years ago John shared
Unpunished draft dodgers reported to a
H.R. 9905 has 21 cosponsors; H.R. 10042,
with me some of his "Rooney for Con-
U.S. attorney with the Justice Depart-
14 cosponsors.
gress" campaign buttons.
ment implementing this phase of the
I would also like to bring Members
During his 30 years in the House of
program. Convicted deserters and draft
particular attention the Star's prefer-
Representatives, John Rooney grew in
dodgers and those still serving sentences
ence for taking Members' salaries out of
public stature and became recognized as
for such violations applied to the Presi-
the Federal employees salary-setting
one of the most influential Members of
dential Clemency Board for relief. The
process. I heartily agree with the Star's
Congress. For many of those years, he
clemency program was established by
contention that "the self-interest factor
chaired the Subcommittee on Appropria-
President Ford on September 16, 1974,
would be removed from congressional
tions for the Departments of State and
and all clemency applications had to be
debate."
Justice and the Judiciary.
filed no later than March 31, 1975, the
The editorial follows:
He was an ardent foe of frivolous pro-
cut-off date for the program. Applicants,
SEPARATE CONGRESSIONAL PAY
grams or spending excesses, and served
either draft dodgers or deserters, could
Now that the latest federal pay issue has
his constituency and all Americans well
be relieved of prosecution and punish-
been settled, Congress should devise a bet-
by his careful scrutiny of the manner in
ment if they presented themselves to the
ter way to handle this annual hassle.
which their tax dollars were being spent.
proper department before March 31, exe-
The 8.66 per cent increase recommended
Mrs. Rooney and I share with his dear
cuted an agreement acknowledging their
for civilian workers and military personnel
wife and their family the sadness of
allegiance to the United States, pledged
by a federal pay commission was never de-
John's passing. To them, we extend our
to fulfill a period of alternative service
bated on its merits. They had to settle for
most sincere sympathy.
under the auspices of the Director of Se-
the 5 per cent set by President Ford be-
While the sense of loss weighs heavily
lective Service and satisfactorily com-
cause Congress, for political reasons, was
on all his loved ones, friends and former
pleted such service.
afraid to override him.
associates, we can derive much comfort
In the case of the deserter, when he
Congressmen wouldn't override the Presi-
from the knowledge that his lifetime was
elects to seek relief through the program,
dent: because they have tied salary increases
full and rich with the satisfactions of
he receives an undesirable discharge.
for themselves into the federal employe pay-
procedure. The more money they vote for
outstanding service to his fellow man, his
Upon completion of his alternative serv-
federal workers and the military, the more
city, State, and Nation. We shall miss
ice he receives a clemency discharge in
they vote for themselves.
him.
recognition of his fulfillment of the re-
November 5, 1975
CONGRESSIONAL Extensions of Remarks
5879
American Institute of Architects, will
munity, such as storm sewers, paving,
cial and social implications. H.R. 10481
establish a nationwide communications
sanitary sewers.
has evolved amidst extended controver-
base to provide interested individuals
In addition to the energy and enthusi-
sy, and each of us has been bombarded
with information about the heating and
asm he brings to the office of mayor,
with a steady stream of reports, papers.
cooling of buildings, the stored solar en-
Mr. Dumke still has time for other com-
and newspaper articles assessing the
ergy in winds, water and plants, direct
munity involvements. He is a member of
merits of action or inaction. Many of
solar thermal conversion, electricity from
the Shriners, Oak Lawn Lions, an hon-
these articles have been helpful to me in
the sun-photovoltaic conversion, archi-
orary member of the Sertoma and Oak
obtaining an historic perspective into
tectural applications and storage sys-
Lawn Elks. As a member of St. Raphael's
the problems of New York City, and an
tems. The exhibit will emphasize the po-
Episcopal Church he served as one of
insight into the projected Impact of the
tential and practicality of solar energy.
the three members on the building com-
various legislative proposals which have
Large and small versions of the exhib-
mittee and supervised its construction in
been advanced.
its are planned which will circulate
cooperation with the Diocese of Chicago
One newspaper article in particular
through major science and technical
and the Bishop. He is executive vice pres-
has impressed me with its dispassionate
centers of the country and also small mu-
ident and one of the principals of George
analysis, yet brilliantly drafted style. The
seums and educational institutions.
Washington Savings & Loan Association.
article, entitled "Urban Ills," by David
Plans call for the-exhibit to start travel-
But still there is time for even more
Broder of the Washington Post, was pub-
ing in the spring of 1976 and continue on
for one with a heart the size of Mayor
lished today. I recommend It as required
the road for 2 years. Eventually, a na-
Dumke's; time for working for the Park
reading for those Members who are seek-
tionwide solar communication center will
Lawn School and the Garden School for
ing the essence of what the issues are to-
be set up to provide current information
the retarded, for example. Not only is he
day, and what the issues may be tomor-
and educational materials on solar
a strong supporter and fund-raiser for
row.
energy.
the YMCA and Boy Scouts, but he has
URBAN ILLS
The exhibit has been designed by Jo-
also served as district vice chairman of
(By David S. Broder)
seph Wetzel and Associates of Stamford,
the Timber Trails District and the previ-
President Ford's preference-which is
Conn., and is funded in part by NSF. It
ous district of Woodlawn.
shared by most politicians of both parties in
contains working models, a theater, and
He has served as second vice president
Congress-is to treat the New York City prob-
communication center and has been
of the Palos-Orland-Worth Area Coun-
lem as the last act of a morality play. The
structured in a way to allow the host
cil and is also one of the council's 25 di-
wicked wastrel gets his deserved comeup-
institution to supplement its materials
rectors. Vice chairman of the Chicago-
pance and is forced to repent for past sins
with its own films, symposia, and lists of
Cook County Committee on Criminal
by declaring default.
speakers, researchers, architects, and
It's a play well-tailored to the anti-govern-
Justice, past president of the Illinois
ment sentiments of the national audience.
manufacturers.
Planning Commission-there could be
It's also a way for the President and like-
Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of this
presented a seemingly endless list of the
minded politicians to conceal from the coun-
product of Colorado ingenuity and initi-
mayor's involvement in his community
try the reality that we face.
ative in the field of solar energy. I hope
and State.
I do not refer here to the financial and
my colleagues will watch for arrival of
Yet, no matter what achievements are
psychological consequences of a New York
the exhibit in their districts and encour-
sighted on paper, there is still missing
City default. Whatever those are will be
known soon enough.
age the public to take advantage of it.
from any such roster the "achievement"
The concealed reality is that the basic
of being a most extraordinary human
forces that have pushed New York City to
being with a special warmth and endear-
the brink are operating inexerably against
ing personality. Perhaps I can sight just
other old big cities, and will leave them
MAYOR DUMKE ELECTED PRESI-
one incident that will demonstrate the
aqually exposed to financial Fuin unless we
DENT OF THE ILLINOIS MUNICI-
caliber of this man, not just as a public
as a country face up to some facts we have
PAL LEAGUE
leader but as a human being.
spent 25 years ignoring.
In 1967 Oak Lawn was hit by a dev-
Most important of these faste is that what
HON. MARTIN A. RUSSO
astating tornado. The town was at a
we call a city 18 a legal-geographic trap
maintained by the outside majority as a
stand still; the havoc and ruin appeared
OF ILLINOIS
means of isolating problems We are not pre-
overwhelming. Mayor Dumke was on his
pared to face and solve. The historic refusal
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
feet three solid days, on the crutches he
to let most older cities expand their legal
Wednesday, November 5, 1975
has used since his bout with polio. He
borders to incorporate the "reat cities" they
Mr. RUSSO. Mr. Speaker, I have the
never once slowed down. He seemed to
have become makes it ludicrous, if not inde-
privilege of being friends with a unique
be everywhere, bringing hope and cour-
cent, for the President and other Potomac
moralizers to lecture New York on the need
and wonderfully warm and gifted hu-
age to the citizens, supervising the re-
for self-reliance.
man being. This fine gentleman would
covery program, finding people places to
The real New York City is an area of some
deserve recognition just for the kindness,
live, arranging for the rebuilding. He
15 million people, spanning three states. The
decency and strength he brings to situ-
pulled that town back together and from
legal New York City is a fraction of that
ations and to all who know him. But in
5:30 Friday, when the tornado struck,
area, with 7.5 million people jammed into
until Monday, Mayor Dumke was a "tor-
its confines.
addition to these sterling qualities of
character, he has excelled as a leader
nado" himself.
The selection of which people live inside
in municipal affairs and as a talented
So, today I want to pay special and
and outside the borders of legal New York
public servant. Serving in his fourth term
heartfelt tribute to Mayor Dumke and
City is not random; it is the end-product of
as mayor of Oak Lawn, Ill., he was re-
congratulate him on his election as Pres-
two generations of national policy.
cently elected president of the Illinois
ident to the Illinois Municipal League. I
Two great waves of population change have
swept through the old cities=an in-gather-
Municipal League. I can think of no in-
know I speak for many people when I
ing of the poor from the South and Puerto
dividual more deserving of this honor
commend him for his past accomplish-
Rico and an outflow to the suburbs of more
than Mayor Fred M. Dumke.
ments and wish his continued success in
affiuent whites. The two streams are not
Mayor Dumke is a most persuasive and
the future.
equal in volume. New York and most other
far-sighted leader who is responsible for
old cities have had net losses of population:
Neal Peirce, author-columnist, has estimated
instituting the highly effective council-
URBAN ILLS
the New York loss at almost & half-million
manager form of government in Oak
people in the past five years.
Lawn. He has been in the forefront of
HON. ROBERT W. EDGAR
And the racial and economic gap between
efforts to better municipal procedures.
the inner city and its suburbs has grown even
This is not surprising, for he is surely
OF PENNSYLVANIA
faster than population has declined. Ed
one of the most knowledgeable people in
Hamilton, the former New York City budget
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
the country when it comes to municipal
chief, cites figures showing the city's median
Wednesday, November 5, 1975
family income is now only half that of its
government. While serving for 8 years
suburbs.
as village trustee in Oak Lawn he also
Mr. EDGAR. Mr. Speaker, the House
That is, of course, exactly what the Kerner
worked diligently in the area of institut-
will be considering next week legislation
Commission meant when it warned seven
ing public improvements within the com-
with far-reaching philosophical, finan-
years ago that "our nation is moving toward
E 5880
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-Extensions of Remarks
November 5, 1975
two societies, one black, one white-separate
experimental. We can now say that it has
ers would be eligible for a clemency dis-
and unequal."
been an overwhelming success and de-
charge.
It is not New York alone that has been
serves our fullest support.
On September 15 four members of the
victimized by these trends. The same kind
of change-often at a more rapid rate-has
I am happy to say that I have heard
Presidential Clemency Board issued a
hit Baltimore, Boston, Detroit, Cleveland,
nothing but good reports on the activities
minority report highly critical of the
Philadelphia, St. Louis, Chicago, San
that have occurred under this program.
composition, staffing, policies and credi-
Francisco, and, yes, even such "new" cities
During the testimony given before our
bility of the operations and decisions of
as Denver and Salt Lake City.
Subcommittee on National Parks and
the PCB. An AP release of September 19
Behind all these trends lies federal policy.
Recreation witnesses praised the pro-
stated:
Federally financed farm mechanization pro-
gram emphatically and the bill was
President Ford's clemency board was
grams cost thousands of farm jobs for south-
passed without amendment.
stacked with anti-war liberals who distorted
ern blacks; federally financed defense jobs
lured those blacks to the northern cities.
As our Bicentennial approaches we will
the intent of the program, urged prison in-
The failure of the federal government to
be placing more and more emphasis on
mates to apply and voted clemency in cases
provide uniform national income mainte-
the need to interpret the history of our
involving civilian felony convictions includ-
Nation and share this information with
ing rape and murder, four board members
nance programs made it advantageous for
say.
the poor to remain in the northern cities,
visitors to our parks. The Volunteers in
even when the jobs began to move away.
the Parks program is timely and will play
The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the
And, of course, federal housing subsidies
a key role in meeting this need.
United States, a major veterans orga-
and mortgage guarantees built the new
It is particularly important to note
nization opposed to both unconditional
suburban communities to which the af-
fluent whites fled from those poor-infested
that those taking part in the program
and conditional "amnesty" for draft
center cities. And federal funds built the
are not paid. The funds are to be used to
dodgers and military deserters, praised
commuter highways on which they made
reimburse the incidental expenses of the
the minority members for their forth-
their exit.
volunteers for such items as their gaso-
right stand in this matter.
Never during this process did federal of-
line costs for transportation, occasional
I insert at this point the VFW release
ficials say, "This is going to end in disaster
meals or lodging while on duty in the
of September 19 along with a short sum-
unless we find some way to allow those cities
park, and uniforms. The cost to the Fed-
to expand their borders to encompass the
mary of the minority report of the Pres-
suburbs we have created around them."
eral Government has been estimated to
idential Clemency Board's operations:
Instead, federal officials said annexation
be 28 cents per volunteer per hour. There
VFW LEADER HAILS GEN. LEWIS WALT'S
was a matter of state policy, and most
are few programs which can boast such a
LATEST SERVICE TO AMERICA
states kept the cities from expanding. Those
high return for so low an outlay of funds.
WASHINGTON, D.C.-(September 19, 1975)-
officials said the city's claims to equality
The volunteers have demonstrated re-
Thomas C. "Pete" Walker, National Com-
of representation in Congress and the legis-
markable talents. Their duties range
mander-in-Chief of the Veterans of Foreign
latures was a matter for the courts. But, by
from giving information to visitors, to
Wars of the United States, today hailed Gen-
the time the courts got around to enunciat-
ing the one man-one vote doctrine, the cities
participating in living history demon-
eral Lewis Walt, USMC (Ret.), for "telling-
strations. It should be noted that those
it-like-it-is" in revealing the calculated ef-
were already being emptied of all but the
poor.
who benefit include not only the visitors
fort of the Goodell-dominated majority of
the 18-man Presidential Clemency Board to
Those same federal officials turned their
but the local communities, the Park Serv-
change President Ford's "earned re-entry"
backs on yet a third problem-the problem
ice and the volunteers themselves. They
program for convicted military deserters and
of school desegregation, leaving that, too,
are very dedicated to their work and take
draft dodgers into a mass mechanism for
to the courts. And the courts, pursuing their
great pride and enjoyment in doing it
unconditional Presidential pardons depart-
own necessarily circumscribed mandate
well.
ing totally from President Ford's "earned re-
have imposed "solutions"-like busing in
I know of no controversy over this leg-
entry" guidelines.
the big-city school systems-that have ac-
islation and urge its adoption by the
(Mr. Walker continues the V.F.W. position
celerated the fight to the suburbs and the
House.
of "disagreeing" with the President on his
decay of the old center cities.
clemency program "without being disagree-
That is the reality that lies behind the
able.")
New York City crisis. But it is complicated
to discuss in these terms, and uncomfort-
THE
PRESIDENTIAL
CLEMENCY
General Walt, former Marine Vietnam com-
mander and assistant Commandant of the
able for those like the President and the
BOARD'S MINORITY REPORT
Corps, selected the V.F.W. to "assure that
congressional leaders, who have been on the
veterans of America fully comprehend how
scene for 25 years while these forces were
gathering momentum unchecked.
HON. JOHN M. ASHBROOK
the pro-amnesty majority of the President's
Clemency Board distorted and attempted to
It's so much easier to blame it all on
OF OHIO
defeat the President's guiding concept."
John Lindsay, Abe Beame, the greedy New
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
"Fortunately," the straight-talking veteran
York unions and the avaricious New York
banks, and pretend it can't happen else-
Wednesday, November 5, 1975
of 41 years of military service continued, "I
have been assured that, in light of the Minor-
where.
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Speaker, as I
ity Report, which I am furnishing the V.F.W.,
It not only can happen elsewhere, it will.
have poined out elsewhere in the CON-
the President will take positive action to
And who will our "leaders" blame then?
GRESSIONAL RECORD, various news ac-
forestall the cynical effort on the part of the
counts and a minority report of four
Goodell-dominated staff and Board majority
to inundate the White House staff and the
Clemency Board members have raised
President with thousands of recommended
INCREASING APPROPRIATION AU-
substantive questions relating to the
pardons, many for convicted criminals. A
THORIZATION FOR VOLUNTEERS
conduct of the President's clemency pro-
Presidential pardon must be viewed as a
gram covering deserters and draft
prized and relatively infrequent occurrence."
IN THE PARKS PROGRAM
dodgers of the Vietnam war era.
General Walt and three of his associates
By far the most serious charges con-
on the Board, Dr. Adams, Mr. Dougovito and
SPEECH OF
cerned the Presidential Clemency Board
Colonel Harry Riggs, signed and made avail-
HON. DON H. CLAUSEN
able to the V.F.W. a searing critique of the
which was established over a year ago
pro-amnesty bias of the hand-picked major-
OF CALIFORNIA
and which went out of business on Sep-
ity of the enlarged 18-person Board. (Gen-
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
tember 15 of this year. The 18-member
eral Walt was on the original nine-man
panel was empowered to relieve of pros-
Board selected by the President in Septem-
Tuesday, November 4, 1975
ecution and punishment any convicted
ber 1974. The Board went out of business
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr. Speaker, I
deserters, convicted draft dodgers, and
on September 15, 1975 at midnight.)
strongly support increasing the funding
those still serving sentences for such vio-
Thomas C. "Pete" Walker, the V.F.W.
authorization for the Volunteers in the
lations. Applicants who applied before
leader, cited General Walt for "his latest
Parks program and urge passage of this
March 31, 1975, executed an agreement
service to America in blowing the whistle
on Goodell and his syncophants and causing
bill.
acknowledging their allegiance to the
a careful case-by-case review of clemency
It is a very simple and straightfor-
United States, pledged to fulfill a period
requests by the Department of Justice and
ward proposal which raises the existing
of alternative service under the auspices
the White House to be instituted."
authorization level from $100,000 to
of the Director of Selective Service and
A summary of General Walt's tell-it-like-
$250,000. The original level was based on
satisfactorily completed such service
it-is Minority Report on Presidential Clem-
the idea that the program was new and
would be eligible for such relief. Desert-
ency Board (PCB) operations is enclosed.
November 5, 1975
CONGRESSIONAL of Remarks
5881
SUMMARY: MINORITY REPORT OF THE PRESI-
and dedicated, were generally blased against
free Unconditional Pardon and a Clemency
DENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD'S OPERATIONS
the military and the Vietnam War and had
Discharge to replace your less than honorable
PURPOSE
practically no experience in or with the mili-
discharge." We believe this is quite a dif-
tary. The work they did in preparing the case
ferent connotation and meaning than was
The purpose of this report is to reflect the
summaries was, as a result, often amateurish,
initially argued by the Chairman and Execu-
views of a minority of the members of the
biased, and many times incomplete. In
tive Staff last October. Further, a person who
PCB concerning the composition, staffing,
reality, the young staff attorneys themselves,
has been convicted of a felony (a crime
policies and credibility of the operations and
were of the same influence and were generally
punishable by imprisonment for more than
decisions of the PCB.
without the benefit of any experience with
one year) may legally purchase a firearm
COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD
the Military Forces, which compounded the
from a licensed firearms dealer if the person
The original nine-member Board appointed
problem. Also, these young "case writers"
convicted of said felony has received an un-
by the President represented a fair balance
were instructed by some senior staff member
conditional Presidential Pardon. The Presi-
among liberal, middle-of-the-road and con-
to present the case "in the best light." Con-
dential Pardon, however, only applies to Fed-
servative views. This group in its early meet-
sequently, many of the resulting summaries
eral offenses.
ings established and adopted policies and
were an inaccurate presentation of facts on
In the early months of the Board's de-
guidelines by which decisions of the Board
which the Board members had to make their
liberations a real effort was made to main-
would be determined in accordance with the
decisions.
tain the "meaningfulness" and "value" of the
President's Executive Order and Proclama-
Over-staffing, lack of organization, lack of
Clemency Discharge. For such offenses as.
tion. However, many of these policies were
personnel discipline and improper utilization
AWOL from combat, refusal to go to com-
changes when the membership of the Board
of personnel assets were evident throughout.
bat, multiple and long AWOLs, civil convic-
was increased to eighteen members in May
Management built up the staff to a peak of
tions for felony; the Board would normally
1975. By his own admission, the Chairman
over six hundred professional and admin-
vote "no clemency." However, and in sharp
had a fairly free hand in picking the new
istrative personnel. This appeared to be con-
contrast, during the latter months of the
siderably more than was necessary to get the
Board members and he included two mem-
Board's operation and after the more am-
bers of his staff. The new Board members
job done if proper organization and super-
vision had been practiced. For example, on
nesty-oriented eighteen-member Goodell-in-
were not given an orientation on Board
1 July, at the peak of the six hundred plus
fluenced Board came into being, clemency
policies and guidelines. This led to much
staff, it was stated by a senior member that
was voted in cases involving multiple AWOLs
confusion. Initially, it was difficult for the
OMB believed that less than half of the
(8) from the battlefield; multiple refusals to
new Board members to make sound decisions,
secretaries were being used effectively in the
go into combat; multiple (as high as ten
due to lack of knowledge of Board oper-
production process. Even with this surplus
AWOLs) and long (seven years) AWOLs;
ation. The Chairman gave guidance which,
of secretaries, only one was assigned to all
civilian felony convictions (rape, murder,
on occasions, seemed not to be strictly in
of the eighteen Board members. Regular
manslaughter, grand larceny, armed robbery,
accordance with previous Board policy and
working hours were not established nor
aggravated assault). Also a man given an Un-
decisions. At this point, the Board as a whole
observed-employees seemed to come and go
desirable or even Punitive Discharge for a
became a more amnesty-oriented, Goodell-
at their convenience. On a week-day mid-
few days or even hours of AWOL (which, ac-
influenced group, with Goodell, in turn,
afternoon in July (the Board's busiest
cording to the Board General Counsel's rul-
seemingly under the influence of the Gen-
month), the Personnel Director made a head-
ing, qualified him for the Clemency Board
eral Counsel and his somewhat biased anti-
count and over one hundred sixty employees
Program) was recommended for a pardon and
Vietnam War staff. From this point on, the
could not be accounted for.
clemency discharge, by a bare majority vote,
Board became, in effect, a captive of the
APPLICANTS
even though the official offense charged
Chairman and the Staff, and policy decisions
might include aggravated assault, disrespect
were made by the Chairman and the Gen-
In the first four months of the program,
to officer or NCO, striking an officer or NCO,
eral Counsel which influenced Board actions
only some eight hundred individuals made
wrongful appropriation of personal or gov-
and results without the realization of Board
application to the PCB. This appeared to be
ernment property, etc. This again was a turn-
members.
due primarily to a lack of proper publicity
about from the policy set by the nine-mem-
An example of the continual effort of the
and understanding of the program. In Jan-
ber Board. Another questionable move, con-
Board's Executive Staff to distort the Presi-
uary 1975, the members of the Board ini-
dent's Program was a written proposal by a
tiated a nationwide publicity program which
doned by the Chairman, was to make drug ad-
diction a mitigating factor on behalf of the
senior staff member to "create some doubt
resulted in several thousand new applica-
in the minds of people" about the meaning
tions. Further, the Chairman, without the
applicant and drug use as a possible qualifi-
knowledge of the Board, wrote letters to all
cation for mitigation. The Board, on the
of a Clemency Discharge. In making such a
other hand, was instructed not to consider
proposal, the Staff member suggested, in a
major penal institutions of the United
memorandum, that "one way to generate
States, advising them that inmates who met
the use of drugs as an aggravating factor
such ambiguity" would be to invite Honor-
the eligibility criteria should apply. This
even though such use was unlawful. This
penitentiary mail produced over two thou-
change from the nine-member Board policy
ably Discharged Veterans to request clem-
sand applications, on which the Board has
again was strenuously objected to by the con-
ency discharges "as an expression of their
opposition to the Vietnam War."
taken action, and in the majority of cases,
stantly "out-voted" majority.
The idea of using the Presidential Clem-
recommended pardons. In contrast with this
CONCLUSION
ency Board as a vehicle to incite great num-
is the fact that President Truman's Amnesty
We believe that the original concept and
bers of Honorably Discharged Veterans to
Board refused clemency for all persons hav-
plan as conceived and announced by the
"express their opposition to the Vietnam
ing a prior criminal record of one or more
President was a good, sound, workable plan,
War" would be a gross dis-service to the
serious offenses, stating, "The Board would
but the President's objectives have not been
President.
have failed in its duty to society and to the
attained because of the misdirection and
memory of the men who fought and died to
STAFFING
maladministration of the plan. We feel
protect it, had amnesty been recommended
Since the PCB was only a temporary
deeply obligated and honor bound to ap-
in these cases."
organization, it was determined by the
praise the President of these facts.
President, through OMB, that no funds
Changes in board policy and deviation
It appears that the Chairman and his
would be made available to hire a permanent
from the spirit and intent of the Executive
Executive Staff have misinterpreted, circum-
staff. Rather, all administrative and opera-
order and proclamation.
vented and violated at least the spirit of the
tional personnel would be detailed "on loan"
The first significant move on the part of
Executive Order of 16 September 1974, and
from other agencies. In the beginning, DOD
the Chairman and his Executive Staff, in our
Proclamation No. 4313. This questionable ac-
offered its facilities and professional trained
opinion, was to introduce the word "pardon"
tion has been initiated, it appears, to in-
personnel to prepare the case summaries,
into the Clemency decision on each appli-
crease the number of "eligible" applicants,
but this offer was rejected by the Board's
cant's case although the word "pardon" never
to liberalize the decisions of the majority
General Counsel. We feel that this assistance
appeared once in the President's Executive
of the Board in order to gain more favorable
would have been a real asset to the Board
Order or Proclamation. The Chairman and
decision for the applicants, and to set a lib-
effort in that the summaries would have been
Executive Staff argued that "pardon" and
eral precedent relative to Executive pardons
objective and factual. It was turned down
"clemency" were synonymous terms and they
closely associated with felonious crimes. A
on the grounds that the General Counsel
won the argument, by claiming the tacit ap-
move which could degrade the true meaning
felt the briefs must be prepared by lawyers.
proval from the White House, over the stren-
of a Presidential pardon. The actions, in our
The result was that attorneys were detailed
uous objection of some of the Board Mem-
opinion, are not only unethical, but they
from other agencies to work with the Gen-
bers. Eventually in the Board decisions and
may also border on illegality, and could
eral Counsel and his associates in the prep-
in letters going to the applicant after the
greatly discredit the President's Clemency
aration of applicant cases. Due to the num-
Board action, the words "clemency" and
Program in the eyes of the American public.
ber of cases to be presented within a very
"pardon" were no longer used as synonymous
In short, we have lost confidence in the
short period, the legal staff was augmented
terms but were separated and used in the
Board results, which under Chairman Good-
by approximately two hundred law students
terms of "a pardon" and a "Clemency Dis-
ell's direction are being recommended to the
acting as legal interns during their summer
charge." We quote from a letter dated July
President. We feel that the limited capa-
vacation. However, approximately ninety per-
16, 1975, written to an applicant and signed
bility of the already hard-pressed White
cent of the cases were military and these
by Chairman Goodell, The President has
House staff to monitor and screen these rec-
young men and women, even though eager
signed a master warrant granting you a full,
ommendations, is inadequate to insure that
5882
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - Extensions of Remarks
November 5, 1975
the President will approve only recommenda-
advocate, nor has it been needlessly har-
agency charged with enforcing relevant
tions which meet his high standards. This
assed with petitions for action or infor-
laws, or petition an agency to take ac-
problem is further aggravated by a backlog
mation. On the contrary, the New Jer-
tion to correct the problem. But it does
of some ten thousand cases which may soon
sey Public Advocate has, in many cases,
not have the authority to compel an-
be dumped on the White House Staff in a
assisted various departments and agen-
other Federal agency to take action to
short period of time.
We believe that the recent steps the Presi-
cies in New Jersey in focusing on prob-
remedy a specific consumer problem. If
dent has taken to terminate the Clemency
lems they had previously not been aware
the Federal agency declines to take re-
Board activity on September 15, 1975, and
of or had not realized affected large num-
medial action, it is required only to no-
to place the Program under the auspices of
bers of citizens.
tify the CPA in writing of the reasons
the Attorney General-more specifically-un-
For example, recently the department
for not acting. In contrast, the New
der the direction of the Pardon Attorney of
of the public advocate filed a Superior
Jersey Division of Citizen Complaints has
the Department of Justice, is a very sound
Court suit challenging the dominance of
the authority to investigate any com-
move. It is our hope that the Pardon Attorney
the State Real Estate Commission by real
will take a close and conscientious look at the
plaint from any citizen relating to the
Clemency Board recommendations, so as to
estate brokers. In the suit the advocate
action or inaction of a State agency. If
insure that the value of the Clemency Dis-
asked that the statute governing the
the complaint division determines that
charge is restored to its original respected
commission be declared unconstitutional
the agency's action or failure to act is
level, and only those applicants who deserve
because broker members control the set-
unjustified, it may notify the public ad-
the discharge are awarded it.
ting of rules and regulations for the
vocate. The advocate can then turn the
We, as a minority of the Presidential Clem-
State's real estate industry. The present
results of the investigation over to the
ency Board, do not believe that:
statute requires that five of the seven
division of public interest advocacy
Any man who has two or more convictions
commission members be brokers and
which has the authority to institute a
(civilian or military) of serious crimes on
have at least 10 consecutive years of
his record, should be given clemency. We do
proceeding before any department, com-
not believe that a man who deserted his
broker experience. The sixth member is
mission, agency or board of the State
comrades on the battlefield in Vietnam or
a government official, and the seventh is
with responsibility for solving such
who refused to go to Vietnam when he was
the sole member representing the pub-
complaints.
so ordered, should be given clemency.
lic. After the public advocate identified
The effectiveness of State consumer
We believe, as did the Truman Board, that
this problem, several members of the
and public advocates in no way elimi-
when the majority of the Board recommends
State legislature moved to act on re-
nates or reduces the need for the prompt
clemency in such cases, it has failed in its
duty to society, and to the memory of those
structuring the Board.
establishment of a Federal consumer
men who fought and died to protect it. We
Both the New Jersey Public Advocate
protection agency. A Federal CPA would
also feel that it has been negligent in carry-
and the Federal CPA can intervene in
not duplicate the States' consumer
ing out its responsibility and has not ful-
ratemaking proceedings. The New Jer-
agency efforts but would supplement
filled its obligations to protect the integrity
sey Public Advocate has recently chal-
and extend them. State consumer agen-
of the Presidency.
lenged the $155 million rate increase re-
cies are often unable to represent con-
quested by New Jersey Bell in a petition
sumers before Federal agencies, and are
to the State Board of Public Utility Com-
helpless in influencing many Federal de-
missioners. The Department's Division of
OFFICE OF PUBLIC DEFENDER
cisions affecting consumers, like the Rus-
Rate Counsel is also seeking to have the
sian wheat deal which caused a huge
automatic adjustment clause in the tele-
jump in the price of bread and animal
HON. ANDREW MAGUIRE
phone company's contract revoked as il-
feed. State agencies are often powerless
OF NEW JERSEY
legal because it passes on to the public
to protect their constituents against
"the major cost burden without appro-
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
abusive consumer products which orig-
priate scrutiny in an adversary setting"
inate in other States. Federal agencies
Wednesday, November 5, 1975
according to Public Advocate Stanley
have the responsibility to endorse laws
Mr. MAGUIRE. Mr. Speaker, during
Van Ness. The Division of Rate Counsel
dealings with interstate shipment of
the 6 years that the Senate has consid-
claims that the adjustment clause is il-
shoddy or unsafe merchandise and with
ered consumer protection legislation, we
legal because it violates constitutional
hazards such as commercial flights
have amassed thousands of pages of con-
requirements of due process in failing to
carrying radioactive cargo. But in the
gressional hearings, recorded the testi-
afford public notice and an opportunity
past when Federal agencies have not
mony of scores of witnesses and docu-
to be heard.
enforced these standards and laws, State
mented in laborious detail the numer-
While the New Jersey Public Advocate
agencies have usually had little success
ous abuses which have resulted, in large
in many ways parallels the consumer
in compelling them to do SO.
measure, from the absence of effective
protection agency proposed in H.R. 7575,
Mr. President, the New Jersey statute
consumer advocacy before Federal regu-
it is also stronger in several ways. Un-
exemplifies the increased awareness on
latory agencies. A few well-publicized ex-
like the Federal CPA, a New Jersey ad-
the past of State governments of the
amples include rubber-stamping of air
vocate's case cannot be overturned on
need to provide representation for public
fare increases, nonenforcement of nurs-
the ground that the advocate improperly
and consumer interests before State
ing home standards, flammable fabrics
identified the public interest which he
agencies and departments. Without un-
in children's clothes, and oil companies
chose to represent. The "public interest"
necessary fuss or drawn-out debate, the
ballooning their already inflated profits.
which the New Jersey Public Advocate
New Jersey legislature and Governor
While we have discussed, debated, and
has the responsibility to represent is
Byrne have acted decisively to enact leg-
analyzed every section and line of the
defined as "an interest or right arising
islation to represent its citizens before
consumer protection bill over the years,
from the Constitution, decisions of court,
State agencies and departments. I would
the State of New Jersey has expeditious-
common law, or other laws of the United
like to include in the RECORD a recent
ly created its own public advocate. On
States or of this State inhering in the
summary by the New Jersey Department
May 13, 1974, Gov. Brendan T. Byrne
citizens of this State or in a broad class
of the Public Advocate of some of its
signed into law the department of the
of such citizens." These are the sole cri-
activities:
public advocate which like the Federal
terion on which the advocate makes his
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
CPA has the authority to represent and
decision on whether he- may properly
intervene or not. Using the above statu-
The upward trend in the over-all Public
protect the public in ratemaking or other
Defender caseload continued during the past
administrative and judicial proceedings
tory definition of "public interest" the
quarter after a full fiscal year during which
but has no regulatory power.
public advocate has intervened in a wide
the Office handled a record 37,891 assign-
This successful working model of a
range of activities including public ac-
ments. Now that the new court year has be-
State CPA, included within the New Jer-
cess to beaches, postcard registration,
gun, the Office is begining to receive requests
sey Department of the Public Advocate,
residence requirements for persons tak-
from assignment judges for additional Public
has disproven the predictions about the
ing the civil service exam, unsafe nursing
Defender staff in their regions. It has not
homes, and others.
been possible to honor these requests because
deleterious effect of a public advocate on
no additional staff was allocated to the Office
the workings of government. The New
Under H.R. 7575, when the CPA re-
in the 1976 Budget. Funds also are unavail-
Jersey government has not been immo-
ceives complaints from consumers, it may
able to retain additional private counsel.
bilized by the intervention of the public
refer the complaint to a Federal or State
In some counties there are now more than
1) Upgrade (Dod C. 60)
2) In hen of q subst for
3) Xmas visit
4) V.A. benefits
5) Jelony cases
FORDO is LIBRARY CERALD
Hordlon Lidyl
6) Commitation of A.S.
10/27/76.
.
9900 Terminated or Never Applied.
1500 Completed
+350 still enrolled
1700
7/UD in Alsentra for
714 Dod p126
356 Dog.
Dod who didn't
628 PCB
participate (3000)
1/4/77/95 - mg w/ Pres Ford.
1) Upgrade (Dod 0.60)
2) In her of q subst for
3) X.mas visit
4) V.A. benefits
5) Jelony cases
- Gordon Liddy
6) Commitation of A.S.
10/27/76
GERALD
9900 Terminated or Never Applied.
1500 completed
+350 still enrolled
1700
7/00 in Afientia for
714 Dad P126
356 Doy.
Dod who We't
628 FCB
partreipate (3000)
PRESS RELEASE
PRESS RELEASE
UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME
Division of Information Services
Notre Dame, Indiana
For further information call:
Embargoed until
Lawrence M. Baskir
6:00 P.M. EST
William A. Strauss
January 15, 1977
(202) 296-1767
BROAD RELIEF URGED FOR
VIETNAM-ERA OFFENDERS
Washington, D.C., January 15, 1977.
R.
FORD
D'LIBRARY
A wide-ranging program of relief for Vietnam-era
military and draft offenders was proposed in a report issued
today by the University of Notre Dame's Center for Civil
Rights.
The report, "Reconciliation After Vietnam," proposes
a 41-point program offering relief to over a half-million
people punished or still facing charges for non-violent
offenses committed during the Vietnam war. Its major recom-
mendations are:
- Military offenders court-martialed for offenses in
Vietnam or for refusing to serve in Vietnam should have their
cases reviewed individually
- No relief should be offered to anyone convicted of
serious combat-related desertion or civilian-type crimes
- All other military offenders should be given
General Discharges
(More)
- 2 -
- Veterans' benefits should be granted only to the
50,000 who served honorably in Vietnam, and to those with at
least two years of good military service
- Pardons should be granted to persons convicted of
draft and other non-violent offenses related to the war
- Those still facing prosecution for these offenses
should have their cases dropped
The report does not recommend universal, unconditional
amnesty.
"If those who committed very serious offenses are
barred from relief," it states, "the American people can be
confident that a full measure of forgiveness will be given
only to those who deserve it."
According to the report, "Amnesty is most
appropriately viewed as a question of social justice, not
anti-war ideology. The economically and socially disadvantaged
did most of the fighting. They also paid most of the penalties
for not fighting."
The report blames much of the divisiveness about
amnesty on popular "myths" surrounding the young men commonly
labeled "draft evaders" and "deserters." For example:
Myth: Young men who avoided military service were
punished.
Fact: Draft avoidance was widespread among the
27,000,000 men of draft age during the
Vietnam era. Sixteen million never
served in the military, two-thirds of
whom took positive steps to avoid the
draft through legal means. Just 8,800
were convicted for "draft evasion."
Myth: "Draft evaders" and "deserters" were white,
well-educated, and staunchly anti-war.
Fact: The overwhelming majority of Vietnam-
era offenders came from underprivileged
backgrounds. Almost half of all "draft
evaders" were members of minority groups
(More)
- 3 -
who never registered for the draft.
Three-quarters of the "deserters" were
high school dropouts, and less than
1% ever graduated from college. Most
offenses were motivated primarily by
personal or family problems.
Myth: Many "deserters" were cowards who fled
from combat, endangering their fellow
troops.
Fact: Very few "desertion" offenses were
connected with service in Vietnam. Just
24 servicemen were convicted of desertion
to avoid hazardous duty in Vietnam. About
2,000 others were punished for less serious
absence offenses in the combat zone, and
another 7,000 for refusing to report there --
a small fraction of the 100,000 servicemen
who bear the label of "deserter."
The report follows a year-long study supported by a
special grant from the Ford Foundation. Its authors, Lawrence
M. Baskir and William A. Strauss, were formerly top officials
in the Ford Clemency Program. The findings of the report
are based on extensive field research, new statistical infor-
mation, and data from official sources.
"This report is the most thorough analysis ever done
on Vietnam-era offenders, and also on any amnesty attempt in
American history," according to Father Theodore M. Hesburgh,
President of the University of Notre Dame and chairman of the
study advisory committee.
"I hope that the findings and recommendations in this
report can steer us all toward a practical, comprehensive
resolution of one of the major tragedies of the Vietnam era,"
he added.
The other members of the advisory committee are:
U.S. Senator Charles Mathias of Maryland; William Klaus, a
Philadelphia attorney; Morris Janowitz, Professor of military
sociology of the University of Chicago; Roger Kelley, Vice
President of the Caterpillar Tractor Co., and formerly an
(More)
- 4 -
Assistant Secretary of Defense, Eddie Williams of the Joint
Center for Political Studies, and Professor Jefferson
Fordham of the University of Utah Law School.
Excerpts from the report are attached. Copies may
be obtained from the University of Notre Dame Press, Notre
Dame, Indiana 46556, or the Vietnam Offender Study offices
at 1826 Jefferson Place, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.
(END)
12/4/77/95
Pres,
1) Clemency
2) Paley
3) Gordon Liddy
4) CBI, Colleton River
5) Concorde & Reo,
GETATO R. FORD TIRRAT
AMCHINES AND IN RECORDS
Gerald R. Ford Library
1000 Beal Avenue Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-2114
1985
Memo to the pile:
Copies (3) of the final report have been removed and added
to the Ford Library book collection.
LET 11/89
A Presidential Library Administered by the National Archives and Records Administration
Page data
- Page
- 1
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- document
- Media ID
- c78d0465b2b8ad38
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 1506015
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "1506015",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1506015",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Miscellaneous",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1506015",
"collections": [
"Charles E. Goodell Papers",
"Presidential Clemency Board Subject Files"
],
"subjects": [
"Amnesty"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0193/648291/1506015.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0193/648291/1506015.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0193/648291/1506015.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "1506015",
"label": "Miscellaneous",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1506015"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "1506015",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1506015",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Miscellaneous",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1506015",
"collections": [
"Charles E. Goodell Papers",
"Presidential Clemency Board Subject Files"
],
"subjects": [
"Amnesty"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0193/648291/1506015.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0193/648291/1506015.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0193/648291/1506015.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1506015",
"naId": 1506015,
"coverageEndDate": {
"logicalDate": "1977-12-31",
"month": 12,
"year": 1977
},
"coverageStartDate": {
"logicalDate": "1974-11-01",
"month": 11,
"year": 1974
},
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 1,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "document",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0193/648291/1506015.pdf",
"mediaId": "c78d0465b2b8ad38",
"ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 8, folder \"Miscellaneous\" of the Charles E.\nGoodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Charles Goodell donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box 8 of the Charles E. Goodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nCASES WITH QUESTIONABLE BASELINES\n#\nBASELINE AGG MIT. DECISION\nHES, WALT, Doves\n549\n16 MO\n)\n/\n14 MO\nHES, o'c, WHIT, MAME\n551\n12 MO\n-\n9,10\n9 Mo\n=\n958\n3 2/2\n1,5\n24 Mo\n\"\n737\n24 MO\nI\n4,9\n6 Mo\n11\n780\n24 MO\n5\n11\n24 Mo\n743\nH Mo\n*\n3 40\n304\n21 MO\n8\nBrood\nFORD i GERALD LIBRARY\n* BASELINE IS CORRECT\n16 to 14\n3 to ?\nPRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD\nCASE SUMMARY\nno Ag or M\nPCB Attorney: Dancheck\nCase No. 74-549-JDA-C\nTelephone: (202) 456-2110\nBranch of Service: N/A\nSummary Completed: 12 Feb 75\nAge: 22\nCurrent Sentence: Youth Corrections Act\nPresent Status: Probationer per-\nTwo years imprisonment suspended on\nforming alternate service\nprobation for 5 yrs. and $500 fine\nDate of Application: 1 Nov 74\nCourt: U.S.D.C., W.D. North Carolina\n(Charlotte Division)\nTotal Time Served: None\nDischarge Status: N/A\nOffense: Failure to submit to induction\nTotal Creditable Service: N/A\nGERALD R. FORD LIDRA\nBackground:\nApplicant is Caucasian, born in Detroit and reared in North Carolina.\nHe is the third born in a family of four brothers and one sister. The\nfamily is middle-class, stable, intact and highly regarded in its com-\nmunity. Applicant maintains a close relationship with his parents. He\ngraduated from high school and attended college for one and one-half\nyears before withdrawing. Applicant states that he withdrew from college\nbecause of the apparent purposelessness of the academic regimen. He\nmaintained a 3.0 average on a scale of 0 to 4. Applicant married on\n7 Apr 73. 4s of the writing of the pre-sentence report there were no\nchildren. Applicant was employed as a carpenter until his probation.\nHe is a recent convert to the Church of Latter-Day Saints. Applicant\nis asthmatic. He intends to return to college. He has been performing\nalternate service, a condition of his probation, at a state mental hospi-\ntal. The duration of the alternate service condition of probation (full-\ntime employment) is three years. The United States Attorney will inter-\npose no objection to reduction of this requirement to two years.\nCircumstances of Offense:\nApplicant states in a 14 Oct 74 letter to the PCB that:\nOn December 6, 1972, I reported as ordered, for\ninduction, to the Charlotte AFEES. Upon admini-\nstration of the oath of induction, I did not step\nforward to signify my compliance with the oath.\n2\nCase No. 74-549-JDA-C\nOn or about November 5, 1972, I was at the\nCharlotte AFEES for enlistment processing, but\nI was refused enlistment because I did not re-\ntract a claim of having asthma, which I had\nmade during my pre-induction physical. My\ndesire in enlisting was partially prompted by\nthe six month delayed entry plan it offered.\nIn a 1 Nov 1974 letter to the Board, applicant states:\nMy ideological thinking at the time of my\noffense was still very confused, and I felt\nthat no country could demand warring services\nof me, especially services demanded by the\nVietnam type approach to foreign policy.\nI know that I should observe and honor the\nlaws and orders of our nation, as long as our\nConstitution stands.\n*****\nA month prior to my induction date I had been\nrejected as an enlistee into the Army because\nof an asthma claim I had made during my pre-\ninduction physical. To be cleared for enlist-\nment I had to have medical proof that I was\nnot asthmatic which was impossible, as I even\ntoday occasionally have mild attacks of asthma.\nAfter arrest applicant sought enlistment but was denied entry because\nof his entanglement with the federal criminal system. After convic-\ntion, the trial judge announced that he would annul the conviction if\napplicant would enlist. Applicant recalls his attempted enlistment\ndilemma:\nThe recruiting officer told me that I had to be\ncleared first, then enlist. The judge and re-\ncruiter met, could not meet terms, and I was\nleft to be put in the situation in which I am\nnow in.\n3\nCase No. 74-549-JDA-C\nVietnam Service: N/A\nChronology:\n5 Jun 52\nDate of birth\nJun 69\nGraduated from high school\nAug 70\nBegan college\nDec 71\nWithdrew from college\n5 Nov 72\nSought enlistment\n6 Dec 72\nInduction refusal\nSep 72 - Jan 73\nEmployment as carpenter\nJan 73 - Jun 73\nEmployment as carpenter on\napartment construction\n7 Apr 73\nMarried\nJun 73\nEmployment as carpenter with\ncontractor\n17 Oct 73\nArrested\n4 Feb 74\nPleaded guilty\n6 May 74\nJudgment and sentence\n6 Jun 74\nBegan alternate service\n1 Nov 74\nPCB application\n6 May 79\nProbation terminates\nAwards and Decorations: N/A\non\nPrior Criminal Convictions: None\nSentence History:\n6 May 74 - Sentenced. Probation for 5 yrs., $500 fine.\nSpecial Conditions: Perform alternate service\nat non-profit hospital or institution for 3 yrs.,\npay fine, and not violate United States or North\nCarolina laws.\n6 May - 6 Jun 74 - Negotiations to effect enlistment unsuccessful\n6 Jun 74 - Began alternate service\n10 Jan 75 - Letter from United States Attorney. No objection to\nreduction of probation and alternate service period to\n2 yrs,\nSources: PCB application; letters from applicant (1 Nov 74 and 14 Oct 74);\nletter from U.S. Attorney (10 Jan 75); Pre-sentence Report\n12 to 9\n3 to ?\nPRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD\nCASE SUMMARY\nM9,10 10\nPCB Attorney: Dancheck\nCase No. 74-551-KLJ-C\nTelephone: (202) 456-2110\nBranch of Service: N/A\nSummary Completed: 25 Feb 75\nAge: 28\nCurrent Sentence: 3 yrs. probation,\nPresent Status: Probationer per-\n$500 fine, special\nforming alternative service\ncondition: 2 yrs.\nDate of Application: 31 Oct 74\nalternative service\nCourt: U.S.D.C., D. Colorado\nTotal Time Served: None\nDischarge Status: N/A\nOffense: Refusal to submit to induction\nTotal Creditable Service: N/A\nBackground:\nApplicant is Caucasian, the third born in a middle class, intact family of\nfour children in Michigan. Applicant has always maintained a close relation-\nship with his parents. Before retirement the father had been an auditor for\nthe federal government. Applicant had a normal childhood and adolescence.\nHe is a high school and college graduate with a B.S. degree in sociology.\nHe entered law school, completed less than one semester but had to withdraw\nafter he was indicted for the Selective Service violation. He is described\nas being of \"bright average\" intelligence. Available documents disclose no\nmental or physical impairment. Applicant married in 1973. As of the writ-\ning of the presentence report, applicant had no children. Applicant has\nhad a variety of employment, both part time during school and full time\nthereafter. His records reflect work as a stockboy, auto assembler,\nassistant drug store manager and parking lot claims manager. Applicant\nis now an assistant manager of a drug store. Applicant grounds his draft\nresistance on obedience to his religious and moral convictions. He is\nopposed to all war as a means of conflict solving.\nCircumstances of Offense:\nApplicant registered for the draft on or near his 18th birthday. On or\nabout Nov 68 he applied for and was subsequently granted 1-A-0 status (Non-\ncombatant Status). He sought his status as an accommodation to avoid a\ndispute with his local board. He maintains that his local board would not\ngrant 1-0 status to Roman Catholics, a group that the local board did not\naccept as traditionally pacifist. After accepting 1-A-0 status, applicant\nCase No. 74-551-KLJ-C\nhad misgivings because he had compromised his beliefs. Applicant states\nhe began mentally preparing his case for a change in his status but his\ninduction notice prevented a filing. Applicant concedes that the local\nboard did halt the induction process and heard and rejected his petition\nfor reclassification. He contends though that he was inducted before he\ncould lodge an appeal from the local board decision. Applicant was\nordered to report for induction into the Armed Forces on 13 May 70. He\nreported as ordered but refused to submit to induction. On 20 Jul 73,\napplicant was arraigned on a one-count indictment. Applicant did not\nenter a plea but stood mute. Applicant waived trial by jury. Trial\nwas held on 15 Dec 73. Applicant's motion for acquittal was denied. On\n12 Sep 73 the district judge filed an opinion and order finding applicant\nguilty. Sentence was announced on 16 Jan 74. Applicant has been ful-\nfilling his alternative service condition of probation since Jan 74 by part-\ntime volunteer work with an inner city social service organi ation similar\nto \"Big Brothers.\" This program seeks to provide father surrogates for\ndisturbed and delinquent minority youth. According to the probation\nofficer, applicant devotes 15 hours a week on the program. Applicant\nstates he enjoys this work and will continue in this program regardless\nof any action taken by the Clemency Board.\nVietnam Service: N/A\nChronology:\n31 Mar 46\nDate of birth\nJun 64\nGraduated from high school\nNov 68\nClassified 1-A-0\nMar 69\nGraduated from college\n13 May 70\nOrder for induction\n13 Oct 73\nMarried\n20 Jul 73\nArraigned\n15 Dec 73\nTrial\n12 Sep 73\nJudgment of guilty\n16 Jan 74\nSentence pronounced\n31 Oct 74\nPCB application\n16 Jan 77\nProbation expires\nAwards and Decorations: N/A\nPrior Criminal Convictions: None\n2\nCase No. 74-551-KLJ-C\nSentence History: N/A\nSources:\nPCB application with letter\nPresentence Report\nNote: Selective Service Records destroyed\n24 to 6\nPRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY POARD\nCase Summary\n3 to\nM 4, 9\nPCB Attorney: Knudson\nCase No: 74-737-CJC-C\nTelephone No: (202) 456-2111\nAge: 28\nSummary Completed: 11 Feb 75\nPresent Status: On probation\nSentence: $3,000 fine, 5 yrs, probation\nDate of Application: 20 Nov 74\nCourt: E.D. Calif.\nTime Served: None\nOffense: Failure to possess registration\ncard\nBackground:\nApplicant, a Caucasian, was born on 10 May 46 in Hanford, California. He is\nthe third of five children in a family of good reputation. He graduated from\nhigh school in Hanford on 4 June 64. From September 1964 to June 1966 he\nattended the College of Sequoias in Visalia, California, and after two addi-\ntional years at Fresno State College he received a B.A. degree on 7 June 68.\nHe was an above-average student. He has been active in church work since\neleven years of age and at one time considered being a minister. Applicant\nstates his church has been a strong influence on his life and that he objects\nto the use of force and violence. He considers himself a conscientions\nobjector. He registered for the draft on 13 October 64. Selective Service\nrecords indicate that he WAD classified II-S until 2 December 68, when in\nvas classified I-A. On January 69 he requested a SS form to be used to apply\nfor C.O. status, this form was intended to replace the misplaced form which\nhe had requested on 27 November 68. On 22 January 69 he filed his applica-\ntion for O. status. On 17 February 69 he submitted to a pre-induction\nphysical. Applicant is married and has one child, is in good health, is\nemployed on a part-time basis earning $340.00 per month, is & student, and\nhas no other criminal record. Applicant is willing to do alternative service.\nCircumstances of the Offense:\nOn 3 March 69 he made a personal appearance before the SS Board, the purpose\nof which was to discuss his status and his request for C.O. classification.\nWhile at the SS office he requested a duplicate registration card but refused\nto sign the form required for its issuance. Therefore, a card was not issued.\nThe SS form indicates that the card had been lost, but other SS records and\nthe applicant's letter to the PCB state that the card had been left at home or\nwas otherwise intentionally not on his person. His refusal to sign the form\nwas discussed during the appearance before the SS Board. At the meeting he\nsaid he did not sign the form because he felt he would be contributing toward\n2\nthe war and further stated that \"If I decide not to carry the card, I want\nyou to understand why\nThis says I have registered with a death in-\nsitution. Subsequently, the SS Board denied his application. Pursuant\nto his request of 26 March 69 he met again with the SS Board on 5 May 69, and\nagain requested C.O. standing. By letter dated 4 June 69 lie appealed the SS\nBoard's decision to again reject his C.O. request. By letter of 18 June 69 he\nwas advised by the SS Board that it vds of the opinion that the facts presented,\nsupporting the appeal, did not warrant the recoponing or reclassification of his\ncase. He was further advised that his file was being forwarded to the Appeals\nBoard. (Appeal was forwarded on 19 May 69) On 22 October 69 the Appeals Board\ndecided to sustain the 1-A classification as determined by the Local SS Board.\nOn 8 December 69 he reported for, but refused to submit to induction. When he\nrefused to step forward, he signed a statement contending that he was a C.O.\nOn 25 June 70 he was indicted on two counts: (1) Failure to have registration,\nand (2) failure to submit to induction. On 17 July 70 he went to the SS office\nand signed a form requesting a duplicate registration card; upon doing so the\ncard was issued. On 17 August 70, he entered a plea of not guilty to the two-\ncount indictment and trial was sent for 23 February 71. On 17 June 71 applic-\nant entered a plea of guilty to the count of failing to have his registration\ncard. The count relating to his failure to subsit vas dismissed, SS records\ndo not disclose the reason. Applicant's correspondence indicates that the\ncount was dismissed when it was discovered that the applicant had been drafted\nout of order. On July 71, judgment was entered which provided for 5 years\nprobation on condition of payment of a $3,000 fine at the rate of $50.00 por\nmonth. Applicant acknowledges that his failure to sign the form and secure a\nduplicate cord was an unlawful act; however, he states, his unwillingness to\nsign the SS form was based on his conviction as a C.O. By 31 December 74\napplicant had paid $2,000.00 approximately of his fine.\nAfter sentencing, applicant went to Germany where he \"worked in a ghetto\nyouth center\" and his wife attended school. Three years later, in August\n1974, they returned to California. At present, applicant is enrolled in a\nprogram of city and regional planning, and, in addition, works part-time as\na draftsman.\nChronology:\n10 May 46\nDate of birth\n7 Jun 68\nCollege graduate\n27 Nov 68\nRequest for SS 150 for C.O.\n2 Dec 68\nClassified I-A\n2 Jan 69\nRequested Form 150 (c.o.) to replace\nmisplaced form mailed to him on 27 Nov 68\n13 Jan 69\nNotified to appear on 17 Feb 69 for\nphysical\n22 Jan 69\nFiled application for C.O.\n17 Feb 69\nDate to report for physical\n3 Mar 69\nPersonal appearance with SS Board re:\nclassification - requesting new re-\ngistration card; refused to sign SS form\n3\n5 May 69\nClassified (I-A) after personal\nappearance\n5 May 69\nRequested C.O. status\n4 Jun 69\nLetter of appeal\n18 Jun 69\nBoard met. to review facts supporting\nappeal and decided facts did not\nunreant re-opening\n13 Scp 69\nHarried\n22 Oct 69\nAppeal for C.O. denied\n8 Dec 69\nReported for induction but failed\nand refused to submit\n25 Jun 70\nIndicted - 2 counts - failure to\nhave card in possession and failure\nto submit to induction\n17 Jul 70\nSigned SS Form 6, Request for\nDuplicate Registration, was issued\nto him\n17 Aug 70\nPlea not guilty\n17 Jun 71\nPlea of guilty\n12 Jul 71\nJudgement\nSources: SS records, Pre-sentence reports, letters from applicant\nBERALD R. FORD\n-\n24 & 24\nPRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD\n3\nto\n-\nCASE SUMMARY\nDg. 5 Mit 11\nPCB Attorney: Knudson\nCase No. 74-780-2WH-C\nTelephone No.: (202) 456-2111\nAge: 28\nSummary Completed: 13 Feb 75\nPresent Status: Probation discharged\nCurrent Sentence: Probation (5 Years)\n(in Peace Corps)\nCourt: D.C., New Jersey\nDate of Application: 17 Dec 74\nTotal Time Served: None\nOffense: Failure to report for\ninduction\nBackground:\nApplicant, a white male, was born in New Jersey on 14 May 46. He is the\nyoungest of four children and has a B.S. Degree which he earned in 1970.\nApplicant is in good health, has no prior record, and expresses no interest\nin religion. On 15 June 70, applicant enrolled in OTS and was assigned to\nLackland AFB, San Antonio, Texas. By letter dated 13 July 70 he requested\nthat he be disenrolled from OTS. He was disenrolled on 16 July 70 and was\nawarded an Honorable Discharge on 23 July 70. The applicant states that he\nresigned because he was disillusioned with the military and that he could\nnot, directly or indirectly, kill another human nor could he participate with\nan organization that does. Applicant states that he was not a C.O., but that\ne objected to the Vietnam war. Subsequent to his resignation from the\n.S. Air Force he was reclassified I-A by his draft board.\nCircumstances of Offense:\nApplicant states that he moved to Canada in March 1971. By orders dated\n18 Oct 71 he was instructed to report for induction 18 Nov 71. He failed to\nappear. In 1973 he voluntarily returned to the United States and gave himself\nup as a Selective Service Violator. Efforts were made to help the applicant re--\nenter the Service, as the U.S. Attorney had agreed to drop the charges if he\nwere accepted by the military. The presentence report indicates that the\napplicant's efforts to join the USAF and the U.S. Army were futile. On 19 July\n1973, applicant entered a plea of guilty for failure to report for induction\nand was released on his own recognizance. On 23 May 74, he was sentenced to\n5 years probation with supervision. On 9 Sept 74, his probation was discharged\nin order that he enter the Peace Corps, of which he is now a member.\n2\nCase No : 74-780-ZWII-C\nChronology:\n14 May 46\nDate of birth\n70\nGraduated from college\n15 Jun 70\nEnrolled in OTS\n16 Jul 70\nDisenrolled from OTS\n23 Jul 70\nHonorable Discharge USAF\n18 Mar 71 8 Dec 72\nLived in Canada\n18 Nov 71\nFailed to report for induction\n1 Jan 73 - 5 May 73\nLived in Paris, France and Canada\n19 Jul 73\nPlea of guilty\n23 May 74\nSentenced\n9 Sep 74\nProbation discharged (entered\nPeace Corps)\nSentence History:\n19 July 73 - Pled guilty to failure to report for induction.\n23 May 74 - Placed on five years supervised probation with condition to\ncomplete two years work of national importance. The probation was\ndischarged on 9 Sept 74, when he entered the Peace Corps.\npurces:\nPresentence report, military records\nFORD i GERALD LIBRAR\nto\nPREPARED FOR:\nHONORABLE CHARLES E. GOODELL\nCHAIRMAN\nPRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD MEETING\nOCTOBER 23-24, 1974\n37 40\nSh\n68\n71\n72\nib\n8'\n12\n35 *\n26\n28\n41\n99\n80\n49\n/ 9.8\n16 *\n100\n* 7\n*\nX\n*\n\\\n4\n91\n9\n17\n20\n21\n30\n31\n41\n57\n58\n74\n79\n83\n91\n94\n102\nI\nI\nTo Mr. Goodell\nDate\nTime 12:25 A.M.\nP.M\nWHILE YOU WERE OUT\nM\nLeslie Stall\nCBS\nof\nArea Code\n& Exchange\n296-1234\nTELEPHONED\nPLEASE CALL\nCALLED TO SEE YOU\nWILL CALL\nWANTS TO SEE YOU\nURGENT\nGERAUD ACAINO Jorden\nRETURNED YOUR CALL\nMessage Would like to\nhave an interview\nwith you.\nD.Ebbie\nOperator\nGINN'S 4-006055\nwill Long ford UOY\nSHHW\nbee alps 6605\n03ИОНЯ3. 131\n132 OT COLLIAD\n333.01 STAAW\natodel ,W\nspay\nI\nзнию\nO'Connor\n4,(8),3,1,6,7\nPaller\n3,1,18),\n4,6\nNickolas\n5,1\nStraus\n2,3,6A, SA\nlebitiN\nEverhard\n4,(8)\nLally\n4,6A\nBERALD R. FORD LIBRARY\nstort\nCraig\n5,6,7\nMaye\n4,18),5,6A,7 ing)\nLauffmann\n2,4,5,7\ndown)\nAdams\n6,7\nwhis\nVinson\n456\ntiggs\n5,7\nvatimel\nW\nsanratio\ndits CEG (8) 754,32\nrelle D\nPoole\nPl\nsealaktip\nHandwerger\nHJ,E/L\nw\nMitchell\nB\nt\nLulus,\nTropp\nAN\nIC\nwhat\nFrote\nzani I 1\nprint\nPALIE ,(8) 4\njust\nKnisely Hom P\nnumber\nBarkir\nPid\n[\namahl\nHilbert\nLergian unnil\nRemirgton PIC\nQuartel your\n25\ncopies\n>\nPRESIDENT'S CLEMENCY PROGRAM\nGERÄLD FORD\nSEPARATION POLICY\n1. Appendix 2 (Separation Policy) to Annex C (Personnel) to letter\nDAPE-HR, HQDA, 18 September 1974, subject: LOI-Implementation of\nPresidential Proclamation No. 4313, directed that the Commander,\nFort Benjamin Harrison, forward recommendations for other than\nUndesirable Discharges under the President's Clemency Program to\nDepartment of the Army for final action.\n2. When the LOI was promulgated, there was no way to predict the\nworkload related to other than Undesirable Discharges or the prime\nconditions meriting such alternate types of discharges. During\nthe first 45 days of the Clemency Program, it became apparent,\nhowever, that for the duration of the Program, final determination\nfor other than Undesirable Discharges could better be made at Fort\nHarrison for the following reasons:\na. The individual concerned was present for interview.\nb. Individual records were located at the USA Enlisted\nRecords Center, Fort Benjamin Harrison.\nC. Medical and legal implications could be reviewed\nlocally and in concert with the individual absentee.\nd. The DOD Joint Alternate Service Board could offer\nfirst hand recommendations to the Commander, ADMINCEN, in those\ncases which merited special attention.\ne. Delegation of authority to Commander, ADMINCEN, to\naward other than Undesirable Discharges to absentees under the\nClemency Program would expedite decisions and insure uniformity\nand consistency in processing.\n3. Based on the rationale in paragraph 2 above, request was made\non 30 October 1974 and authority granted on 21 November 1974 for\nCommander, ADMINCEN, to issue other than Undesirable Discharges\nunder the Clemency Program. Under this authority, 46 discharges\nunder the Clemency Program were issued between 16 September 1974\nand 31 March 1975. Character of discharge and reasons for each\ndetermination are summarized below; absentees' names have been\nomitted to protect the personal privacy of the individuals con-\ncerned:\n14\nCHARACTER OF\nDISCHARGE\nREASON(S)*\nCHARA\nUnder age when enlisted in Army; applied for\nDISC\nHonorable\nminority discharge but went AWOL although\nGen\ndischarge had apparently been approved.\nHonorable\nNo supportable evidence; also served in RVN\nand awarded CIB, VSM, GCMDL.\nGene\nHonorable\nUnder age when enlisted; minority discharge.\nHonorable\nApplied for a Hardship Discharge but went\nGene\nAWOL although it had been approved.\nHonorable\nMeritorious service; 7 yrs total SVC, served\nin RVN as Door Gunner and awarded AM, ACB, CIB,\nGene\nGCMDL, VSM, total of 4 1/2 years in RVN.\nGene\nGeneral\nMeritorious service; 4 years total SVC, served\nin RVN and awarded ARCOM, PH, VSM.\nGeneral\nShould not have been inducted because of a\npsychiatric problem.\nGene\nGeneral\nMeritorious service; 7 years total SVC, served\nin RVN 2 years and awarded BSM w/V, ARCOM w/10LC,\nGene\nAM, GCMDL, CIB, VSM, VCM.\nGeneral\nAbsentee's brother killed in RVN, other brother\nGene\nkilled in car accident. Absentee was not in-\nformed that he would have to waiver sole sur-\nGene\nviving son restriction and went AWOL. Had 5\nyears, 5 months active Federal service.\nGene\nGeneral\nAdmin failure; served well beyond ETS because\nmedical and admin tie-ups. Had 9 years service\nw/76 months in Germany and 11 months in Korea.\nGene:\nGeneral\nNo supportable evidence.\nCene\nGeneral\nMeritorious service; 3 years total SVC, served\nin RVN and awarded BSM w/10LC, ARCOM, AM, RVN\nCross of Gal.\nCene\nGeneral\nMeritorious service and medical reasons; 2 yrs\nGener\ntotal service, served in RVN and awarded PH, VSM.\nGeneral\nErroneous induction (mentally retardate).\nCener\n15\nCHARACTER OF\nDISCHARGE\nREASON (S)\nGeneral\nMedical problem (enuresis) was ignored and he\nwas inducted although unsuitable for military\nservice.\nGeneral\nNo supportable evidence and admin failure; indi-\nvidual was given written orders to go home and\nawait a port call.\nGeneral\nMeritorious service; 2 years total service,\nserved 1 1/2 years in RVN and awarded ARCOM,\nVSM, VCM.\nGeneral\nErroneous induction/combat service and wounds.\nGeneral\nMeritorious service; 2 yrs total service, served\nin RVN and awarded PH, VSM, VCM. Claimed he was\ntold to go home and await for orders which were\nnever forwarded.\nGeneral\nNo supportable evidence. Told to go home and\nawait orders which were never forwarded.\nGeneral\nNo supportable evidence. Told to go home and\nawait orders which were never forwarded.\nGeneral\nNo supportable evidence.\nGeneral\nHardship discharge was approved but individual\nnot informed and went AWOL eight days later.\nGeneral\nMeritorious service; 17 years total service,\nserved in RVN and awarded BSM w/V, CMB, VSM, VCM.\nGeneral\nShould have been previously discharged for medi-\ncal and/or psychiatric reasons (unsuitable).\nGeneral\nErroneous induction; not medically qualified\nfor military service.\nGeneral\nHeld beyond ETS due to administrative failure.\nGeneral\nNo supportable evidence. Also was awarded BSM\nw/V, PH, ARCOM.\nGeneral\nHeld beyond ETS for medical reasons (wounded\nin RVN).\n16\nCHARACTER OF\nDISCHARGE\nREASON\nCHA\nGeneral\nNo supportable evidence.\nDI\nGeneral\nErroneous induction; should not have been\nUnd\ninducted due to extreme family hardship.\nGeneral\nPast administrative failure; told to go home\nand await orders which were never forwarded.\nGeneral\nPast administrative failure; told to go home\nand await orders which were never forwarded.\nrequired\n86,\nGeneral\nMeritorious service; 5 years total service,\nserved in RVN and awarded BSM w/V, ARCOM w/V,\nCIB. Also told to go home and await orders\nawar\nwhich were never forwarded.\nFile\nenvi\nGeneral\nMeritorious service; 7 years total service,\nserved in RVN and awarded SS, AM, ARCOM, CMB,\nGCMDL.\nadmi\ncont\nGeneral\nMeritorious service; 1 year total service,\ninst\nserved in RVN and awarded PH. Also told to go\nin c\nhome and await orders which were never forwarded.\nStat\nGeneral\nMeritorious service; 1 year total service,\nAddi\nserved in RVN and awarded SS, BSM, CIB, VSM.\nby H\nbring\nGeneral\nNo supportable evidence; told to go home and\nDiscl\nawait orders which were never forwarded.\nGeneral\nMeritorious service; 2 years total service,\nserved in RVN and awarded SS, ARCOM w/10LC,\nGCMDL, 6 0/S Bars.\nGeneral\nMeritorious service; 12 years total service,\nserved in RVN and awarded ARCOM, VCM, GCMDL,\n4 0/S Bars.\nGeneral\nHardship/dependency discharge erroneously denied/\nhad 1 year total service, served in RVN and\nawarded CIB, PH, VCM.\nGeneral\nMeritorious service/past admin failure. Served\nin RVN and awarded PH, CIB.\nAdmin Separation\nErroneous induction (minority discharge).\n17\nCHARACTER OF\nDISCHARGE\nREASON (S)\nUndesirable\nGiven U/D in best interest of govt because she\nhad a legal defense to AWOL in that she was\nunder military control during a portion of the\nAWOL period.\n*a. \"No supportable evidence\" indicates a lack of\nrequired legal documentation to prove violation of Articles 85,\n86, 87, and related offenses under UCMJ.\nb. \"Meritorious service\" designated as reason for\naward of discharge when the absentee's Official Military Personnel\n1\nFiles substantiated overall outstanding performance in a combat\nenvironment.\nC. \"Administrative failure\" denotes cases in which\nadministrative errors of omission or commission significantly\ncontributed to absentee's reason for unauthorized absence, or\ninstances in which military authorities clearly failed to act\nin consonance with applicable service regulations or United\nStates Statutes.\nAdditionally, one Marine absentee was awarded a General Discharge\nby Headquarters, Marine Corps due to a medical/physical disability\nbringing the total of absentees awarded other than Undesirable\nDischarges under the Clemency Program to 47 individuals.\n18\nThe following is extracted from LOI for information only:\nAPPENDIX 2 (Separation Policy) to Annex C (Personnel)\n1\nSEPARATION POLICY\nH\n*\nL\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\nt\nH.\n2. Officer Personnel\nA\nt.\na. Upon completion of required processing and statements, all\neligible commissioned and warrant officers resignations in lieu\n2\nof court-martial will be accepted. They are to be furnished a\nt\nDischarge Certificate (Under other Than Honorable Conditions),\n3\nDD Form 794A.\n0\n0\nb. In the preparation of separation orders, the standard order\nm\nformat (TC 350 for Regular Army Officers; TC 351 for Reserve Offi-\nB\ncers) will be followed. The \"Authority\" lead line will include\na\nPresidential Proclamation No 4314 and Sec Def Memo Subject: Imple-\nmentation of Presidential Proclamation No. 4314, 16 September 1974. \"\nAuthority lead will also include \"By Direction of the President\"\nfor officers and \"By Direction of the Secretary of the Army\" for\nWarrant Officers.\nc. Preparation of DD Form 214 will be accomplished as\ndescribed in\n(same as for enlisted personnel).\n\"\nd\nH\nP\n19\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\nPRESIDENT'S CLEMENCY PROGRAM\nSEPARATION POLICY\n1. Appendix 2 (Separation Policy) to Annex C (Personnel) to letter\nDAPE-HR, HQDA, 18 September 1974, subject: LOI-Implementation of\nPresidential Proclamation No. 4313, directed that the Commander,\nFort Benjamin Harrison, forward recommendations for other than\nUndesirable Discharges under the President's Clemency Program to\nDepartment of the Army for final action.\n2. When the LOI was promulgated, there was no way to predict the\nworkload related to other than Undesirable Discharges or the prime\nconditions meriting such alternate types of discharges. During\nthe first 45 days of the Clemency Program, it became apparent,\nhowever, that for the duration of the Program, final determination\nfor other than Undesirable Discharges could better be made at Fort\nHarrison for the following reasons:\na. The individual concerned was present for interview.\nb. Individual records were located at the USA Enlisted\nRecords Center, Fort Benjamin Harrison.\nC. Medical and legal implications could be reviewed\nlocally and in concert with the individual absentee.\nd. The DOD Joint Alternate Service Board could offer\nfirst hand recommendations to the Commander, ADMINCEN, in those\ncases which merited special attention.\ne. Delegation of authority to Commander, ADMINCEN, to\naward other than Undesirable Discharges to absentees under the\nClemency Program would expedite decisions and insure uniformity\nand consistency in processing.\n3. Based on the rationale in paragraph 2 above, request was made\non 30 October 1974 and authority granted on 21 November 1974 for\nCommander, ADMINCEN, to issue other than Undesirable Discharges\nunder the Clemency Program. Under this authori ty, 46 discharges\nunder the Clemency Program were issued between 16 September 1974\nand 31 March 1975. Character of discharge and reasons for each\ndetermination are summarized below; absentees' names have been\nomitted to protect the personal privacy of the individuals con-\ncerned:\n14\nCHARACTER OF\nDISCHARGE\nREASON(S)*\nCHARA\nUnder age when enlisted in Army; applied for\nDISC\nHonorable\nminority discharge but went AWOL although\nGen\ndischarge had apparently been approved.\nHonorable\nNo supportable evidence; also served in RVN\nand awarded CIB, VSM, GCMDL.\nGen\nHonorable\nUnder age when enlisted; minority discharge.\nHonorable\nApplied for a Hardship Discharge but went\nGene\nAWOL although it had been approved.\nHonorable\nMeritorious service; 7 yrs total SVC, served\nin RVN as Door Gunner and awarded AM, ACB, CIB,\nGene\nGCMDL, VSM, total of 4 1/2 years in RVN.\nGene\nGeneral\nMeritorious service; 4 years total svc, served\nin RVN and awarded ARCOM, PH, VSM.\nGeneral\nShould not have been inducted because of a\npsychiatric problem.\nGene\nGeneral\nMeritorious service; 7 years total SVC, served\nin RVN 2 years and awarded BSM w/V, ARCOM w/10LC,\nGene\nAM, GCMDL, CIB, VSM, VCM.\nGeneral\nAbsentee's brother killed in RVN, other brother\nGene\nkilled in car accident. Absentee was not in-\nformed that he would have to waiver sole sur-\nGene\nviving son restriction and went AWOL. Had 5\nyears, 5 months active Federal service.\nGene\nGeneral\nAdmin failure; served well beyond ETS because\nmedical and admin tie-ups. Had 9 years service\nw/76 months in Germany and 11 months in Korea.\nGene\nGeneral\nNo supportable evidence.\nGene\nGeneral\nMeritorious service; 3 years total SVC, served\nin RVN and awarded BSM w/10LC, ARCOM, AM, RVN\nCross of Gal.\nGene\nGeneral\nMeritorious service and medical reasons; 2 yrs\nGene\ntotal service, served in RVN and awarded PH, VSM.\nGeneral\nErroneous induction (mentally retardate).\nGene\n15\nCHARACTER OF\nDISCHARGE\nREASON (S)\nGeneral\nMedical problem (enuresis) was ignored and he\nwas inducted although unsuitable for military\nservice.\nGeneral\nNo supportable evidence and admin failure; indi-\nvidual was given written orders to go home and\nawait a port call.\nGeneral\nMeritorious service; 2 years total service,\nserved 1 1/2 years in RVN and awarded ARCOM,\nVSM, VCM.\nGeneral\nErroneous induction/combat service and wounds.\nGeneral\nMeritorious service; 2 yrs total service, served\nin RVN and awarded PH, VSM, VCM. Claimed he was\ntold to go home and await for orders which were\nnever forwarded.\nGeneral\nNo supportable evidence. Told to go home and\nawait orders which were never forwarded.\nGeneral\nNo supportable evidence. Told to go home and\nawait orders which were never forwarded.\nGeneral\nNo supportable evidence.\nGeneral\nHardship discharge was approved but individual\nnot informed and went AWOL eight days later.\nGeneral\nMeritorious service; 17 years total service,\nserved in RVN and awarded BSM w/V, CMB, VSM, VCM.\nGeneral\nShould have been previously discharged for medi-\ncal and/or psychiatric reasons (unsuitable).\nGeneral\nErroneous induction; not medically qualified\nfor military service.\nGeneral\nHeld beyond ETS due to administrative failure.\nGeneral\nNo supportable evidence. Also was awarded BSM\nw/V, PH, ARCOM.\nGeneral\nHeld beyond ETS for medical reasons (wounded\nin RVN).\n16\nCHARACTER OF\nDISCHARGE\nREASON (S)\nCHA\nGeneral\nNo supportable evidence.\nDI\nGeneral\nErroneous induction; should not have been\nUnd\ninducted due to extreme family hardship.\nGeneral\nPast administrative failure; told to go home\nand await orders which were never forwarded.\nGeneral\nPast administrative failure; told to go home\nand await orders which were never forwarded.\nrequ\n86,\nGeneral\nMeritorious service; 5 years total service,\nserved in RVN and awarded BSM w/V, ARCOM w/V,\nCIB. Also told to go home and await orders\nawai\nwhich were never forwarded.\nFile\nenvi\nGeneral\nMeritorious service; 7 years total service,\nserved in RVN and awarded SS, AM, ARCOM, CMB,\nGCMDL.\nadmi\ncont\nGeneral\nMeritorious service; 1 year total service,\ninst\nserved in RVN and awarded PH. Also told to go\nin C\nhome and await orders which were never forwarded.\nStat\nGeneral\nMeritorious service; 1 year total service,\nAddi\nserved in RVN and awarded SS, BSM, CIB, VSM.\nby H\nbrin\nGeneral\nNo supportable evidence; told to go home and\nDisc\nawait orders which were never forwarded.\nGeneral\nMeritorious service; 2 years total service,\nserved in RVN and awarded SS, ARCOM w/10LC,\nGCMDL, 6 0/S Bars.\nGeneral\nMeritorious service; 12 years total service,\nserved in RVN and awarded ARCOM, VCM, GCMDL,\n4 0/S Bars.\nGeneral\nHardship/dependency discharge erroneously denied/\nhad 1 year total service, served in RVN and\nawarded CIB, PH, VCM.\nGeneral\nMeritorious service/past admin failure. Served\nin RVN and awarded PH, CIB.\nAdmin Separation\nErroneous induction (minority discharge).\n17\nCHARACTER OF\nDISCHARGE\nREASON (S)\nUndesirable\nGiven U/D in best interest of govt because she\nhad a legal defense to AWOL in that she was\nunder military control during a portion of the\nAWOL period.\n*a. \"No supportable evidence\" indicates a lack of\nrequired legal documentation to prove violation of Articles 85,\n86, 87, and related offenses under UCMJ.\nb. \"Meritorious service\" designated as reason for\naward of discharge when the absentee's Official Military Personnel\n1\nFiles substantiated overall outstanding performance in a combat\nenvironment.\nC. \"Administrative failure\" denotes cases in which\nadministrative errors of omission or commission significantly\ncontributed to absentee's reason for unauthorized absence, or\ninstances in which military authorities clearly failed to act\nin consonance with applicable service regulations or United\nStates Statutes.\nAdditionally, one Marine absentee was awarded a General Discharge\nby Headquarters, Marine Corps due to a medical/physical disability\nbringing the total of absentees awarded other than Undesirable\nDischarges under the Clemency Program to 47 individuals.\n18\nThe following is extracted from LOI for information only:\nAPPENDIX 2 (Separation Policy) to Annex C (Personnel)\n1.\nSEPARATION POLICY\nHei\nLO\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\nti,\nHa\n2. Officer Personnel\nAr:\nth\na. Upon completion of required processing and statements, all\neligible commissioned and warrant officers resignations in lieu\n2.\nof court-martial will be accepted. They are to be furnished a\nto\nDischarge Certificate (Under other Than Honorable Conditions),\nwe\nDD Form 794A.\nof\nof\nb. In the preparation of separation orders, the standard order\nma\nformat (TC 350 for Regular Army Officers; TC 351 for Reserve Offi-\nBo\ncers) will be followed. The \"Authority\" lead line will include\nap\nPresidential Proclamation No 4314 and Sec Def Memo Subject: Imple-\nmentation of Presidential Proclamation No. 4314, 16 September 1974.\"\nAuthority lead will also include \"By Direction of the President\"\nfor officers and \"By Direction of the Secretary of the Army\" for\nWarrant Officers.\nc. Preparation of DD Form 214 will be accomplished as\ndescribed in\n(same as for enlisted personnel).\n\"\nd:\nH\nP\n19\n1. JORDAN\n13\n2. ADAMS\n16\n3. HESBURGH\n22\n4. LACY\n27.5\n5. MORROW\n28.5\n6. EVERHARD\n29\n7. MAYE\n29.5\nBERALD R. FORD LIBRARY\n8. CRAIS\n31.5\n9. O'CONNOR\n34.5\n10. RIGGS\n37\n11. VINSON\n39\n12, PULLER\n42\n13. GOODEN\n45.5\n14. CARTER\n49.5\n15. DOVGOVITO\n51\n16. WALT\n57.5\n-\n17. Fong\n62.5\n18. KAUFFMANN\n67.5\nGERALD LISAANY R. FORD\nPARPON AS NC VB\nTOT\nAD\n54 5.1 2,9 5.4\n1\nI 4.5 95\n16\nCR\n41 5.6 4.7 59\n10.5 7 9 5\n31.5\nDo\n39 5.9 4.3 3.3\n13.5 2 7.5 18\n51\nEV\n48 5.2 5.7 5.2\n3.5 2 12.5 11\n29\nFo\n35 6.6 8.6 4.1\n165\n16\n16\n14\n62.5\n60\n48 5.7 7.2 3.6\n3.5 10 15 SQ 17\n45.5\nHE\n46 5.3 5.1 8.6\n6.5 3.5 10 2\n22\nto\n52 5.6 0.8 10.9\n2\n9\nI\n1\n13\n$\n32 6.7 8.8 4.0\n18 17.5 17 15\n67.5\nLA\n46 5.6 1.5 5.0\n6.5 7 2 12\n27.5\nMA\n47 5.4 5.7 5.8\n5 5. 12.5 7\n29.5\nMO\n44 5.3 2.8 4.4\n9 3.5 3 13\n28.5\nOC\n40 5.9 2.9 5.9\n12 12 4.5 b\n34.5\nPV\n45 5.9 3.3 4.0\n8 12 6 16\n42\nR1\n41 6.2 4.3 6.4\n10.5 15 7.5 4\n37\nVI\n38 5.6 6.1 6.8\n15 7 14 3\n38\nWA\n39 6.7 8.9 5.4\nB.5 17.5 18 9.5\n57.5\nCA\n35 6.1 5.5 5.5\n16.5 14 11 8\n49.5\n&\nFORD\nGERALD\n1. Last September, President Ford announced a program of granting clemency\nto specific groups of people. Who do you believe these people are?\n(Answere as many as apply.)\nWHO word\nA. Draft evaders and deserters in Canada and other foreign\n^\ncountries.\nB. Draft evaders and deserters who were fugitives in this country.\nC. People who protested against the war.\nD. People who served in Viet Nam and got into trouble when\nthey came home.\nE. Draft evaders and deserters who have been punished for\ntheir offenses.\nF. Watergate defendants.\n2. Approximately 120,000 people were eligible for clemency under President\nFord's program, 5,000 of when applied before the March 31st. application\ndeadline. Most of those who applied had already been punished for their\ndraft evasion or desertion offenses. Their cases are being individually\nreviewed, with about half being given immediate pardons and the rest offered\npardons after a few months of alternative service. Draft evaders and\ndeserters who had never been punished (including those who har gone to\nCanada) are offered clemency after about two years of alternative service.\n- 2 -\nWhich of the following statements best characterizes youropinion of the\nPresident's clemency program?\nA. I am not in favor of it, because nothing less than\nunconditional amnesty is worth while.\nB. I am not in favor of it; because it should be more generous.\nC. I am in favor of it, but it should be more generous.\nD. I am in favor of it as it is.\nE. I am in favor of it, but it is too generous.\nF. I am not in favor of it, because it is too generous.\nG. I am not in favor of it, because there should not be any\nprogram of clemency for draft evaders and deserters.\n3. After clemency is granted to former draft evaders and deserters (most\nof whom will have completed periods of alternative service), how will you\nreact to them?\nA. I would respect them the same as I respect others in my\ncommunity.\nB. I would respect them more than I respect others in my\ncommunity.\nC. I would respect them less than I respect others in my\ncommunity.\n- 3 -\nHow would you personnally react to them?\nA. I would accept them as neighbors.\nB. I would be happy to see them compete for job opportunities\nequally with others in my community.\nC. I would invite them into my home.\nD. I would allow them to teach my children.\nFORD is LIBRARY QERALD\nlot\n2 no\nvote\nvote\nwalt.\nno\nno\nRiggs\nno\nno\nKauffmann\nno\nno\nLally\nYes\nyes\nIndan\nyes\nyes\nVinami\nyes\nyes\nford\nyes\nno\nCarter\nno\nno\ncraig\nyes\nyes\nmaye\nno\nno\nO'connor\nyes\nyes\nPuller\nyes\nyes\nEverhand\nof\nno\nGoodell\nno\nno\n6\n8\n8\n6\n14 Present\nmation Defeated\nupseading Cases\nwill require unanimous\nvote in order to present\nthem\nto the President\nOnly 12 or so of W's cases,\n76\n67 67-W w\nrq\n76 cases\n67\n9-0\n# 1077 - w\n// #4739-W 4739 -w\n# -8725.D\n1637 - W\n4859-W\n9622-W\n2302 - W\n4903-W\n9637-W\n2335 - w\n4913-11\n-9649-D\n2415 - w\n4920-W\n10006-W\n2419 - w\n4927-W\n10040 -W\n2468 - W\n4942-W\n-11606-D.\n2539 -W.\n4956-W\n13418-W\n2.552-W 2552 - w\n4977-W\n14022-W\n2803-W\n- 5060-D-\n14059-W\n2806-W\n5233-W\n14488-W\n3049-W\n5387-W\n14518-W\n3/37-W\n5505-W\n3340-W\n- 5708-D\n- -3587-D.\n- 5765-D\n3681-W\n6481-W\nBERALOR FORD LIBRARY\n3685-W\n6794-W\n3835-W\n-6798-0\n3860-W\n6830-W\n3898-W\n7165-4/\n4011-W\n7332-W\n4157-W\n8 7940-W\n4250-W\n7600-W\n4336-W\n7919-W\n4470-W\n-7972-0\n4566-W\n8147-W\n4598-W\n-8/81-D\n4642-W\n8507-W\n4671-W\n8513-W\n4689-W\n8516-W\n4702-W\n8518-W\n4737.W\n8519-W\nRECORDATION WORK SHEET\nDate\n#\nTape\nFeet\nMinutes\nDocket\nFORD\nAd Ag C D E Fi Fo G H\nPanel\nFull Board\nJL Ma Mo 0 PRVW\nGERALD\nCase Number)\nAttorney\nFinal Baseline\nAggravating Circumstances\nMitigating Circumstances\n1 Other Criminal Convictions\n1 Lack of sufficient education or ability\nto understand obligation or other\n2 False Statement to the PCB\nremedies available under the law\n3 Use of Force by applicant collaterally\n2 Personal or immediate family problems\nto AWOL, desertion, or missing movement\nor civilian draft evasion offense\n3 Mental or physical condition\n4 Desertion during combat\n4 Employment or service to, the public\n5 Manipulative or selfish reasons\n5 Service-connected disability\n6 Prior refusal to fulfill alternative\n6 Extended period of creditable military\nservice\nservice\n7 Violation of probation or parole\n7 Tours of service in war zone\n8 Multiple AWOL/UA\n8 Personal or procedural unfairness\n7\n9 AWOL/UA or extended length\nmonths\n9 Denial of C.O. status\n10 Failure to report for overseas\n10 Acted for conscientious reasons\nassignment\n11 Voluntarily submitted to authorities\n11 Undesirable Discharge issued as a\n-\nconsequence not only of AWOL but also\n12 Mental stress in combat\n-\nas a result of other specified offenses\n13 Volunteered for or had extended time\n12-None of the above\nin combat\n14 Above average military conduct and\nproficiency or unit citation\n15 Personal Decorations for valor\n16 Wounds in Combat\nNone of the above\nBaseLine\n3\nOR\nMONTHS\nAGGRAVATING 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NONE\nMITIGATING 123 4 5 6 7 8 910 11 12 13 14 15 16 NONE\nDecision Mos A/S Straight pardon tabled give reason No Clemency\nRemarks\nSCRIBE\nAWOL length. - last AWOL\n#10 sincere reasons \" no.\nCASE NUMBER\nTAPE\nFT\nIN\n1-9\nCARD\nMITIGATING FACTORS\nCARD\n2\n10\n1\nATTORNEY\n11-25\n10\nDATE\n#\nPANEL\n1 Lack of Education\nFOND\n123\n11\n26-29\n30-31\n32\n2 Personal Problem\nGERALD\n123 12\n3 M/P Conditions\n123 13\nAGGRAVATING FACTORS\n4 Employment Service\n123 14\n1 Convictions\n123 33\n5 Disability\n123 15\n2 False Statement\n123 34\n3 Use of Force\n123 35\n6 Creditable Service\n123 16\n4 Combat Desertion\n123 36\n7 War Zone Tours\n123 17\n5 Selfish Reasons\n123 37\n8 Evidence of Unfair\n123 18\n6 A/S Refusal\n123 38\n9 Denial of CO Status\n123 19\n7 Probation/Parole V.\n123 39\n10 Conscientious Reasons\n123 20\n8 Multiple AWOL\n123 40\n11 Voluntarily Submitted\n123 21\n9 Extended AWOL\n123 41\n12 Mental Stress\n123 22\n10 Failure of O/A\n123 42\n13 Combat Volunteer\n123 23\n11\n123 43\n14 +Pro/+Con + Cites\n123 24\n12\n12344\n15 Decorations\n123 25\n13\n123 45\n16 Wounds\n123 26\n14\n123 46\n17\n123 27\n15\n123 47\n18\n123 28\n16\n12348\n19\n123 29\n17\n123 49\n20\n123 30\n18\n123 50\n21\n123 31\n19\n123\n51\n22\n123 32\n20 None of the Above\n123 52\n23\n123 33\n24\n123 34\nFINAL BASELINE\n53-54\n25\n123 35\nAPPEAL (Y,N)\n55\n26 None of the Above\n123 3 36\nDISPOSITION (P,A,M,T,R,S,C)\n56\nMONTHS A/S\n57,58\nBOARD MEMBERS\nGoodell\n123 3 37\nKauffmann\n12346\n123 55\nAdams\n12338\nCraig\n12347\n12356\nDougavito\n123 39\nEverhard\n12348\n12357\nFinch\n123 40\nFord\n12 3 49\n123 58\nHesburgh\n123 41\nLally\n12350\n123 59\nJordan\n123 42\nMorrow\n12 3 51\n12360\nMaye\n12343\nPuller\n12 3 52\n12361\nO'Connor\n12344\nRiggs\n12 3 53\n12362\nWalt\n12345\nVinson\n12 3 54\n12363\nREMARKS\nPRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD\nSOFTBALL SCHEDULE\nWednesday, May 7\nRosebell\nBureau of will bither Social Science Research\nEllipse\nbe\nCheck Edwards -\nWednesday, May 14\n6:30\nCongressman Peyser\n/\nTyler School\nWednesday, May 21\nArchitects of U.S. Capitol\nEllipse\nWednesday, May 28\nSen. Republican Policy Committee\nE. Potomac #2\nWednesday, June 4\nSenator Taft\nEllipse\nWednesday, June 1.1\nOpen\nWednesday, June 18\nSenator Helms\nGERALD R. FORD\nTyler School\nEllipse\nWednesday, June 25\nSenator Beall\nTyler School\nWednesday, July 2\nSenator Jackson\nEllipse\nWednesday, July 9\nCIEP-White House\nTyler School\nWednesday, July 16\nSenator Charles Mathias, Jr.\nEllipse\nTuesday, July 22\nSenator Bayh\nRose Park Field\nWednesday, July 23\nOpen\nTyler School\nWednesday, July 30\nAMTRAK\nEllipse\nTuesday, August 5\nSen. Stone\nAnacostia #4\nWednesday, August 6\nSen. Sparkman\nTyler School\nWednesday, August 13\nSen. Abourezk\nEllipse\nWednesday, August 20\nSenator Hathaway\nTyler School\nWednesday, August 27\nRepublican National Committee\nEllipse\nNOTE: Tyler School located at 10th & G Sts., S.E.\nRose Park Field located at 26th & O St., N.W.\nE. Potomac #2 located near Jefferson Memorial\nAnacostia #4 located off Penn. Avenue just past I-295 overpass.\nFORD & LIBRARY\nP.C.B\nVETERANS\nBENEFITS\nokton\n\"Well, the majority blew it again.\"\nto Chas 9.\ntided\nWITHDRAWAL SHEET (PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARIES)\nFORM OF\nCORRESPONDENTS OR TITLE\nDATE\nRESTRICTION\nDOCUMENT\nNotes\nTyped notes regarding panel member, author unknown, 1 page.\nN.D.\nC\nFile Location:\nCharles Goodell Papers, Box 8, Folder: \"Miscellaneous\" SMD - - 7/8/2015\nRESTRICTION CODES\n(A) Closed by applicable Executive order governing access to national security information.\n(B) Closed by statute or by the agency which originated the document.\n(C) Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in the donor's deed of gift.\nNATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION\nNA FORM 1429 (1-98)\nRicks conslusions:\n1\nPublic will accept\nclemency\n2\nApproval + satisfaction\nfollows beel curve\nfrom farnable to\ninformable $\nFORD 118\nGERALD\n$\n3\nHigher educ. is\nmore generous\n4\nVets marginally\nless generous\nS\nNon + viet vets are\nSame or more (+) than\nvets.\nBACK\n6\nVFW is not very\nrep. of its total\npogulation\n3.\n19\nVets\nvit\nNon\nVets\nVets\nParton w/\n50\nSI\n52\n47\nalt sew.\nUncond.\nAn.\n20\n17\n19\n25\nNo\n23\n25\n25\n20\nclem.\nI\nNon wet magically\nbetter (+) than ver.\n2\nUnit vet same us\ntotal vet.\n4.\nExtend deadline\nT Va Vit\nIA\n&V+\nNon\nVet\nY\n44\n41\n46\n51\nZ\n50\n53\n50\n43\nI\nNon vet is more\n(+) than vet by\nlarge %\n2\nMone(+) among\nyours + college\n5\nUit wet more (+ than\nvet. as whole\n5:- Welcome\nTIV\nVV\nNV\nNo\nLess\n13\n15\n12\n10\n14\nMore\n5\n5\n7\n4\n6\nSame\n77\n75\n77\n80\n80\nyou\n1\nV.Vet (++)than public\nat large\n2\nIfadd \"more\"t \"same\"\n85% will be (+)\nholly Emerge 100\n72% heard of clem. prog,\n76% of the 72% - fugitives\ncollege rous. -twice as often do non fagitive\n17% w/ served in VN of deserted.\n18% w/ convicted & punished,\nVN Vets same as non vets,\nMarginally more acceptable,\n85% - will welcome - same\nor more respect,\n79% + 6%.\nBERIALD F. FORD LIBRAS\nWITHDRAWAL SHEET (PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARIES)\nFORM OF\nCORRESPONDENTS OR TITLE\nDATE\nRESTRICTION\nDOCUMENT\nNote\nHandwritten notes, 1 page\nN.D.\nC\nFile Location:\nCharles Goodell Papers, Box 8, Folder: \"Miscellaneous\" SMD - 7/8/2015\nRESTRICTION CODES\n(A) Closed by applicable Executive order governing access to national security information.\n(B) Closed by statute or by the agency which originated the document.\n(C) Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in the donor's deed of gift.\nNATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION\nNA FORM 1429 (1-98)\nGROSS\nREMAIN To BE HEARD\nAS OF\nTYPE OF\nTOTAL\nALREADY\nCASE\nNUMBER\nHEARD\nBy PANEL\nBY FULL BD.\n8/25\nTABLED\n500\n345\n155\nCASES\n(+50)\n(+50)\n1.\n8/25\nFULL BD.\n631\n452\n179\nCASES\n(+90)\n(+90)\n2.\n8/25\nVA/UP\n360\n205\n155\nCASES\n(+36)\n(+36)\n3,\n8/25\nFLAGGED\n167 NO DECISION CEG\n5\n70\n(+500)\n4.\nPERSONAL\n25\n5\nGERALD FORD\n20\n8/25\nAPPEARANCE\n5.\n8/19\nRECONSIDER-\n300\n180\n120\nATION\n(1400)\n(+400)\n6,\n(NEW (NFORMATAN)\n8/25\nNo\n66\n36\n30\nJURIS/JURIS\n7.\n8/25\nUNWRITABLE\n750\n120 REG.\n(500 No INFO)\n130 P/P*\n8.\n8/25\nREGULAR\n1750\n1750\nPANEL\n9.\n8/25\nAPPEAL\n11\nRECENSIDER-\n10.\nATION\n(+1000)\n(+1000)\nTOTAL\n269\n1990\n(1450)\nINCLUDED IN 1750\nFOR THIS\nweek\nSPECIAL\nPANEL ) VA/UPGRADE OR PURPLE PANEL\n19 CASES:\n(Au SUMMARIES IN HAND)\n33%\n26 PROBABLY ELIGIBLE For UPURAGE/BENEFITS (1.6., THE No EVIDENCE CONTRARY )\n25%\n20 QUESTIONABLE\n42%\n33\nLESS THAN 180 DAYS Good TIME; INELIGIE For BENEFITS\nFORD i LIBRARY GERALD\n210 - <180\n212 - 5180\n29 CASE)\n213 - 5180\n12 E\n217 - ELIGBLE\n5 ME\n219- - ELIGIBLE\n12 IE < 180\n220- 1 M.E., Lowplc\n221 - ELIGIBLE\n223 - ELIGIBLE\n224 - ELIGIBLE\n227 - <180\n228 - EUGBLE\n232 - <1.80\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\n237 - ELIGIBLE\n239 - (1.80\n240. - 4.80\n243- <1.80\n244 - M.E., OTHER OFFENSE\n245- - cl.go\n247 - ELIGIBLE\n249 - <1.80\n250-M.e; MIXED p/c\n251 - ELIGIBLE\n252- - M.E., OTHER offense\n253 - TIME UNCLEAR; MIXED P/C\n254 - ELIGIBLE\n256- <180\n257- ELIGIBLE\n258- - ELIGIBLE\n260- - 4/80\nDAYS SPENT BY CHAIRMAN GOODELL ON CLEMENCY BOARD ACTIVITIES.\nSeptember\n17\n18\n19\n20\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n30\n10 days\nOctober\n2\n3\n4\n7\n8\n9\nFORD is LIBRARY OFRALD\n10\n14\n15\n18\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n29\n30\n31\n18 days\nNovember\n1\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n11\n14\n15\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n25\n26\n27\n29\n19 days\nCEG DAY, cont'd.\n2\nDecember\n2\n4\n5\n6\n7\n5 days\nTOTAL\n52 days\nPresident Ford's clemency program for Vietnam-era\ndraft evaders and deserters has certain problem areas. We\nGERALD R. FORD\nhave outlined them in general terms and proposed solutions\nin this memo. And in addition, we have noted various other\nsteps that should be implemented to improve the program and\ngive it the appearance of being more fair.\n1. As we understand the program from reports in\nthe local newspapers this week, the length of alternative\nservice for the resister is to be determined by the U. S.\nAttorney in each judicial district with \"central guidelines\"\nlaid down by the Deputy Attorney General.\nThis approach only partially minimizes one of\nthe major problems of the pre-clemency program system: grossly\nunequal prosecution depending on the prosecutorial philosophy\nof the individual U. S. Attorney.\nIt is our view that prosecutors, as such, should\nnot be adjudicators of the lengths of alternative service.\nEven with central guidelines, which presumably guide their\nexercise of discretion in all cases, unreasonable disparities\ncan occur.\nWe believe that it would be preferable for a\nquaf$-judicial body of nationwide jurisdiction to be available\n2.\nto review the length of alternative service for resisters\nwho choose to accept this clemency. Such a body would in-\nsure uniformity in alternative service terms. Justice\nDepartment guidelines, even if issued as regulations, would\nnot do this without some provision for review.\nThe above comments are equally applicable\nto the manner of implementing the clemency program in the\nmilitary departments. One board should be established to\nreview the terms of alternative service of the deserters\nseeking clemency.\nIn our view, these boards should include\npersons who are not Justice or military department officials\nthereby de-emphasizing the law-enforcement influence.\n2. Many resisters seeking clemency may not need\nit; they may not have violated the selective service law.\nOthers may fear the consequences of disclosing themselves\nfor any number of reasons.\nWe believe that a public defender service\nshould be established for those persons who cannot afford\nan attorney so that they can be adequately advised of their\nlegal rights. This problem underscores our point that pro-\nsecutors should not be adjudicators of clemency. The\n3.\nprosecutor's function is, by its nature, inconsistent with\nthe interests of the person seeking clemency. This problem\nmay be greater or worse for deserters depending on whether\nthe military would provide them with free legal advice not\nsubject to command pressure.\nIn either case the right to counsel, appointed by\nthe \"court,\" must be insured and as probably a constitutional\nDequirement See, for example, Betonic 5. Sigemore, 496 F. 2/10017\n3. This program leads us to conclude that, even if (5th Cir. 1974).\nit were to work fairly, it gives the appearance of working\nunfairly in the ways we mentioned above.\nBeyond the steps we recommended above, we intend to\nattempt to interest the American Bar Association in setting\nup a project to monitor the adminis tration of this clemency\nprogram and to provide counsel to young men seeking infor-\nmation and legal advice on the clemency program. To be\nmeaningful, such a program would require much cooperation\nfrom the Government. Funding might also be necessary,\nperhaps from LEAA.\nFor a general discussion on an accused's right to\ncouncel, see Argersinger 6. Hamlen, 407 U.S. 25,\n925.0%2006, 32L Ed. 2d 530 (1972).\nas 8 this Am- straws said\nTotal cases:\n15,468\nof these -\n- 910\npreased by\nother agency\nGERALD R. FORD\nTotal PCB\nwill have revered 14,558 14,\nPresident has\n5376\n2402\nHas signid\nPREPARATION OF PRESIDENTIAL PACKETS\nInitial Decision\nVerification\ni:\nPresidential\nProofreading\nCertification and Warrants\nApproval\n(11,921)\n(4008/4774)\n(1850/2829)\n(842/2080)\n( /\n)\n857\n2409\n1032\nPanels\nVerification\n103\nProofreading\nWarrants\nWhite House\n&\nPreparation &\nLetter Typing\nCertification\n767 returned;\nnet = 264\n( 1 )\n( 195,\n(337/245)\nBoard Member\nCEG Review\nFull Boards\nHolds\n(76 )\n(0)\n( 5)\nAtty. Holds\nLMB Review\nPersonal Appearance\n(3946)\n( 299 )\nProcess\n+\nComputer\nStrauss Review\nas of C.O. B\n(342)\n(0/0)\nVA Benefits\nHolds\nSpecial Panel\nGERALD FORD ?\nFriday, 8 aug\n(610 )\nH\nNo Clemency\nNotes\nCases\nr Jack estimates moving 1550 to Leone\n(387)\nduring week ending 8/15.\nTabled Cases\n2\nOn 8/12, computer will release 800\nHolds\nReview of Holds\nFinal Decision\nto Jack + send 200 to Toby for review\nREVIEW OF DECISIONS\n41351\nrules and regulations\nThis section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents having general applicability and legal effect most of which are\nkeyed to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.\nThe Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL\nREGISTER issue of each month.\nTitle 2-Clemency\nFinally, it cannot be too often stated\nshould be submitted in five (5) copies,\nCHAPTER II-PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY\nthat an applicant may apply to the\nand directed to:\nBOARD\nClemency Board without risk. His appli-\nOffice of the General Counsel\ncation will be held in confidence, and he\nPART 201-ADMINISTRATIVE\nPresidential Clemency Board\nmay withdraw his application at any\nThe White House\nPROCEDURES\ntime.\nWashington, D.C. 20500\nPART 202--SUBSTANTIVE STANDARDS\nIt is the intent of the Presidential\n(Executive Order 11803, 39 FR 33297)\nOF THE PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY\nClemency Board to provide notice to ap-\nBOARD\nplicants, and to maximize public cer-\nIn consideration of the foregoing, this\ntainty and predictability, about the sub-\nchapter will become effective imme-\nProcedures and Standards\nstantive standards which the Board will\ndiately.\nIn order to accommodate new regula-\napply in recommending to the President\nIssued in Washington, D.C., on Novem-\ntions being issued by the Presidential\nproposed dispositions of applications for\nber 25, 1974.\nClemency Board, the heading of Title\nexecutive clemency under Proclamation\n2 of the Code of Federal Regulations is\n4313 (published in the FEDERAL REGISTER\nCHARLES E. GOODELL,\nchanged to read: Title 2-Clemency. In\non September 17, 1974, 39 FR 33293). It\nChairman,\naddition, a new Chapter II, Presidential\nis further the intent of the Board to\nPresidential Clemency Board.\nClemency Board, is added, reading as\nensure equity and consistency in the way\n1. Part 201 is added to read as follows:\nset forth below.\nthat similarly situated applicants are\nSec.\nThis notice of rulemaking sets forth in\ntreated.\n201.1\nPurpose and scope.\nPart 201 the administrative procedures\nThe Presidential Clemency Board\n201.2\nGeneral definitions.\nand in Part 202 the substantive stand-\ntherefore herein publishes the substan-\n201.3\nInitial filing.\nards to be used by the Presidential Clem-\ntive standards to which it has committed\n201.4\nApplication form.\nency Board (hereinafter \"the Board\")\nitself in the implementation of the\n201.5\nAssignment of Action Attorney and\nin accepting and processing applications\nclemency program. Applicants for execu-\ncase number, and determination of\nfrom individuals subject to the juris-\ntive clemency under the program are in-\njurisdiction.\n201.6\ndiction of the Board and in the deter-\nvited to submit evidence suggesting that\nInitial summary.\n201.7\nFinal summary.\nmination of its recommendations to the\none or more of the mitigating circum-\n201.8\nConsideration before the Board.\nPresident concerning those individuals.\nstances listed below apply to their case,\n201.9\nRecommendations to the President.\nThe Presidential Clemency Board has\nor that one or more of the aggravating\n201.10\nReconsideration.\nmade every reasonable effort to assure\ncircumstances listed do not apply to their\n201.11\nReferral to appropriate agencies.\ncase. Applicants are also invited to sub-\n201.12\nto both applicants and those individ-\nConfidentiality of communications.\nmit letters from third parties containing\n201.13\nRepresentation before the Board.\nuals who may be subject to the jurisdic-\n201.14\nsuch evidence, or to ask other people to\nRequests for information about the\ntion of any of the three parts of the\nclemency program.\nPresidential clemency program every\nwrite directly to the Board on their\nAppendix A.\nprocedural consideration. Applicants will\nbehalf.\nAppendix B.\nbe sent notice concerning the procedures\nIt is contemplated that the Board will\nweigh the factors listed below in each\nAUTHORITY: E.O. 11803, 39 FR 33297.\nand standards used by the Board; their\nprivacy will be respected in every way\nindividual case. It is not contemplated,\n§ 201.1 Purpose and scope.\npossible within the bounds of the law.\nhowever, that any one of these factors\nThis subpart contains the regulations\nAll information concerning the applicant\nwill necessarily be dispositive of a partic-\nof the Presidential Clemency Board,\nwhich is sought by the Board from gov-\nular case, and the Board reserves the\ncreated pursuant to Executive Order\nernmental sources will be open to inspec-\noption of considering other factors in\n11803 (39 FR 33297) concerning the pro-\ntion by the applicant or his representa-\nmitigation not listed herein to be disposi-\ncedures by which the Board will accept\ntive. The records and files concerning the\ntive of a particular case.\nand process applications from individ-\napplicant will be summarized by an at-\nActions taken and determinations\nuals who avail themselves of the oppor-\ntorney on the staff of the Board, and\nmade by the Presidential Clemency\ntunity to come within its jurisdiction.\nsent to the applicant for his amendment\nBoard and members of the Board's staff\nCertain other matters are also treated,\nand correction. A sure process for the\nprior to the issuance of these regulations\nsuch as the assistance to be given to in-\nappeal of adverse determinations has\nhave been in substantial compliance with\ndividuals requesting determinations of\nbeen established. In the Board's discre-\nthe provisions thereof.\njurisdiction, or requesting information\ntion, the applicant or his representative\nBecause of the short duration of the\nrespecting those parts of the Presidential\nmay be allowed to persent an oral state-\nPresidential clemency program, and for\nment to the Board prior to its determina-\nother good cause appearing, it is hereby\nClemency Program which are adminis-\ntion of his case. Each applicant will have\ndetermined that publication of this\ntered by the Department of Defense and\nan opportunity to petition for recon-\nchapter in accordance with normal rule-\nthe Department of Justice under Presi-\nsideration of the decision to recommend,\nmaking procedure is impracticable and\ndential Proclamation 4313 (39 FR\ngrant, or deny executive clemency in his\nthat good cause exists for making these\n33293).\nregulations effective in less than thirty\ncase.\nIndividuals who may be subject to the\n(30) days. Notwithstanding the abbrevi-\n§ 201.2 General definitions.\njurisdiction of the Department of Jus-\nated rulemaking procedure, however,\n\"Action attorney\" means an attorney\ntice or the Departments of Defense or\ncomments and views regarding the pro-\non the staff of the Board who is assigned\nTransportation will be assisted in con-\nposed chapter are solicited, and may be\nan applicant's case and is thereafter\nfidence in determining their status with\nfiled to be received no later than 5 p.m.\nresponsible for all information-gathering\nrespect to the clemency program.\nd.s.t., December 12, 1974. Comments\nand communications concerning that\nFEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 230-WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1974\n41352\nRULES AND REGULATIONS\napplicant's case from the applicant's\ntorney determines that the Board has\ncomplete, or misleading information in\ninitial filing until final disposition has\njurisdiction over the applicant, a file for\nthe complete Board file.\nbeen made by the Board.\nthe applicant's case will be opened and\n(d) An applicant's case will be con-\n\"Applicant\" means an individual who\na case mumber for that file will be as-\nsidered ready for consideration by the\nis subject to the jurisdiction of the\nsigned. With the opening of the file, the\nBoard not earlier than twenty (20) days\nBoard, and who has submitted an initial\nAction Attorney shall request from all\nafter the initial summary has been re-\nfiling.\nappropriate government agencies the\ncelved by the applicant. Material which\n\"Board\" means the Presidential\nrelevant records and files pertaining to\namends or supplements the applicant's\nClemency Board as created by Executive\nthe applicant's case before the Board.\ninitial summary must therefore be re-\nOrder 11803, or any successor agencies.\n(b) In normal cases, the relevant\ncelved by the Board within twenty (20)\n§ 201.3 Initial filing.\nrecords and files will include for civilian\ndays to insure that it will be considered.\ncases the applicant's files from the Selec-\nunless within that period the applicant\nIn order to comply with the require-\ntive Service System and the Bureau of\nrequests and receives permission for an\nments of Executive Order 11803 as to\nPrisons, and for military cases the ap-\nextension. Permission for late filing shall\ntimely application for consideration by\nplicant's military personnel records,\nbe liberally granted, if the request is\nthe Board, an individual must make an\nmilitary clemency folder, and record of\nreceived prior to Board action.\ninitial filing prior to January 31, 1975.\ncourt martial. Applicants may request\nThe Board will consider sufficient as an\n§ 201.7 Final summary.\nthat the Board consider other pertinent\ninitial filing any written communication\nfiles, but such applicant-requested files\n(a) Upon receipt of the applicant's re-\nreceived from an individual or his repre-\nwill not be made available to the appli-\nsponse to the initial summary, the Action\nsentative which requests consideration\ncant and his representative as of right.\nAttorney will note such amendments,\nof the individual's specific case or which\n(c) Where the initial filing contains\nsupplements, or corrections on the ini-\ndemonstrates an intention to request\nadequate information, Board staff may\ntial summary as are indicated by the\nconsideration. Oral initial filings will be\nassign a case number and request rec-\napplicant.\nconsidered sufficient if reduced to writ-\nords and files prior to receipt of the com-\n(b) The final summary shall then con-\ning and received by the Board within\npleted application form.\nsist of the initial summary with appro-\nthirty (30) calendar days.\n(d) If the Action Attorney determines\npriate amendments and additions, and\nthat probable jurisdiction does not exist,\nthe summary of the materials submitted\n§ 201.4 Application form.\nhe will promptly notify the applicant in\nby the applicant as described in $ 201.6\n(a) Upon receipt of an initial filing a\nwriting, stating the reasons therefor.\n(b).\nmember of the Board's staff will make a\n(e) An applicant who questions this\ndetermination of probable jurisdiction.\n§ 201.8 Consideration before the Board.\nadverse determination of jurisdiction\nApplicants who are clearly beyond the\nshould write the General Counsel of the\n(a) At a regularly scheduled meeting\nBoard's jurisdiction will be so notified in\nBoard in accordance with the provisions\nof the Presidential Clemency Board, a\nwriting. An applicant who questions this\nc: $ 201.4(a).\nquorum of at least five (5) members\nadverse determination of probable juris-\nbeing present, the Board will consider the\ndiction should promptly write the Gen-\n§ 201.6 Initial summary.\napplicant's case.\neral Counsel, Presidential Clemency\n(a) Upon receipt of the necessary\n(b) The Action Attorney will present\nBoard, The White House, Washington,\nrecords and files, the Action Attorney\nto the Board, a brief statement of the\nD.C. 20500, stating his reasons for ques-\nwill prepare an initial summary of the\nfinal summary of the applicant's case.\ntioning the determination. The General\napplicant's case. The files, records, and\nThe Action Attorney will then stand\nCounsel of the Board shall make the final\nany additional sources used in preparing\nready to answer from the complete file\ndetermination of jurisdiction.\nthe initial summary will be noted there-\nany questions from the members of the\n(b) An applicant who has been noti-\nupon; no material not so noted will be\nBoard concerning the applicant's case.\nfied that probable jurisdiction does not\nused in its preparation. The initial sum-\n(c) At the Board's discretion, it may\nlie in his case will be considered as hav-\nmary shall include the name and busi-\npermit an applicant or his representative\ning made a timely filing should the\nness telephone number of the Action At-\nto present before the Board an oral state-\nfinal decision be that the Board has\ntorney who prepared it, and who may be\nment, not to exceed ten (10) minutes in\njurisdiction over his case.\ncontacted by the applicant or his repre-\nlength. Neither applicant nor his rep-\n(c) Applicants who are within the\nsentative.\nresentative may be present when the\nprobable jurisdiction of the Board will\n(b) The Initial summary shall be sent\nBoard begins deliberations, but should\nbe sent by mail:\nby certified mail to the applicant. The\nremain available for further consulta-\n(1) An application form (see appendix\nsummary will be accompanied by an in-\ntion immediately thereafter for a period\n\"A\"\nstruction sheet describing the method by\nnot to exceed one hour.\n(2) Information about the Presiden-\nwhich the summary was prepared, and\n(d) After due deliberation, the Board\ntial Clemency program and instructions\nby a copy of the guidelines that have\nwill decide upon its recommendation to\nfor the preparation of the application\nbeen adopted by the Board for the de-\nthe President concerning the applicant's\nform (see appendix \"B\")\ntermination of cases. Applicants will be\ncase, stating the reasons for its recom-\n(3) A statement describing the Board's\nrequested to review the initial summary\nmendation.\nprocedures and method of determining\nfor accuracy and completeness, and ad-\n§ 201.9 Recommendations to the Presi-\ncases.\nvised of their right to submit additional\ndent.\n(d) The applicant will be urged to re-\nsworn or unsworn material. Such addi-\nturn the completed application form to\ntional material may be submitted in any\n(a) At appropriate intervals, the\nlength, but should be accompanied by a\nChairman of the Board will submit to\nthe Board as soon as possible. In the\nabsence of extenuating circumstances,\nsummary of not more than three (3)\nthe President certain master warrants\ncompleted application forms must be\nsingle-spaced, typewritten, letter-sized\nlisting the names of applicants recom-\nreceived by the Board within thirty (30)\npages in length. If a summary of suitable\nmended for executive clemency, and a\nlength is not submitted with the addi-\nlist of the names of applicants considered\ncalendar days of receipt.\ntional material, the Action Attorney will\nby the Board but not recommended for\n§ 201.5 Assignment of Action Attorney\nprepare such a summary.\nclemency. The Chairman will also sub-\nand case number, and determination\nmit such terms and conditions for execu-\n(c) At any time after the mailing to\nof jurisdiction.\nthe applicant of his initial summary, the\ntive clemency if any, that have been rec-\n(a) Upon receipt of all necessary in-\napplicant's complete Board file, and the\nommended in each case by the Board.\nformation, the applicant's case will be\nfiles from which the summary was pre-\n(b) Following action by the President,\nassigned to an Action Attorney. who will\npared, may be examined at the offices of\nthe Board will send notice of such action\nmake a preliminary determination of\nthe Board by the applicant, his repre-\nin writing to all persons whose names\nthe Board's jurisdiction. If the Action At-\nsentative, or by any member of the\nwere submitted to the President. Per-\nBoard. An applicant or his representative\nsons not receiving executive clemency\n1 Filed as part of the original document.\nmay submit evidence of inaccurate, in-\nwill be so notified.\nFEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 230-WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1974\nRULES AND REGULATIONS\n41353\n§ 201.10 Reconsideration.\nservice number; military service and\nIf you believe that you are eligible to be\nservice number, if applicable; informa-\nconsidered by the Presidential Clemency\n(a) An applicant may petition the\ntion concerning the draft evasion of-\nBoard but are not sure, you should apply to\nBoard for reconsideration of his grant or\nthe Board. If it turns out that you are not\nfenses or absence-related military of-\ndenial of executive clemency, or of the\neligible for consideration by the Board, you\nfenses and the disposition thereof; and\nmay possibly qualify under another part of\nterms and conditions thereof.\nthe mailing address of either the appli-\nthe clemency program. You do not have to\n(b) Such petitions for reconsideration,\ncant or his representative. If the appli-\nidentify your current location. We will then\nincluding any supplementary material,\ncant submits such information as part\nbe able to notify you of the proper agency to\nmust be received by the Board within\nof his initial filing, the completion of the\ncontact. If you are appealing a conviction or\nthirty (30) days of the mailing of the no-\napplication form itself is not necessary.\na military discharge you may continue your\ntification in $ 201.9(b).\nappeal, and still apply to the Board at the\n(c) At a regularly scheduled Board\n§ 201.13 Representation before the\nsame time.\nmeeting, a quorum being present, the\nBoard.\nI. The Board will not give its files to any\nother federal agency. It will keep any in-\nBoard will consider the applicant's peti-\n(a) Although an applicant may bring\nformation you provide in strictest confidence,\ntion for reconsideration.\nhis case before the Board without a rep-\nexcept evidence of a serious crime which is\n(d) In appropriate cases, the Board\nresentative or legal counsel, each ap-\nnot covered in the Presidential Clemency pro-\nmay permit an applicant or his repre-\nplicant is entitled to representation and\ngram.\nsentative to present before the Board an\nwill be encouraged to seek legal counsel\nII. Although you may apply to the Board\noral statement not to exceed fifteen (15)\nexperienced in military or selective serv-\nwithout attorney or any other representative\nminutes in length.\nice law. Upon request, Board staff\nif you wish, we encourage you to obtain the\nhelp of legal counsel. If you do not have a\n(e) After due deliberation, the Board\nwill attempt to refer an applicant to a\ncounsel but desire one, we will be glad to\nmay either:\nskilled volunteer representative.\nrefer you to a lawyers' organization which\n(1) As to any person granted executive\n(b) An applicant who does not wish\nwill help you find one. These organizations\nclemency, let stand or mitigate the terms\nto file his application in person may have\nwill help you get legal assistance even if you\nand conditions upon which executive\nhis representative do so on his behalf.\ncannot afford to pay.\nIII. To apply to the Board, you need only\nclemency was granted;\n§ 201.14 Requests for information about\nsupply the information necessary to find\n(2) As to any person denied executive\nthe clemency program.\nyour file from other departments. If you do\nclemency, recommend to the President\nnot wish to file your application personally,\n(a) Upon receipt by the Board of an\nthat he grant executive clemency in ac-\nyou may select a representative of your own\ncordance with such terms and conditions\noral or written request for information or\nchoice to do it for you. but you must tell us\nconsideration concerning an individual\nthat he is authorized. The Board will main-\nas may be appropriate; or\nwho is clearly beyond the jurisdiction of\ntain its own file on your case and that file\n(3) As to any person denied executive\nthe Board, a member of the Board's staff\nwill be available for examination by you or\nclemency, again not recommend the ap-\nshall inform the individual:\nyour own attorney.\nplicant for executive clemency.\n(1) That jurisdiction does not lie;\nIV. You are encouraged to submit evidence\n(2) Whether jurisdiction may lie\nwhich you feel helps your case, and to submit\n§ 201.11 Referral to appropriate agen-\nletters from other people on your behalf. You\ncies.\nwithin the Presidential clemency pro-\nmay submit evidence in order to correct in-\nAfter the expiration of the period\ngram, and if so, with which agency;\naccurate, incomplete, or misleading informa-\n(3) That in the event the individual\nallowed for petitions for reconsideration,\ntion to the Board's file.\nprefers not to contact personally such\nV. A personal appearance by you before\nthe Chairman of the Board shall forward\nfor further action to the Secertaries of\nother agency that an Action Attorney\nthe Board will not be necessary.\nwill obtain from such other agency in-\nIf you have any questions, please call or\nthe Army, Navy, and Air Force, the\nformation concerning the individual's\nwrite the Presidential Clemency Board. The\nSecretary of the Department of Trans-\nstatus with respect to the Presidential\nWhite House, Washington, D.C. 20500, (202-\nportation, the Director of the Selective\nclemency program, and provide to the\n456-6476) If application is made by a repre-\nService System, and the Attorney\nsentative on your behalf, it is not necessary\nindividual that information.\nGeneral, as appropriate, the President's\nthat your home address and telephone num-\ndetermination as to each recipient of\n(b) The Action Attorney shall submit\nber be included. Your representative should\nto the Executive Secretariat of the Presi-\nindicate his capacity (attorney, friend, etc.)\nexecutive clemency.\ndential Clemency Board a summary of\nand give us his address and telephone num-\n§ 201.12 Confidentiality of communica-\nthe communication with, and informa-\nber.\ntions.\ntion provided to, such individuals.\nApplication for people not in custody\nshould be completed and mailed to the Board\n(a) The Board has determined that it\nAPPENDIX B\nno later than midnight, January 31, 1975.\nwill take all steps possible to protect the\nINSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICATION FOR CLEMENCY\nSpecial procedures will be established for\nprivacy of applicants and potential ap-\nOn September 16, 1974 the President an-\npersons incarcerated whether or not they\nplicants to the Presidential clemency\nhave been released on furlough.\nprogram. No personal information con-\nnounced a program of clemency. Depending\non your case, you may apply to the Presi-\n2. Part 202 is added to read as follows:\ncerning an applicant or potential ap-\ndential Clemency Board, the Department of\nplicant and related to the Presidential\nJustice, or the Department of Defense.\nSec.\nclemency program will be made known\nYou may be eligible for clemency by the\n202.1 Purpose and scope.\n202.2 Board decision on whether or not to\nto any agency, organization, or individ-\nPresidential Clemency Board if you have\nrecommended that the President\nual, whether public or private, unless\nbeen convicted of a draft evasion offense\nsuch as failure to register or register on time:\ngrant executive clemency.\nsuch disclosure is necessary for the\nfailure to keep the local board informed of\n202.3\nAggravating circumstances.\nnormal and proper functioning of the\ncurrent address; failure to report for or sub-\n202.4\nMitigating circumstances.\nPresidential Clemency Board. How-\nmit to pre-induction or induction examina-\n202.5\nCalculation of length of alternative\never, information which reveals the\nservice.\ntion; failure to report for or submit to or\nexistence of a violation of law (other\ncomplete service, during the period from\nAUTHORITY: E. O. 11803, 39 FR 33297.\nthan an offense subject to the Presi-\nAugust 4, 1964 to March 28, 1973; or if you\ndential clemency program) will of neces-\nhave received an undesirable, bad conduct,\n§ 202.1 Purpose and scope.\nsity be forwarded to the appropriate\nor dishonorable discharge for desertion, ab-\nThis part articulates the standards\nauthorities.\nsence without leave, or missing movement,\nand for offenses directly related, between Au-\nwhich the Presidential Clemency Board\n(b) In order to have his case con-\ngust 4, 1964 to March 28, 1973.\nwill employ in deciding whether to rec-\nsidered by the Board, an applicant\nIf you are now absent from military serv-\nommend that the President grant execu-\nneed submit only information sufficient\nice or have a charge against you for a Selec-\nfor a determination of jurisdiction, and\ntive Service violation and have not been con-\ntive clemency to a particular applicant,\nfor the retrieval of necessary official\nvicted or received a discharge, you may still\nand in then deciding whether that grant\nrecords and files. The application\nbe eligible for clemency under another part\nof celemency should be conditional, and,\nof the President's program. If you have any\nform will therefore require the ap-\nquestions, please contact the Board and we\nif so, upon what specified period of alter-\nplicant's name; date of birth; selective\nwill try to answer your questions.\nnative service.\nFEDERAL REGISTER. VOL. 39, NO. 230-WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1974\n41354\nRULES AND REGULATIONS\n§ 202.2 Board decision on whether or\n(5) Service-connected disability,\nmonths, the applicant's baseline period of\nnot to recommend that the President\nwounds in combat, or decorations for\nalternative service.\ngrant executive clemency.\nvalor in combat.\n(6) Tours of service in the war zone.\n[FR Doc.74-27863 Filed 11-26-74;8:45 am]\n(a) The first decision which the Board\nwill reach, with respect to an application\n(7) Substantial evidence of personal\nbefore it, is whether or not it will recom-\nor procedural unfairness in treatment of\nTitle 7--Agriculture\nmend to the President that the applicant\napplicant.\nCHAPTER VII-AGRICULTURAL STABILI-\nbe granted executive clemency. In reach-\n(8) Denial of conscientious objector\nZATION AND CONSERVATION SERVICE\ning that decision, the Board will take\nstatus, of other claim for Selective Serv-\n(AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT), DE-\nnotice of the presence of any of the ag-\nice exemption or deferment, or of a claim\nPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE\ngravating circumstances listed in $ 202.3,\nfor hardship discharge, compassionate\nSUBCHAPTER B-FARM MARKETING QUOTAS\nand will further take notice of whether\nreassignment, emergency leave, or other\nAND ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS\nsuch aggravating circumstances are bal-\nremedy available under military law, on\nPART 722-COTTON\nanced by the presence of any of the miti-\nprocedural, technical, or improper\ngating circumstances listed in $ 202.4.\ngrounds, or on grounds which have sub-\nSubpart-1975 Crop of Extra Long Staple Cot-\nton; Acreage Allotments and Marketing Quotas\n(b) Unless there are aggravating cir-\nsequently been held unlawful by the\njudiciary.\nSTATE RESERVES AND COUNTY ALLOTMENTS\ncumstances not balanced by mitigating\ncircumstances, the Board will recommend\n(9) Evidence that an applicant acted\nSection 722.562 is issued pursuant to\nthat the President grant executive clem-\nin conscience, and not for manipulative\nthe Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938,\nency to each applicant.\nor selfish reasons.\nas amended (52 Stat. 31, as amended; 7\n(10) Voluntary submission to authori-\nU.S.C. 1281 et seq.). This section estab-\n§ 202.3 Aggravating circumstances.\nties by applicant.\nlishes the State reserves and allocation\n(a) Presence of any of the aggravating\n§ 202.5 Calculation of length of alter-\nthereof among uses for the 1975 crop of\ncircumstances listed herein either will\nnative service.\nextra long staple cotton. It also estab-\ndisqualify an individual for executive\nlishes the county allotments. Such de-\n(a) Having reached a decision to rec-\nclemency or may be considered by the\nterminations were made initially by the\nBoard as cause for recommending to the\nommend that the President grant ex-\nrespective State committees and are\nPresident executive clemency conditioned\necutive clemency to a particular appli-\nhereby approved and made effective by\ncant, the Board will then decide\nupon a length of alternative service ex-\nthe Administrator, ASCS, pursuant to\nwhether clemency should be conditioned\nceeding the applicant's \"baseline period\ndelegated authority (35 FR 19798, 36 FR\nof alternative service,\" as determined\nupon a specified period of alternative\n6907, 37 FR 624, 3845, 22008)\nunder $ 202.5.\nservice and, if SO, what length that pe-\nriod should be.\nNotice that the Secretary was prepar-\n(b) Aggravating circumstances of\ning to establish State and county allot-\nwhich the Board will take notice are:\n(1) The starting point for calculation\nments was published in the FEDERAL REG-\n(1) Prior adult criminal convictions.\nof length of alternative service will be\nISTER on July 17, 1974 (39 FR 26160) in\n(2) False statement by applicant to\n24 months.\naccordance with 5 U.S.C. 553. The views\nthe Presidential Clemency Board.\n(2) That starting point will be re-\nand recommendations received in re-\n(3) Use of force by applicant collater-\nduced by three times the amount of\nsponse to such notice have been duly\nally to AWOL, desertion, missing move-\nprison time served.\nconsidered.\nment, or civilian draft evasion offense.\n(3) That starting point will be further\nIn order that farmers may be informed\n(4) Desertion during combat.\nreduced by the amount of prior alterna-\nas soon as possible of 1975 farm allot-\n(5) Evidence that applicant committed\ntive service performed, provided that a\nments so that they may make plans ac-\nthe offense for obviously manipulative\nprescribed period of alternative service\ncordingly, it is essential that this section\nand selfish reasons.\nhas been satisfactorily completed.\nbe made effective as soon as possible.\n(6) Prior refusal to fulfill alternative\n(4) That starting point will be further\nAccordingly, it is hereby found and de-\nservice.\nreduced by the amount of time served on\ntermined that compliance with the 30-\n(7) Prior violation of probation or pa-\nprobation or parole, provided that a pre-\nday effective date requirement of 5 U.S.C.\nrole requirements.\nscribed period of alternative service has\n553 is impracticable and contrary to the\nbeen satisfactorily completed.\npublic interest, and § 722.562 shall be\n§ 202.4 Mitigating circumstances.\n(5) The remainder of those three sub-\neffective November 22, 1974. The mate-\n(a) Presence of any of the mitigating\ntractions will be the \"baseline period of\nrial previously appearing in this section\ncircumstances listed herein will be con-\nalternative service\" applicable to a\nunder centerhead \"1974 Crop of Extra\nsidered by the Board as cause for recom-\nparticular case before the Board: Pro-\nLong Staple Cotton; Acreage Allotments\nmending that the President grant exec-\nvided, That the baseline period of alter-\nand Marketing Quotas\" remains in full\nutive clemency to a particular applicant,\nnative service shall not exceed a judge's\nforce and effect as to the crop to which\nand will in exceptional cases be further\nsentence to imprisonment in any case:\nit was applicable.\nconsidered as cause for recommending\nAnd provided further, That the baseline\nSection 722.562 is revised to read as\nclemency conditioned upon a period of\nperiod of alternative service shall be, not-\nfollows:\nalternative service less than the appli-\nwithstanding the remainder of the cal-\ncant's \"baseline period of alternative\n§ 722.562 State reserves and county al-\nculation above, not less than a minimum\nlotments for the 1975 crop of extra\nservice,\" as determined under § 202.5.\nof three (3) months.\nlong staple cotton.\n(b) Mitigating circumstances of which\n(6) In exceptional cases in which\n(a) (1) State reserves. The State re-\nthe Board will take notice are:\nmitigating circumstances are present, the\nserves for each State shall be established\n(1) Applicant's lack of sufficient edu-\nBoard may consider such mitigating cir-\nand allocated among uses for the 1975\ncation or ability to understand obliga-\ncumstances as cause for recommending\ncrop of extra long staple cotton pursuant\ntions, or remedies available, under the\nclemency conditioned upon a period of\nto & 722.508.\nalternative service less than an appli-\nlaw.\n(2) It is hereby determined that no\ncant's baseline period of alternative serv-\n(2) Personal and family hardship\nState reserve is required for trends, ab-\nice.\nnormal conditions, inequities, and hard-\neither at the time of the offense or if the\n(7) In cases in which aggravating cir-\nships or small farms. The amount of the\napplicant were to perform alternative\ncumstances are present and are not, in\nState reserve held in each State and the\nservice.\nthe Board's judgment, balanced by\namount of allotment in the State pro-\n(3) Mental or physical illness or con-\nmitigating circumstances, the Board may\nductivity pool resulting from productiv-\ndition, either at the time of the offense\nconsider such aggravating circumstances\nity adjustments under § 722.529 (c) and\n(d) is available for inspection at each\nor currently.\nas cause for recommending clemency\nState ASCS office.\n(4) Employment or volunteer activities\nconditioned upon a period of alternative\n(b) County allotments. County allot-\nof service to the public since conviction\nservice exceeding, either by three (3) ad-\nments are established for the 1975 crop\nor military discharge.\nditional months or by six (6) additional\nof extra long staple cotton in accordance\nFEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 230-WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1974\n3/6/75\nDocket I: Cases for which personal appearance at PCB has been requested by attorney:\nDate PCB\nDate PCB\nDate\nPCB Case No.\nSummary Mailed\nSummary Received\nResponse Received\nPCB Attorney\n1 74-032-GDE-C\nRIPE\nMost recent response 2/3/75\nBroder\n2\n74-067-MLT-C\nRIPE\nLohff\n3 74-007-BMW-C\n12/29\nHeitz\n4 74-089-TSA-C\n12/29\nHickman\nFORD LIBRARY\nR.\nGERALD\n3/6/75\nDocket II: Tabled cases:\nDate PCB\nDate PCB\nDate\nPCB Case No.\nSummary Mailed\nSummary Received\nResponse Received\nPCB Attorney\n1\n74-202-FFR-M 9 mos\n12/26\n12/30\nStarek\n2\n74-216-HWX-M\n3 mos\n12/26\n12/31\nBroder\n3\n74-445-BLH-M\n6 mos\n12/26\nBroder\n4\n74-371-GEX-M\n6 mos\n12/26\n12/30\nBroder\n5\n74-211-HTN-M\n6 mos\n12-27\nStarek\n6\n74-295-ARA-M\n3 mos\n12/27\n12/31\nBroder\n7\n74-214-HGX-M\n6 moo\n12/27\n12/31\nBroder\n8\n74-375-HDK-M\n6 mos\n12/31\nStarek\n-\n9\n74-433-NKL-M\nP\n12/24\nLohff\n10\n74-385-HWM-M\n(T) tabled\n12/26\n12/31\nLohff\n- 11\n74-512-PBW-M\n3 mos\n12/16\n11/18\nHickman\n- 12\n74-109-BSW-M\n8 mos\nRIPE\nStarek\n13\n74-197-ELH-M\n10 mos\nRIPE\nStarek\n-\n14\n74-180-CCA-M\n3 mos\nRIPE\nRobinson\n15\n220\n3 mos\n3/6/75\nDocket III: Recent applications:\nDate PCB\nDate PCB\nDate\nPCB Case No.\nSummary Mailed\nSummary Received\nResponse Received\nPCB Attorney\n1\n74-710-HEX-C 3 mos\nRIPE\nStrauss\n2\n74-82-SRX-C\n3 mos\nRIPE\nPoole\n3\n74-099-WAN-C Pass\nRIPE\n(Oppenheimer case withdrawn)\nPoole\n4\n74-042-HJX-C 3 mos\n1/28\nHeitz\n5\n74-083-SJL-C 6\n10/15\nKlein\n6\n74-010-BSH-C 3 mos\nRIPE\n12/29\nKodak\n7\n74-029-EKA-C 12 / mos\nRIPE\nLohff\n8\n74-528-CWA-C 9 mos\n2/5\nLohff\n3/6/75\nDocket IV: Cases for whom summaries have been written and mailed:\nDate PCB\nDate PCB\nDate\nPCB Case No.\nSummary Mailed\nSummary Received\nResponse Received\nPCB Attorney\n1\n74-456-RML-M\n1/8\nBroder\n2\n74-165-BGL-M\n1/8\n1/13\nBroder\n3\n74-338-DDW-M\n1/8\n1/10\nRobinson\n4\n74-246-RWL-M\n1/8\nDancheck\n5\n74-181-CPL-M\n1/8\n1/11\nBroder\n6\n74-301-BCL-M\n1/8\nDancheck\n7\n74-334-CJW-M\n1/11\n1/15\nDancheck\n8\n74-365-DAD-M\n1/11\n1/15\nDancheck\n9\n74-309-BAA-M\n1/11\nDancheck\n10\n74-194-DML-M\n1/11\n1/15\nBroder\n11\n74-425-MRE-M\n1/11\n1/17\nRobinson\n12\n74-441-PRX-M\n1/11\n1/16\nRobinson\n13\n74-190-DLX-M\n1/10\nPuller\n14 74-191-DCM-M\n1/10\nPuller\n15 74-415-MCC-M\n1/11\nRobinson\n16\n74-236-MIL-M\n1/11\n1/13\nLohff\n17 74-153-KTL-M\n1/28\n1/30\nLohff\nDocket IV\n-2-\n3/6/75\nDate PCB\nDate PCB\nDate\nPCB Case No.\nSummary Mailed\nSummary Received\nResponse Received\nPCB Attorney\n18 74-281-PCS-M\n1/28\nHeitz\n19 74-469-SRX-M 6 mos\n1/28\n1/30\nKlein\n20 74-394-JDR-M\n1/28\n1/31\nHeitz\n21 74-504-RDE-M\n1/28\n1/30\nLohff\n22 74-386-HGE-M\n1/28\nLohff\n23 74-510-RRL-M\n1/28\nHeitz\n24 74-336-CJV-M\n1/28\n1/31\nKodak\n25 74-380-HJL-M\n1/28\nDancheck\n26 74-220-JRX-M\n8I/II\nDancheck\n27 74-518-ORX-M\n1/28\nHeitz\n28 74-399-HJD-M\n1/28\n1/31\nHeitz\n29 74-142-SDE-M\n1/31\nKodak\n30 74-145-SMJ-M\n1/31\nHickman\n31\n74-181-CPL-M\n1/31\nBroder\n32\n74-262-F-SME-M\n1/31\nPoole\n33 74-371-GEX-M\n1/31\nBroder\n34 74-474-SRX-M\nP\n1/31\nKlein\n35 74-488-WSJ-M\n1/31\nKodak\n36 74-388-IJM-M\n1/31\nLohff\nDocket IV\n-3-\n3/6/75\nDate PCB\nDate PCB\nDate\nPCB Case No.\nSummary Mailed\nSummary Received\nResponse Received\nPCB Attorney\n37 74-445-BLH-M\n1/31 (remail)\nBroder\n38 74-280-VEM-M\n2/3\nHeitz\n39 74-583-WCX-C\n2/3\nKodak\n40 74-506-MWS-M\n2/3\nLohff\n41 74-526-BJW-C\n2/3\nHeitz\n42 74-493-WJD-M\n2/3\nKodak\n43 74-261-EJP-M\n2/3\nPoole\n44 74-558-MMH-C\n2/4\nLohff\n45 74-264-BKE-M\n2/4\nLohff\n46 74-612-HRM-M\n2/4\nKodak\n47 74-439-LRP-M P\n2/4\nKlein\n48 74-342-DJX-M\n2/4\nHeitz\n49 74-630-SDL-C\n2/4\nKodak\n50 74-296-AGJ-M\n2/4\nBroder\n51 74-334-CWW-M\n2/4\nKodak\n52 74-523-BFX-C\n2/4\nHeitz\n53 74-495-WAL-M\n2/4\nHickman\n54 74-419-BVL-M\n2/4\nHeitz\n55 74-409-LJE-M\n2/4\nBroder\n3/6/75\nPocket IV\n-4-\nDate PCB\nDate PCB\nDate\nPCB Case No.\nSummary Mailed\nSummary Received\nResponse Date\nPCB Attorney\n56 74-300-LDS-M\n2/4\nBroder\n57 74-958-ZFJ-C\n2/4\nKlein\n58 74-627-WFX-M\n2/4\nBroder\nPresidential Clemency Board meetine\nmay 8-10,1975\n8th 9th\nLIBRARY GERALD R. FORD\n10\nDn adams\nYes Yes Yes\nI. Dongovito\nLes Yes Yes\nI. may\nTes Yes Yes\nMrs. 'Cornor Les Yes Yes\nSeneral walt Yes B. \"Yes Yes\nfather bleaburgh no no no\nWeinon Jondan he no no\nRahert Linch he no no.\n4/18/75\nFORD\nCase Summery Distribution\nj\nGERALD\nby the ofternal of may 16,\n600 Case summaries were\ndistributed to board members.\n200 cases for panels w,x, y,z\nwere mailed to board member.\nprior to the last meeting a\ndouble check was completed by\n5/14 to mesure members had\nthem.\nPanel D distribution:\nCases 1-50 - mailed 5/15\n\" 5/-100 delivered bg.\nCourier 6 air -\non 5/16\nPanel É\n1-50\nwould 5/13\n51-75\nveriled 5/15\n76-100\nvis courier 5/16\nPauel F\n1-50\nmail 5/13\n51-100\nvia courier 5/16\nPanel G\n1-75\nmailed 5/15\n76-100\nvia Courier 5/16\nM. OWEN\nAM, 5 June (Fai)\nPanel R, Lally, monow, Walt\nFORD i LIBRARY\n/. Lally - Walt stand offs (not frequent\nthis morning, but 202 3 set-jaw\nsessions): Walt seemed to cow\nmovern and Lally several times\ninto going up months simply\nfor prevention of a more\nserious standoff.\n2. Applying aggravating 5 where\nno reasons were available\n(most these cases flagged)\n3. Gen. Walt wanted, is one case,\nto apply aggraiating 10 when:\n(a) the ship movement (Nary)\nmissed was not necessary\noverseas, and\n(b) wanted to assume that\nduring the 2 1/2 month AWOL,\nthe ship didgo orrseas.\n4. aggravating L! cases whe Hagged\npending final disposition of the\nsubstantive issues involving that factor\n121 150\nPRESENTATION LIST\nDATE: 7-10-75 THURS\nPANEL: K\nDOCKET BLOCK: 9AM\nMO/DA\nDAY OF WEEK\nTIME\nCASE NO.\nATTORNEY\nCOMMENTS\n1.\n555-LVA-C\nGOTTKE\nP\n2.\n566 566-NCA-C - NCA-C\nTHOMPSON\nP\n3.\n13091-SFW-M\nTHOMPSON\n8\n4.\n1173-CEF-M 1173 - CEF-\nTERELLE\n3 mus\n5.\n3784-CNM-M\nTERELLE\n8 mos,\n6.\n4112-SJA-C\nTERELLE\nP\nGERALD LIBRARY P. FORD\n7.\n4145-KJA-M\nTERELLE\nP\n8.\n4716 - HGET-M\nTERELLE\n6 mos\n9.\n13864-PJA-M\nTERELLE\nP\n10.\n1675- - RMJ-\nCOLE\nP\n11.\n5186-WAX-M 5186- WAX-\nSPENCER\nP Hot chechs\n12.\n5450-KCR-M\nEDWARDS, DOUG\n13.\n6910 MJW- M\nEDWARDS, DOUG\n14.\n5523- KCR-\nEDWARDS, L.R.\n15.\n7125-CTC-M\nDUCOMB\n16.\n13856-PRL-M\nDUCOMB\n17.\n6626-HLR-M\nSMITH, BRIAN\nP\n18.\n6882- 6882-FGC-M FGC-\nSMITH, BRIAN\nP\n19.\n7140-CTC-M\nJAROSLOVSKY\n20.\n7246-UCR-M\nVAROSLOUSKY\n21.\n11805-JEX-M\nJAROSLOUSKY\n22.\n13137-5DR-M\nJAROSLOUSKY\n23.\n14578-EME-M\nJAROSLOUSKY\n24.\n15706-BML-M\nJAROSLOUSKY\n25.\n9686-CGT-M 9686 CGT-M\nWAGGENER\n26.\n14187 14187-TJK-M TJK-M\nWAGGENER\n27.\n14188-THM-M\nBAUGHMAN\n28.\n14417- PMX-M\nPOWELL\n29.\n15196-LDW-M\nCOWEN\n30.\n15755- HKR-M\nGRAY\nPanel Counsel:\nAGC Team:\nHILBERT\nKAUFFMAN (c)\nJ.HP.\nP.C.B. PANELS/FULL BOARD SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF\nAUGUTS 4 - AUGUST 8\nMONDAY, AUGUST 4 - A.M. and P.M. - READING\nTUESDAY, AUGUST 5 -\nPANEL E (125 cases\nPANEL F (125 cases)\nPANEL G (125 cases)\nPANEL H (125 cases\nKauffmann (Chairman)\nFord (Chairman)\n'Connor (Chairman)\nMaye (Chairman)\nPuller\nRiggs\nWalt\nDougovits\nCarter\nCraig\nEverhard\nVinson\nWEDNESDAY, AUGUST 6 - A.M. and P.M. - FULL BOARD CASES\nBegin at 9:00 A.M. to consider:\n1. Cases from the full board packet dated July 2, 1975, beginning with case\nno. 57 on the July 2, 1975 Docket (Neil Border's Team) PCB Case No. 7859\nsubsequent cases on the same docket are: 7924, 8139, 8167, 8181, 8372, 9553\n9584, 9828, 9974, 11196; (Dancheck's Team) 2864 and 4054\n2. Full Board Docket No. - 7 = 35 cases\n3. Full Board Docket No. - 8 = 25 cases\n4. Full Board Docket No. - 9 = 25 cases\n5. Full Board Docket No. -10 = 25 cases = 124 cases\nTHURSDAY. AUGUST 7 - A.M. - FULL BOARD CASES\nFORD\n(Carry-Over of Wednesday Full Board Cases to be considered)\nP.M. - READING\nGERALD\nFRIDAY, AUGUST 8 -\nPANEL E (125 cases)\nPANEL F (125 cases)\nPANEL G (125 cases)\nPANEL H (125 cases\nKauffmann (Chairman)\nFord (Chairman)\n0' Connor (Chairman)\nMaye (Chairman)\nPuller\nRiggs\nWalt\nDougovits\nCarter\nCraig\nEverhard\nVinson\nPLEASE NOTE: The Minimum Number of cases for a Panel to complete each day\n(Tuesday and Friday) this week is 100 if you are able, please\ncomplete the entire 125 docked each day.\nLayPaini\nCASES IN PCB PIPELINE AS OF 11 Aug 75\n225/18104\n98/17,879\n0/17,781\n0/17.781\n0/17,781\n1\nProjected\nApplications\nInitial File\nDD or BCD\nRecords Received\nApplicants\nLogged, File\nRequest Out\nFile Request\nFiles Not Completed\n2\nNot Requested\nOut\n35/17,781\n(116)/17746\n0/17630\n417/17630\n605/17213\nFiles Available\nFiles Enroute/\nC + d\n2\nFiles Rcd. by\nCases Assigned,\nFor Distribution\nDistributed to\nUnwritable\n;\nAA Teams, Not Yet\nNo Significant\nAA Teams\nAssigned to AA's\nAction\n42/16308\n7 1963/16566\nMiscellaneous\nJurisdictional\nCases in AA\nQuestion or\nPipeline\nCorrespondance\n352/14603\n0/14251\n0/14251\n3\nDraft Case b Partially\n539/14251\n365/13712\nDraft Hand-\nDraft\ne\nf\nWritten, or in Pro-\nWritten\nTyped\nCases TO/IN\nCases Awaiting\ncess of Rewrite\n4\nQuality Control\nFinal Typing\nTabled\n290\n733/13042\n485\n/12,309\nFlagged/ 41\n4\n305/133\nJurisdiction\n4\nCases Typed in \"inal\n8801/11824\nDocketed\nDecided By\nCases Awaiting\nand Xeroxed\nBoard Panel\n27\nTo Up342de\nXeroxing\nPanel\nSet\n337\n1051/1051\nAside\nCases to be\nCases Sent to\nSIGNED\nHeard By\nPresident,\nBY\nBoard\nAwaiting Signature\nPRESIDENT\nTABLED - 387 = 25%=290\n1031/2082\nGERALD\n(Heard)\n245\nCases Heard\nLIBRARY\nBy Full Board\nPRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20500\nAugust 22, 1975\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\nDIRECTIONS TO ROOSEVELT ROOM FROM SENATOR GOODELL'S OFFICE\n1. Exit room 360, make a left out the door.\n2. Proceed down the hallway to the first elevator on your left (approximately\n2/3 the distance down the hallway).\n3. Take the elevator to the ground floor, \"G\".\n4. Make a left out the elevator through the double doors into the driveway.\n5. Make a left outside the double doors down the drive to the guard shack.\nThe guard will check your name against the list but you will not need to\nshow your I.D. here.\n6. Proceed down the drive across the street to the White House. Enter\nthrough the nearest doors (diagonally across the street from the guard shack).\n7. Inside the White House you will encounter Guard no. 2. This guard will\nrequest to see an I.D. card so you should have it ready.\n8. Opposite guard no. 2's desk, is the elevator you should take to the first\nfloor \"1\".\n9. Make a right out the elevator to the hallway then a left down the hallway\nthrough the square archway (approximately 1/2 the distance down the\nhallway).\n10 The Roosevelt Room is\narckwayx inside the door on your left just beyond the second archway.\nGOOD LUCK\nBob\nSequoia\nMonday 8/25/75\nWalt\nNo\nPuller\nFORD\nYes & wife\nEverhard Yes & friend\nLIBRARY & GERALD\nRiggs\nYes & friend (?)\nVinson\nYes & son\nCraig\nYes & ? (date)\nCarter\nYes & ? (date if in town)\nLally\nUNABLE TO CONTACT\nMorrow\nYes & spouse\nKauffmann Yes & spouse\nFord\nYes & friend (?)\nO'Connor Yes & husband\nAdams\nYes & friend (?)\nDougovito Yes & wife\nMaye\nYes & spouse\nHesburgh UNABLE TO CONTACT\nJordan\nNO\nJim Poole\n8/28/75 Thursday,\nDocket 14\n#3255- ok FB WI\n# 11203 - no er\n# 12121 - ok FB er\n13\nFORD LIBRARY\n# 10015 - ok FB OF\nDocket 18\n# 9988 - no at\n# 3265. no 07\n# 3356 - no Cit\n# 6649\nPresident has signed that's why\nit was removed from dochet. Cot\nDocket 19\n# 1664 - ok FB EA\n# 1773 - DRFB are\n# 1810 - ok FB CF\n# 7544 - No are\nDocket 20\n# 5722 - no Oct\n# 10459 - olc FB Cit\nDocket 21\n# 8891 - Mo Cer\n# 11174 - ols FB CA\n8/29/F\nDocket 22\n# 1153 - ole FB er\nDERALD FORD LIBRARY\n# 3066 - of FB as\n# 816 - ok FB as\n# 5724 - no as\n# 7689 - no aA\n# 10374 - ok FB or\n# 10442 - no eg\n# 774 - ok FB ar\n# 3014 - ok FB at\n# 046 - ok FB er\n# 1374 - ok FB @r\n# 3029 - ohe FB of\n# 7383 - no ar\nwhen as\n# 10462 - ORFB or\n# 8195 - allo at\n# 2311 - old FB or\n# 045 - ok FB of\nmemorandum\nOF CALL\nTO:\nGoodell t Basker\nYOU WERE CALLED BY-\nYOU WERE VISITED BY-\nOF (Organization)\nProf. anthony\nPHONE\nNO.\nPLEASE CALL\nCODE/EXT.\nWILL CALL AGAIN\nIS WAITING TO SEE YOU\nRETURNED YOUR CALL\nWISHES AN APPOINTMENT\nMESSAGE\nsaid he thinks you\nhave done an\nexcellent john\nRECEIVED BY\nGSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6 J\nGPO £ 1969-c48-16-80341-1 4/11 332-889\nDATE\nTIME 40\n2:\nSTANDARD FORM 63\n63-108\nREVISED AUGUST 1967\nPRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20500\nSeptember 10, 1974\nPANEL/FULL BOARD SCHEDULE FOR SEPTEMBER 10th THRU SEPTEMBER 15th.\nWEDNESDAY-SEPTEMBER 10th-Full Board Cases. Packets 25, 26, 27, and 28.\nTHURSDAY-SEPTEMBER 11th- 9:00am to 1:00pm will be Full Board.\n1:00pm to 2:00pm- Lunch.\n2:00pm to 3:00pm-Personal Appearance, P.C.B.\nCase # 854-AMX-M.\n3:00pm to 6:00pm will be Full Board Cases.\nFRIDAY-SEPTEMBER 12th- Full Board Cases all day.\nSATURDAY-SEPTEMBER 13th- Remainder of regular panel cases. Panels A,B,C.\nPANEL A\nPANEL B\nPANEL C\nVinson\nEverhard\nWalt\nKauffman\nPuller\nMaye/Ford\nCraig\nRiggs\nO'Connor\nMorrow\nSUNDAY-SEPTEMBER 14th- Purple Panel and the Upgrade Panel will meet.\nMONDAY-SEPTEMBER 15th- Full Board will meet all day.\n5868\nCONGRESSIONAL RECORD- of Remarks\nNovember 5, 1975\nAUDIT BY GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE\nThere are two ways to remedy the prob-\nDISTURBING REPORTS ON THE\nSection 22. Authorizes the General Ac-\nlem. One backed by several members of\nPRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY PRO-\ncounting Office to conduct comprehensive\nthe House Civil Service Committee would\nGRAM\naudits of the Corporation loan and guaran-,\neliminate the President's authority to offer\ntee applicants, borrowers and recipients of\nalternate pay plans: any increase recom-\nloan guarantees.\nmended by the federal pay commission would\nHON. JOHN M. ASHBROOK\ngo into effect automatically. Under exist-\nAUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS\nOF OHIO\ning law, the President can submit an alter-\nSection 23. Provides for appropriation,\nnate plan and it goes into effect unless\nIN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES\nwithout fiscal year limitation, of $1 billion\nvetoed within 30 days by either the House or\nWednesday, November 5, 1975\nto finance the purchase of Corporation stock.\nSenate.\nAlso authorizes the appropriation of such\nAnother solution-one that we prefer-\nMr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Speaker, in stark\nsums as may be necessary to pay the differ-\nwould separate congressional pay from that\ncontrast to the sacrifices exacted of over\nence, if any, between the cost of Corporation\nof federal employes. The President would\n56,000 servicemen killed in Vietnam, over\nobligations and the interest received by the\ncontinue submitting alternate plans from\n300,000 wounded, the POW's and the\nCorporation on its loans, and to reimburse\nthose of the pay commission, but the self-\nthe Corporation to the extent of any de-\nMIA's, reports of soft and preferential\ninterest factor would be removed from con-\nfaults. Authorizes such additional sums as\ntreatment of Vietnam era draft dodgers\ngressional debate.\nmay be necessary to establish and operate\nand deserters under the clemency pro-\nThere is room for debate on the merits\nthe Corporation and otherwise carry out the\nand economic effects of alternate pay plans.\ngram could easily provide the American\npurposes of the Act.\nAnd Congress, which must raise revenues to\nvoter with a key issue in the 1976 elec-\nrun the government, should have the final\ntions. A recent AP dispatch began:\nsay. But it is unfair to the 3.5 million\nTwo-thirds of the deserters who joined\ncivilian workers and military personnel to\nPresident Ford's clemency job program have\nSTAR SUPPORTS IMPROVEMENTS\nhave the decision hinge on the politics of\ndropped out, been kicked out, or processed\nIN PAYSETTING POLICY FOR\ncongressional pay raises.\nout by the military without reporting for\nMEMBERS AND FEDERAL EMPLOY-\njobs, and will escape punishment without\ncompleting their assigned work.\nEES\nAccording to the dispatch almost 4,503\nTHE LATE HON. JOHN J. ROONEY\nHON. HERBERT E. HARRIS II\ndeserters who joined the program, or\n2,035 men, have either dropped out or\nOF VIRGINIA\nSPEECH OF\nbeen kicked out. Selective Service officials\nIN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES\nHON. FRED B. ROONEY\nadd that these \"were terminated for non-\nWednesday, November 5, 1975\nperformance, for lack of cooperation and\nOF PENNSYLVANIA\nbecause they chose not to fulfill their\nMr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, with the\nIN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES\nagreements in many cases.\" Another\nvotes and debate on several aspects of\nTuesday, November 4, 1975\n1,000 men handled by the military never\nthe issue of salaries of Members of Con-\ngress and Federal employees not far be-\nMr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, since\nreported for jobs at all. This total of ap-\nhind us, I am pleased to share with my\nAugust of 1963 until the 94th Congress\nproximately 3,035 men have been given\nconvened, whenever the name Rooney\ndischarges and will escape punishment\ncolleagues a recent editorial from the\nwas called in this Chamber it was fol-\nfor desertion and will not be compelled\nWashington Star endorsing efforts em-\nlowed by the words \"of New York\" or \"of\nto complete their assignments under the\nbodied in two of my bills. The Star calls\nPennsylvania\" to distinguish between\nprogram.\nfor two revisions: eliminating the Presi-\nJohn J. Rooney of Brooklyn and myself.\nA New York Times article of Septem-\ndent's authority to propose an annual\ncomparability amount differing from\nIn part, because we shared the same\nber 15 commented further:\nname, John Rooney and I were great\nThe military is prevented from prosecut-\nthat of his or her advisers and separat-\ning Members' salaries from that of Fed-\nfriends during the years we served to-\ning program dropouts since they have all\neral employees.\ngether in the House. His death Sunday,\nbeen officially separated from the service, and\nthe Government, for political as well as legal\nI have introduced two bills that do\nOctober 26, following surgery at George-\nreasons, has indicated it will not prosecute\ntown University Hospital meant, to me,\nexactly that: H.R. 9905, which removes\neven the most flagrant examples of bad faith\nthe loss of a good and dear friend.\nthe President's authority from the pro-\namong those who have broken the agreement.\nThrough shared names, we came, also,\ncedure under which annual compara-\nto share mutual enjoyment of Irish\nThis phase of the clemency program\nbility adjustments are made and H.R.\nhumor, interest in each other's biennial\nwas handled by the Department of De-\n10042, which would abolish the current\ncongressional campaigns, and during one\nfense and involved unpunished deserters.\nmethod for changing Members' salaries.\ncampaign several years ago John shared\nUnpunished draft dodgers reported to a\nH.R. 9905 has 21 cosponsors; H.R. 10042,\nwith me some of his \"Rooney for Con-\nU.S. attorney with the Justice Depart-\n14 cosponsors.\ngress\" campaign buttons.\nment implementing this phase of the\nI would also like to bring Members\nDuring his 30 years in the House of\nprogram. Convicted deserters and draft\nparticular attention the Star's prefer-\nRepresentatives, John Rooney grew in\ndodgers and those still serving sentences\nence for taking Members' salaries out of\npublic stature and became recognized as\nfor such violations applied to the Presi-\nthe Federal employees salary-setting\none of the most influential Members of\ndential Clemency Board for relief. The\nprocess. I heartily agree with the Star's\nCongress. For many of those years, he\nclemency program was established by\ncontention that \"the self-interest factor\nchaired the Subcommittee on Appropria-\nPresident Ford on September 16, 1974,\nwould be removed from congressional\ntions for the Departments of State and\nand all clemency applications had to be\ndebate.\"\nJustice and the Judiciary.\nfiled no later than March 31, 1975, the\nThe editorial follows:\nHe was an ardent foe of frivolous pro-\ncut-off date for the program. Applicants,\nSEPARATE CONGRESSIONAL PAY\ngrams or spending excesses, and served\neither draft dodgers or deserters, could\nNow that the latest federal pay issue has\nhis constituency and all Americans well\nbe relieved of prosecution and punish-\nbeen settled, Congress should devise a bet-\nby his careful scrutiny of the manner in\nment if they presented themselves to the\nter way to handle this annual hassle.\nwhich their tax dollars were being spent.\nproper department before March 31, exe-\nThe 8.66 per cent increase recommended\nMrs. Rooney and I share with his dear\ncuted an agreement acknowledging their\nfor civilian workers and military personnel\nwife and their family the sadness of\nallegiance to the United States, pledged\nby a federal pay commission was never de-\nJohn's passing. To them, we extend our\nto fulfill a period of alternative service\nbated on its merits. They had to settle for\nmost sincere sympathy.\nunder the auspices of the Director of Se-\nthe 5 per cent set by President Ford be-\nWhile the sense of loss weighs heavily\nlective Service and satisfactorily com-\ncause Congress, for political reasons, was\non all his loved ones, friends and former\npleted such service.\nafraid to override him.\nassociates, we can derive much comfort\nIn the case of the deserter, when he\nCongressmen wouldn't override the Presi-\nfrom the knowledge that his lifetime was\nelects to seek relief through the program,\ndent: because they have tied salary increases\nfull and rich with the satisfactions of\nhe receives an undesirable discharge.\nfor themselves into the federal employe pay-\nprocedure. The more money they vote for\noutstanding service to his fellow man, his\nUpon completion of his alternative serv-\nfederal workers and the military, the more\ncity, State, and Nation. We shall miss\nice he receives a clemency discharge in\nthey vote for themselves.\nhim.\nrecognition of his fulfillment of the re-\nNovember 5, 1975\nCONGRESSIONAL Extensions of Remarks\n5879\nAmerican Institute of Architects, will\nmunity, such as storm sewers, paving,\ncial and social implications. H.R. 10481\nestablish a nationwide communications\nsanitary sewers.\nhas evolved amidst extended controver-\nbase to provide interested individuals\nIn addition to the energy and enthusi-\nsy, and each of us has been bombarded\nwith information about the heating and\nasm he brings to the office of mayor,\nwith a steady stream of reports, papers.\ncooling of buildings, the stored solar en-\nMr. Dumke still has time for other com-\nand newspaper articles assessing the\nergy in winds, water and plants, direct\nmunity involvements. He is a member of\nmerits of action or inaction. Many of\nsolar thermal conversion, electricity from\nthe Shriners, Oak Lawn Lions, an hon-\nthese articles have been helpful to me in\nthe sun-photovoltaic conversion, archi-\norary member of the Sertoma and Oak\nobtaining an historic perspective into\ntectural applications and storage sys-\nLawn Elks. As a member of St. Raphael's\nthe problems of New York City, and an\ntems. The exhibit will emphasize the po-\nEpiscopal Church he served as one of\ninsight into the projected Impact of the\ntential and practicality of solar energy.\nthe three members on the building com-\nvarious legislative proposals which have\nLarge and small versions of the exhib-\nmittee and supervised its construction in\nbeen advanced.\nits are planned which will circulate\ncooperation with the Diocese of Chicago\nOne newspaper article in particular\nthrough major science and technical\nand the Bishop. He is executive vice pres-\nhas impressed me with its dispassionate\ncenters of the country and also small mu-\nident and one of the principals of George\nanalysis, yet brilliantly drafted style. The\nseums and educational institutions.\nWashington Savings & Loan Association.\narticle, entitled \"Urban Ills,\" by David\nPlans call for the-exhibit to start travel-\nBut still there is time for even more\nBroder of the Washington Post, was pub-\ning in the spring of 1976 and continue on\nfor one with a heart the size of Mayor\nlished today. I recommend It as required\nthe road for 2 years. Eventually, a na-\nDumke's; time for working for the Park\nreading for those Members who are seek-\ntionwide solar communication center will\nLawn School and the Garden School for\ning the essence of what the issues are to-\nbe set up to provide current information\nthe retarded, for example. Not only is he\nday, and what the issues may be tomor-\nand educational materials on solar\na strong supporter and fund-raiser for\nrow.\nenergy.\nthe YMCA and Boy Scouts, but he has\nURBAN ILLS\nThe exhibit has been designed by Jo-\nalso served as district vice chairman of\n(By David S. Broder)\nseph Wetzel and Associates of Stamford,\nthe Timber Trails District and the previ-\nPresident Ford's preference-which is\nConn., and is funded in part by NSF. It\nous district of Woodlawn.\nshared by most politicians of both parties in\ncontains working models, a theater, and\nHe has served as second vice president\nCongress-is to treat the New York City prob-\ncommunication center and has been\nof the Palos-Orland-Worth Area Coun-\nlem as the last act of a morality play. The\nstructured in a way to allow the host\ncil and is also one of the council's 25 di-\nwicked wastrel gets his deserved comeup-\ninstitution to supplement its materials\nrectors. Vice chairman of the Chicago-\npance and is forced to repent for past sins\nwith its own films, symposia, and lists of\nCook County Committee on Criminal\nby declaring default.\nspeakers, researchers, architects, and\nIt's a play well-tailored to the anti-govern-\nJustice, past president of the Illinois\nment sentiments of the national audience.\nmanufacturers.\nPlanning Commission-there could be\nIt's also a way for the President and like-\nMr. Speaker, we are very proud of this\npresented a seemingly endless list of the\nminded politicians to conceal from the coun-\nproduct of Colorado ingenuity and initi-\nmayor's involvement in his community\ntry the reality that we face.\native in the field of solar energy. I hope\nand State.\nI do not refer here to the financial and\nmy colleagues will watch for arrival of\nYet, no matter what achievements are\npsychological consequences of a New York\nthe exhibit in their districts and encour-\nsighted on paper, there is still missing\nCity default. Whatever those are will be\nknown soon enough.\nage the public to take advantage of it.\nfrom any such roster the \"achievement\"\nThe concealed reality is that the basic\nof being a most extraordinary human\nforces that have pushed New York City to\nbeing with a special warmth and endear-\nthe brink are operating inexerably against\ning personality. Perhaps I can sight just\nother old big cities, and will leave them\nMAYOR DUMKE ELECTED PRESI-\none incident that will demonstrate the\naqually exposed to financial Fuin unless we\nDENT OF THE ILLINOIS MUNICI-\ncaliber of this man, not just as a public\nas a country face up to some facts we have\nPAL LEAGUE\nleader but as a human being.\nspent 25 years ignoring.\nIn 1967 Oak Lawn was hit by a dev-\nMost important of these faste is that what\nHON. MARTIN A. RUSSO\nastating tornado. The town was at a\nwe call a city 18 a legal-geographic trap\nmaintained by the outside majority as a\nstand still; the havoc and ruin appeared\nOF ILLINOIS\nmeans of isolating problems We are not pre-\noverwhelming. Mayor Dumke was on his\npared to face and solve. The historic refusal\nIN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES\nfeet three solid days, on the crutches he\nto let most older cities expand their legal\nWednesday, November 5, 1975\nhas used since his bout with polio. He\nborders to incorporate the \"reat cities\" they\nMr. RUSSO. Mr. Speaker, I have the\nnever once slowed down. He seemed to\nhave become makes it ludicrous, if not inde-\nprivilege of being friends with a unique\nbe everywhere, bringing hope and cour-\ncent, for the President and other Potomac\nmoralizers to lecture New York on the need\nand wonderfully warm and gifted hu-\nage to the citizens, supervising the re-\nfor self-reliance.\nman being. This fine gentleman would\ncovery program, finding people places to\nThe real New York City is an area of some\ndeserve recognition just for the kindness,\nlive, arranging for the rebuilding. He\n15 million people, spanning three states. The\ndecency and strength he brings to situ-\npulled that town back together and from\nlegal New York City is a fraction of that\nations and to all who know him. But in\n5:30 Friday, when the tornado struck,\narea, with 7.5 million people jammed into\nuntil Monday, Mayor Dumke was a \"tor-\nits confines.\naddition to these sterling qualities of\ncharacter, he has excelled as a leader\nnado\" himself.\nThe selection of which people live inside\nin municipal affairs and as a talented\nSo, today I want to pay special and\nand outside the borders of legal New York\npublic servant. Serving in his fourth term\nheartfelt tribute to Mayor Dumke and\nCity is not random; it is the end-product of\nas mayor of Oak Lawn, Ill., he was re-\ncongratulate him on his election as Pres-\ntwo generations of national policy.\ncently elected president of the Illinois\nident to the Illinois Municipal League. I\nTwo great waves of population change have\nswept through the old cities=an in-gather-\nMunicipal League. I can think of no in-\nknow I speak for many people when I\ning of the poor from the South and Puerto\ndividual more deserving of this honor\ncommend him for his past accomplish-\nRico and an outflow to the suburbs of more\nthan Mayor Fred M. Dumke.\nments and wish his continued success in\naffiuent whites. The two streams are not\nMayor Dumke is a most persuasive and\nthe future.\nequal in volume. New York and most other\nfar-sighted leader who is responsible for\nold cities have had net losses of population:\nNeal Peirce, author-columnist, has estimated\ninstituting the highly effective council-\nURBAN ILLS\nthe New York loss at almost & half-million\nmanager form of government in Oak\npeople in the past five years.\nLawn. He has been in the forefront of\nHON. ROBERT W. EDGAR\nAnd the racial and economic gap between\nefforts to better municipal procedures.\nthe inner city and its suburbs has grown even\nThis is not surprising, for he is surely\nOF PENNSYLVANIA\nfaster than population has declined. Ed\none of the most knowledgeable people in\nHamilton, the former New York City budget\nIN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES\nthe country when it comes to municipal\nchief, cites figures showing the city's median\nWednesday, November 5, 1975\nfamily income is now only half that of its\ngovernment. While serving for 8 years\nsuburbs.\nas village trustee in Oak Lawn he also\nMr. EDGAR. Mr. Speaker, the House\nThat is, of course, exactly what the Kerner\nworked diligently in the area of institut-\nwill be considering next week legislation\nCommission meant when it warned seven\ning public improvements within the com-\nwith far-reaching philosophical, finan-\nyears ago that \"our nation is moving toward\nE 5880\nCONGRESSIONAL RECORD-Extensions of Remarks\nNovember 5, 1975\ntwo societies, one black, one white-separate\nexperimental. We can now say that it has\ners would be eligible for a clemency dis-\nand unequal.\"\nbeen an overwhelming success and de-\ncharge.\nIt is not New York alone that has been\nserves our fullest support.\nOn September 15 four members of the\nvictimized by these trends. The same kind\nof change-often at a more rapid rate-has\nI am happy to say that I have heard\nPresidential Clemency Board issued a\nhit Baltimore, Boston, Detroit, Cleveland,\nnothing but good reports on the activities\nminority report highly critical of the\nPhiladelphia, St. Louis, Chicago, San\nthat have occurred under this program.\ncomposition, staffing, policies and credi-\nFrancisco, and, yes, even such \"new\" cities\nDuring the testimony given before our\nbility of the operations and decisions of\nas Denver and Salt Lake City.\nSubcommittee on National Parks and\nthe PCB. An AP release of September 19\nBehind all these trends lies federal policy.\nRecreation witnesses praised the pro-\nstated:\nFederally financed farm mechanization pro-\ngram emphatically and the bill was\nPresident Ford's clemency board was\ngrams cost thousands of farm jobs for south-\npassed without amendment.\nstacked with anti-war liberals who distorted\nern blacks; federally financed defense jobs\nlured those blacks to the northern cities.\nAs our Bicentennial approaches we will\nthe intent of the program, urged prison in-\nThe failure of the federal government to\nbe placing more and more emphasis on\nmates to apply and voted clemency in cases\nprovide uniform national income mainte-\nthe need to interpret the history of our\ninvolving civilian felony convictions includ-\nNation and share this information with\ning rape and murder, four board members\nnance programs made it advantageous for\nsay.\nthe poor to remain in the northern cities,\nvisitors to our parks. The Volunteers in\neven when the jobs began to move away.\nthe Parks program is timely and will play\nThe Veterans of Foreign Wars of the\nAnd, of course, federal housing subsidies\na key role in meeting this need.\nUnited States, a major veterans orga-\nand mortgage guarantees built the new\nIt is particularly important to note\nnization opposed to both unconditional\nsuburban communities to which the af-\nfluent whites fled from those poor-infested\nthat those taking part in the program\nand conditional \"amnesty\" for draft\ncenter cities. And federal funds built the\nare not paid. The funds are to be used to\ndodgers and military deserters, praised\ncommuter highways on which they made\nreimburse the incidental expenses of the\nthe minority members for their forth-\ntheir exit.\nvolunteers for such items as their gaso-\nright stand in this matter.\nNever during this process did federal of-\nline costs for transportation, occasional\nI insert at this point the VFW release\nficials say, \"This is going to end in disaster\nmeals or lodging while on duty in the\nof September 19 along with a short sum-\nunless we find some way to allow those cities\npark, and uniforms. The cost to the Fed-\nto expand their borders to encompass the\nmary of the minority report of the Pres-\nsuburbs we have created around them.\"\neral Government has been estimated to\nidential Clemency Board's operations:\nInstead, federal officials said annexation\nbe 28 cents per volunteer per hour. There\nVFW LEADER HAILS GEN. LEWIS WALT'S\nwas a matter of state policy, and most\nare few programs which can boast such a\nLATEST SERVICE TO AMERICA\nstates kept the cities from expanding. Those\nhigh return for so low an outlay of funds.\nWASHINGTON, D.C.-(September 19, 1975)-\nofficials said the city's claims to equality\nThe volunteers have demonstrated re-\nThomas C. \"Pete\" Walker, National Com-\nof representation in Congress and the legis-\nmarkable talents. Their duties range\nmander-in-Chief of the Veterans of Foreign\nlatures was a matter for the courts. But, by\nfrom giving information to visitors, to\nWars of the United States, today hailed Gen-\nthe time the courts got around to enunciat-\ning the one man-one vote doctrine, the cities\nparticipating in living history demon-\neral Lewis Walt, USMC (Ret.), for \"telling-\nstrations. It should be noted that those\nit-like-it-is\" in revealing the calculated ef-\nwere already being emptied of all but the\npoor.\nwho benefit include not only the visitors\nfort of the Goodell-dominated majority of\nthe 18-man Presidential Clemency Board to\nThose same federal officials turned their\nbut the local communities, the Park Serv-\nchange President Ford's \"earned re-entry\"\nbacks on yet a third problem-the problem\nice and the volunteers themselves. They\nprogram for convicted military deserters and\nof school desegregation, leaving that, too,\nare very dedicated to their work and take\ndraft dodgers into a mass mechanism for\nto the courts. And the courts, pursuing their\ngreat pride and enjoyment in doing it\nunconditional Presidential pardons depart-\nown necessarily circumscribed mandate\nwell.\ning totally from President Ford's \"earned re-\nhave imposed \"solutions\"-like busing in\nI know of no controversy over this leg-\nentry\" guidelines.\nthe big-city school systems-that have ac-\nislation and urge its adoption by the\n(Mr. Walker continues the V.F.W. position\ncelerated the fight to the suburbs and the\nHouse.\nof \"disagreeing\" with the President on his\ndecay of the old center cities.\nclemency program \"without being disagree-\nThat is the reality that lies behind the\nable.\")\nNew York City crisis. But it is complicated\nto discuss in these terms, and uncomfort-\nTHE\nPRESIDENTIAL\nCLEMENCY\nGeneral Walt, former Marine Vietnam com-\nmander and assistant Commandant of the\nable for those like the President and the\nBOARD'S MINORITY REPORT\nCorps, selected the V.F.W. to \"assure that\ncongressional leaders, who have been on the\nveterans of America fully comprehend how\nscene for 25 years while these forces were\ngathering momentum unchecked.\nHON. JOHN M. ASHBROOK\nthe pro-amnesty majority of the President's\nClemency Board distorted and attempted to\nIt's so much easier to blame it all on\nOF OHIO\ndefeat the President's guiding concept.\"\nJohn Lindsay, Abe Beame, the greedy New\nIN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES\n\"Fortunately,\" the straight-talking veteran\nYork unions and the avaricious New York\nbanks, and pretend it can't happen else-\nWednesday, November 5, 1975\nof 41 years of military service continued, \"I\nhave been assured that, in light of the Minor-\nwhere.\nMr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Speaker, as I\nity Report, which I am furnishing the V.F.W.,\nIt not only can happen elsewhere, it will.\nhave poined out elsewhere in the CON-\nthe President will take positive action to\nAnd who will our \"leaders\" blame then?\nGRESSIONAL RECORD, various news ac-\nforestall the cynical effort on the part of the\ncounts and a minority report of four\nGoodell-dominated staff and Board majority\nto inundate the White House staff and the\nClemency Board members have raised\nPresident with thousands of recommended\nINCREASING APPROPRIATION AU-\nsubstantive questions relating to the\npardons, many for convicted criminals. A\nTHORIZATION FOR VOLUNTEERS\nconduct of the President's clemency pro-\nPresidential pardon must be viewed as a\ngram covering deserters and draft\nprized and relatively infrequent occurrence.\"\nIN THE PARKS PROGRAM\ndodgers of the Vietnam war era.\nGeneral Walt and three of his associates\nBy far the most serious charges con-\non the Board, Dr. Adams, Mr. Dougovito and\nSPEECH OF\ncerned the Presidential Clemency Board\nColonel Harry Riggs, signed and made avail-\nHON. DON H. CLAUSEN\nable to the V.F.W. a searing critique of the\nwhich was established over a year ago\npro-amnesty bias of the hand-picked major-\nOF CALIFORNIA\nand which went out of business on Sep-\nity of the enlarged 18-person Board. (Gen-\nIN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES\ntember 15 of this year. The 18-member\neral Walt was on the original nine-man\npanel was empowered to relieve of pros-\nBoard selected by the President in Septem-\nTuesday, November 4, 1975\necution and punishment any convicted\nber 1974. The Board went out of business\nMr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr. Speaker, I\ndeserters, convicted draft dodgers, and\non September 15, 1975 at midnight.)\nstrongly support increasing the funding\nthose still serving sentences for such vio-\nThomas C. \"Pete\" Walker, the V.F.W.\nauthorization for the Volunteers in the\nlations. Applicants who applied before\nleader, cited General Walt for \"his latest\nParks program and urge passage of this\nMarch 31, 1975, executed an agreement\nservice to America in blowing the whistle\non Goodell and his syncophants and causing\nbill.\nacknowledging their allegiance to the\na careful case-by-case review of clemency\nIt is a very simple and straightfor-\nUnited States, pledged to fulfill a period\nrequests by the Department of Justice and\nward proposal which raises the existing\nof alternative service under the auspices\nthe White House to be instituted.\"\nauthorization level from $100,000 to\nof the Director of Selective Service and\nA summary of General Walt's tell-it-like-\n$250,000. The original level was based on\nsatisfactorily completed such service\nit-is Minority Report on Presidential Clem-\nthe idea that the program was new and\nwould be eligible for such relief. Desert-\nency Board (PCB) operations is enclosed.\nNovember 5, 1975\nCONGRESSIONAL of Remarks\n5881\nSUMMARY: MINORITY REPORT OF THE PRESI-\nand dedicated, were generally blased against\nfree Unconditional Pardon and a Clemency\nDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD'S OPERATIONS\nthe military and the Vietnam War and had\nDischarge to replace your less than honorable\nPURPOSE\npractically no experience in or with the mili-\ndischarge.\" We believe this is quite a dif-\ntary. The work they did in preparing the case\nferent connotation and meaning than was\nThe purpose of this report is to reflect the\nsummaries was, as a result, often amateurish,\ninitially argued by the Chairman and Execu-\nviews of a minority of the members of the\nbiased, and many times incomplete. In\ntive Staff last October. Further, a person who\nPCB concerning the composition, staffing,\nreality, the young staff attorneys themselves,\nhas been convicted of a felony (a crime\npolicies and credibility of the operations and\nwere of the same influence and were generally\npunishable by imprisonment for more than\ndecisions of the PCB.\nwithout the benefit of any experience with\none year) may legally purchase a firearm\nCOMPOSITION OF THE BOARD\nthe Military Forces, which compounded the\nfrom a licensed firearms dealer if the person\nThe original nine-member Board appointed\nproblem. Also, these young \"case writers\"\nconvicted of said felony has received an un-\nby the President represented a fair balance\nwere instructed by some senior staff member\nconditional Presidential Pardon. The Presi-\namong liberal, middle-of-the-road and con-\nto present the case \"in the best light.\" Con-\ndential Pardon, however, only applies to Fed-\nservative views. This group in its early meet-\nsequently, many of the resulting summaries\neral offenses.\nings established and adopted policies and\nwere an inaccurate presentation of facts on\nIn the early months of the Board's de-\nguidelines by which decisions of the Board\nwhich the Board members had to make their\nliberations a real effort was made to main-\nwould be determined in accordance with the\ndecisions.\ntain the \"meaningfulness\" and \"value\" of the\nPresident's Executive Order and Proclama-\nOver-staffing, lack of organization, lack of\nClemency Discharge. For such offenses as.\ntion. However, many of these policies were\npersonnel discipline and improper utilization\nAWOL from combat, refusal to go to com-\nchanges when the membership of the Board\nof personnel assets were evident throughout.\nbat, multiple and long AWOLs, civil convic-\nwas increased to eighteen members in May\nManagement built up the staff to a peak of\ntions for felony; the Board would normally\n1975. By his own admission, the Chairman\nover six hundred professional and admin-\nvote \"no clemency.\" However, and in sharp\nhad a fairly free hand in picking the new\nistrative personnel. This appeared to be con-\ncontrast, during the latter months of the\nsiderably more than was necessary to get the\nBoard members and he included two mem-\nBoard's operation and after the more am-\nbers of his staff. The new Board members\njob done if proper organization and super-\nvision had been practiced. For example, on\nnesty-oriented eighteen-member Goodell-in-\nwere not given an orientation on Board\n1 July, at the peak of the six hundred plus\nfluenced Board came into being, clemency\npolicies and guidelines. This led to much\nstaff, it was stated by a senior member that\nwas voted in cases involving multiple AWOLs\nconfusion. Initially, it was difficult for the\nOMB believed that less than half of the\n(8) from the battlefield; multiple refusals to\nnew Board members to make sound decisions,\nsecretaries were being used effectively in the\ngo into combat; multiple (as high as ten\ndue to lack of knowledge of Board oper-\nproduction process. Even with this surplus\nAWOLs) and long (seven years) AWOLs;\nation. The Chairman gave guidance which,\nof secretaries, only one was assigned to all\ncivilian felony convictions (rape, murder,\non occasions, seemed not to be strictly in\nof the eighteen Board members. Regular\nmanslaughter, grand larceny, armed robbery,\naccordance with previous Board policy and\nworking hours were not established nor\naggravated assault). Also a man given an Un-\ndecisions. At this point, the Board as a whole\nobserved-employees seemed to come and go\ndesirable or even Punitive Discharge for a\nbecame a more amnesty-oriented, Goodell-\nat their convenience. On a week-day mid-\nfew days or even hours of AWOL (which, ac-\ninfluenced group, with Goodell, in turn,\nafternoon in July (the Board's busiest\ncording to the Board General Counsel's rul-\nseemingly under the influence of the Gen-\nmonth), the Personnel Director made a head-\ning, qualified him for the Clemency Board\neral Counsel and his somewhat biased anti-\ncount and over one hundred sixty employees\nProgram) was recommended for a pardon and\nVietnam War staff. From this point on, the\ncould not be accounted for.\nclemency discharge, by a bare majority vote,\nBoard became, in effect, a captive of the\nAPPLICANTS\neven though the official offense charged\nChairman and the Staff, and policy decisions\nmight include aggravated assault, disrespect\nwere made by the Chairman and the Gen-\nIn the first four months of the program,\nto officer or NCO, striking an officer or NCO,\neral Counsel which influenced Board actions\nonly some eight hundred individuals made\nwrongful appropriation of personal or gov-\nand results without the realization of Board\napplication to the PCB. This appeared to be\nernment property, etc. This again was a turn-\nmembers.\ndue primarily to a lack of proper publicity\nabout from the policy set by the nine-mem-\nAn example of the continual effort of the\nand understanding of the program. In Jan-\nber Board. Another questionable move, con-\nBoard's Executive Staff to distort the Presi-\nuary 1975, the members of the Board ini-\ndent's Program was a written proposal by a\ntiated a nationwide publicity program which\ndoned by the Chairman, was to make drug ad-\ndiction a mitigating factor on behalf of the\nsenior staff member to \"create some doubt\nresulted in several thousand new applica-\nin the minds of people\" about the meaning\ntions. Further, the Chairman, without the\napplicant and drug use as a possible qualifi-\nknowledge of the Board, wrote letters to all\ncation for mitigation. The Board, on the\nof a Clemency Discharge. In making such a\nother hand, was instructed not to consider\nproposal, the Staff member suggested, in a\nmajor penal institutions of the United\nmemorandum, that \"one way to generate\nStates, advising them that inmates who met\nthe use of drugs as an aggravating factor\nsuch ambiguity\" would be to invite Honor-\nthe eligibility criteria should apply. This\neven though such use was unlawful. This\npenitentiary mail produced over two thou-\nchange from the nine-member Board policy\nably Discharged Veterans to request clem-\nsand applications, on which the Board has\nagain was strenuously objected to by the con-\nency discharges \"as an expression of their\nopposition to the Vietnam War.\"\ntaken action, and in the majority of cases,\nstantly \"out-voted\" majority.\nThe idea of using the Presidential Clem-\nrecommended pardons. In contrast with this\nCONCLUSION\nency Board as a vehicle to incite great num-\nis the fact that President Truman's Amnesty\nWe believe that the original concept and\nbers of Honorably Discharged Veterans to\nBoard refused clemency for all persons hav-\nplan as conceived and announced by the\n\"express their opposition to the Vietnam\ning a prior criminal record of one or more\nPresident was a good, sound, workable plan,\nWar\" would be a gross dis-service to the\nserious offenses, stating, \"The Board would\nbut the President's objectives have not been\nPresident.\nhave failed in its duty to society and to the\nattained because of the misdirection and\nmemory of the men who fought and died to\nSTAFFING\nmaladministration of the plan. We feel\nprotect it, had amnesty been recommended\nSince the PCB was only a temporary\ndeeply obligated and honor bound to ap-\nin these cases.\"\norganization, it was determined by the\npraise the President of these facts.\nPresident, through OMB, that no funds\nChanges in board policy and deviation\nIt appears that the Chairman and his\nwould be made available to hire a permanent\nfrom the spirit and intent of the Executive\nExecutive Staff have misinterpreted, circum-\nstaff. Rather, all administrative and opera-\norder and proclamation.\nvented and violated at least the spirit of the\ntional personnel would be detailed \"on loan\"\nThe first significant move on the part of\nExecutive Order of 16 September 1974, and\nfrom other agencies. In the beginning, DOD\nthe Chairman and his Executive Staff, in our\nProclamation No. 4313. This questionable ac-\noffered its facilities and professional trained\nopinion, was to introduce the word \"pardon\"\ntion has been initiated, it appears, to in-\npersonnel to prepare the case summaries,\ninto the Clemency decision on each appli-\ncrease the number of \"eligible\" applicants,\nbut this offer was rejected by the Board's\ncant's case although the word \"pardon\" never\nto liberalize the decisions of the majority\nGeneral Counsel. We feel that this assistance\nappeared once in the President's Executive\nof the Board in order to gain more favorable\nwould have been a real asset to the Board\nOrder or Proclamation. The Chairman and\ndecision for the applicants, and to set a lib-\neffort in that the summaries would have been\nExecutive Staff argued that \"pardon\" and\neral precedent relative to Executive pardons\nobjective and factual. It was turned down\n\"clemency\" were synonymous terms and they\nclosely associated with felonious crimes. A\non the grounds that the General Counsel\nwon the argument, by claiming the tacit ap-\nmove which could degrade the true meaning\nfelt the briefs must be prepared by lawyers.\nproval from the White House, over the stren-\nof a Presidential pardon. The actions, in our\nThe result was that attorneys were detailed\nuous objection of some of the Board Mem-\nopinion, are not only unethical, but they\nfrom other agencies to work with the Gen-\nbers. Eventually in the Board decisions and\nmay also border on illegality, and could\neral Counsel and his associates in the prep-\nin letters going to the applicant after the\ngreatly discredit the President's Clemency\naration of applicant cases. Due to the num-\nBoard action, the words \"clemency\" and\nProgram in the eyes of the American public.\nber of cases to be presented within a very\n\"pardon\" were no longer used as synonymous\nIn short, we have lost confidence in the\nshort period, the legal staff was augmented\nterms but were separated and used in the\nBoard results, which under Chairman Good-\nby approximately two hundred law students\nterms of \"a pardon\" and a \"Clemency Dis-\nell's direction are being recommended to the\nacting as legal interns during their summer\ncharge.\" We quote from a letter dated July\nPresident. We feel that the limited capa-\nvacation. However, approximately ninety per-\n16, 1975, written to an applicant and signed\nbility of the already hard-pressed White\ncent of the cases were military and these\nby Chairman Goodell, The President has\nHouse staff to monitor and screen these rec-\nyoung men and women, even though eager\nsigned a master warrant granting you a full,\nommendations, is inadequate to insure that\n5882\nCONGRESSIONAL RECORD - Extensions of Remarks\nNovember 5, 1975\nthe President will approve only recommenda-\nadvocate, nor has it been needlessly har-\nagency charged with enforcing relevant\ntions which meet his high standards. This\nassed with petitions for action or infor-\nlaws, or petition an agency to take ac-\nproblem is further aggravated by a backlog\nmation. On the contrary, the New Jer-\ntion to correct the problem. But it does\nof some ten thousand cases which may soon\nsey Public Advocate has, in many cases,\nnot have the authority to compel an-\nbe dumped on the White House Staff in a\nassisted various departments and agen-\nother Federal agency to take action to\nshort period of time.\nWe believe that the recent steps the Presi-\ncies in New Jersey in focusing on prob-\nremedy a specific consumer problem. If\ndent has taken to terminate the Clemency\nlems they had previously not been aware\nthe Federal agency declines to take re-\nBoard activity on September 15, 1975, and\nof or had not realized affected large num-\nmedial action, it is required only to no-\nto place the Program under the auspices of\nbers of citizens.\ntify the CPA in writing of the reasons\nthe Attorney General-more specifically-un-\nFor example, recently the department\nfor not acting. In contrast, the New\nder the direction of the Pardon Attorney of\nof the public advocate filed a Superior\nJersey Division of Citizen Complaints has\nthe Department of Justice, is a very sound\nCourt suit challenging the dominance of\nthe authority to investigate any com-\nmove. It is our hope that the Pardon Attorney\nthe State Real Estate Commission by real\nwill take a close and conscientious look at the\nplaint from any citizen relating to the\nClemency Board recommendations, so as to\nestate brokers. In the suit the advocate\naction or inaction of a State agency. If\ninsure that the value of the Clemency Dis-\nasked that the statute governing the\nthe complaint division determines that\ncharge is restored to its original respected\ncommission be declared unconstitutional\nthe agency's action or failure to act is\nlevel, and only those applicants who deserve\nbecause broker members control the set-\nunjustified, it may notify the public ad-\nthe discharge are awarded it.\nting of rules and regulations for the\nvocate. The advocate can then turn the\nWe, as a minority of the Presidential Clem-\nState's real estate industry. The present\nresults of the investigation over to the\nency Board, do not believe that:\nstatute requires that five of the seven\ndivision of public interest advocacy\nAny man who has two or more convictions\ncommission members be brokers and\nwhich has the authority to institute a\n(civilian or military) of serious crimes on\nhave at least 10 consecutive years of\nhis record, should be given clemency. We do\nproceeding before any department, com-\nnot believe that a man who deserted his\nbroker experience. The sixth member is\nmission, agency or board of the State\ncomrades on the battlefield in Vietnam or\na government official, and the seventh is\nwith responsibility for solving such\nwho refused to go to Vietnam when he was\nthe sole member representing the pub-\ncomplaints.\nso ordered, should be given clemency.\nlic. After the public advocate identified\nThe effectiveness of State consumer\nWe believe, as did the Truman Board, that\nthis problem, several members of the\nand public advocates in no way elimi-\nwhen the majority of the Board recommends\nState legislature moved to act on re-\nnates or reduces the need for the prompt\nclemency in such cases, it has failed in its\nduty to society, and to the memory of those\nstructuring the Board.\nestablishment of a Federal consumer\nmen who fought and died to protect it. We\nBoth the New Jersey Public Advocate\nprotection agency. A Federal CPA would\nalso feel that it has been negligent in carry-\nand the Federal CPA can intervene in\nnot duplicate the States' consumer\ning out its responsibility and has not ful-\nratemaking proceedings. The New Jer-\nagency efforts but would supplement\nfilled its obligations to protect the integrity\nsey Public Advocate has recently chal-\nand extend them. State consumer agen-\nof the Presidency.\nlenged the $155 million rate increase re-\ncies are often unable to represent con-\nquested by New Jersey Bell in a petition\nsumers before Federal agencies, and are\nto the State Board of Public Utility Com-\nhelpless in influencing many Federal de-\nmissioners. The Department's Division of\nOFFICE OF PUBLIC DEFENDER\ncisions affecting consumers, like the Rus-\nRate Counsel is also seeking to have the\nsian wheat deal which caused a huge\nautomatic adjustment clause in the tele-\njump in the price of bread and animal\nHON. ANDREW MAGUIRE\nphone company's contract revoked as il-\nfeed. State agencies are often powerless\nOF NEW JERSEY\nlegal because it passes on to the public\nto protect their constituents against\n\"the major cost burden without appro-\nIN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES\nabusive consumer products which orig-\npriate scrutiny in an adversary setting\"\ninate in other States. Federal agencies\nWednesday, November 5, 1975\naccording to Public Advocate Stanley\nhave the responsibility to endorse laws\nMr. MAGUIRE. Mr. Speaker, during\nVan Ness. The Division of Rate Counsel\ndealings with interstate shipment of\nthe 6 years that the Senate has consid-\nclaims that the adjustment clause is il-\nshoddy or unsafe merchandise and with\nered consumer protection legislation, we\nlegal because it violates constitutional\nhazards such as commercial flights\nhave amassed thousands of pages of con-\nrequirements of due process in failing to\ncarrying radioactive cargo. But in the\ngressional hearings, recorded the testi-\nafford public notice and an opportunity\npast when Federal agencies have not\nmony of scores of witnesses and docu-\nto be heard.\nenforced these standards and laws, State\nmented in laborious detail the numer-\nWhile the New Jersey Public Advocate\nagencies have usually had little success\nous abuses which have resulted, in large\nin many ways parallels the consumer\nin compelling them to do SO.\nmeasure, from the absence of effective\nprotection agency proposed in H.R. 7575,\nMr. President, the New Jersey statute\nconsumer advocacy before Federal regu-\nit is also stronger in several ways. Un-\nexemplifies the increased awareness on\nlatory agencies. A few well-publicized ex-\nlike the Federal CPA, a New Jersey ad-\nthe past of State governments of the\namples include rubber-stamping of air\nvocate's case cannot be overturned on\nneed to provide representation for public\nfare increases, nonenforcement of nurs-\nthe ground that the advocate improperly\nand consumer interests before State\ning home standards, flammable fabrics\nidentified the public interest which he\nagencies and departments. Without un-\nin children's clothes, and oil companies\nchose to represent. The \"public interest\"\nnecessary fuss or drawn-out debate, the\nballooning their already inflated profits.\nwhich the New Jersey Public Advocate\nNew Jersey legislature and Governor\nWhile we have discussed, debated, and\nhas the responsibility to represent is\nByrne have acted decisively to enact leg-\nanalyzed every section and line of the\ndefined as \"an interest or right arising\nislation to represent its citizens before\nconsumer protection bill over the years,\nfrom the Constitution, decisions of court,\nState agencies and departments. I would\nthe State of New Jersey has expeditious-\ncommon law, or other laws of the United\nlike to include in the RECORD a recent\nly created its own public advocate. On\nStates or of this State inhering in the\nsummary by the New Jersey Department\nMay 13, 1974, Gov. Brendan T. Byrne\ncitizens of this State or in a broad class\nof the Public Advocate of some of its\nsigned into law the department of the\nof such citizens.\" These are the sole cri-\nactivities:\npublic advocate which like the Federal\nterion on which the advocate makes his\nOFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER\nCPA has the authority to represent and\ndecision on whether he- may properly\nintervene or not. Using the above statu-\nThe upward trend in the over-all Public\nprotect the public in ratemaking or other\nDefender caseload continued during the past\nadministrative and judicial proceedings\ntory definition of \"public interest\" the\nquarter after a full fiscal year during which\nbut has no regulatory power.\npublic advocate has intervened in a wide\nthe Office handled a record 37,891 assign-\nThis successful working model of a\nrange of activities including public ac-\nments. Now that the new court year has be-\nState CPA, included within the New Jer-\ncess to beaches, postcard registration,\ngun, the Office is begining to receive requests\nsey Department of the Public Advocate,\nresidence requirements for persons tak-\nfrom assignment judges for additional Public\nhas disproven the predictions about the\ning the civil service exam, unsafe nursing\nDefender staff in their regions. It has not\nhomes, and others.\nbeen possible to honor these requests because\ndeleterious effect of a public advocate on\nno additional staff was allocated to the Office\nthe workings of government. The New\nUnder H.R. 7575, when the CPA re-\nin the 1976 Budget. Funds also are unavail-\nJersey government has not been immo-\nceives complaints from consumers, it may\nable to retain additional private counsel.\nbilized by the intervention of the public\nrefer the complaint to a Federal or State\nIn some counties there are now more than\n1) Upgrade (Dod C. 60)\n2) In hen of q subst for\n3) Xmas visit\n4) V.A. benefits\n5) Jelony cases\nFORDO is LIBRARY CERALD\nHordlon Lidyl\n6) Commitation of A.S.\n10/27/76.\n.\n9900 Terminated or Never Applied.\n1500 Completed\n+350 still enrolled\n1700\n7/UD in Alsentra for\n714 Dod p126\n356 Dog.\nDod who didn't\n628 PCB\nparticipate (3000)\n1/4/77/95 - mg w/ Pres Ford.\n1) Upgrade (Dod 0.60)\n2) In her of q subst for\n3) X.mas visit\n4) V.A. benefits\n5) Jelony cases\n- Gordon Liddy\n6) Commitation of A.S.\n10/27/76\nGERALD\n9900 Terminated or Never Applied.\n1500 completed\n+350 still enrolled\n1700\n7/00 in Afientia for\n714 Dad P126\n356 Doy.\nDod who We't\n628 FCB\npartreipate (3000)\nPRESS RELEASE\nPRESS RELEASE\nUNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME\nDivision of Information Services\nNotre Dame, Indiana\nFor further information call:\nEmbargoed until\nLawrence M. Baskir\n6:00 P.M. EST\nWilliam A. Strauss\nJanuary 15, 1977\n(202) 296-1767\nBROAD RELIEF URGED FOR\nVIETNAM-ERA OFFENDERS\nWashington, D.C., January 15, 1977.\nR.\nFORD\nD'LIBRARY\nA wide-ranging program of relief for Vietnam-era\nmilitary and draft offenders was proposed in a report issued\ntoday by the University of Notre Dame's Center for Civil\nRights.\nThe report, \"Reconciliation After Vietnam,\" proposes\na 41-point program offering relief to over a half-million\npeople punished or still facing charges for non-violent\noffenses committed during the Vietnam war. Its major recom-\nmendations are:\n- Military offenders court-martialed for offenses in\nVietnam or for refusing to serve in Vietnam should have their\ncases reviewed individually\n- No relief should be offered to anyone convicted of\nserious combat-related desertion or civilian-type crimes\n- All other military offenders should be given\nGeneral Discharges\n(More)\n- 2 -\n- Veterans' benefits should be granted only to the\n50,000 who served honorably in Vietnam, and to those with at\nleast two years of good military service\n- Pardons should be granted to persons convicted of\ndraft and other non-violent offenses related to the war\n- Those still facing prosecution for these offenses\nshould have their cases dropped\nThe report does not recommend universal, unconditional\namnesty.\n\"If those who committed very serious offenses are\nbarred from relief,\" it states, \"the American people can be\nconfident that a full measure of forgiveness will be given\nonly to those who deserve it.\"\nAccording to the report, \"Amnesty is most\nappropriately viewed as a question of social justice, not\nanti-war ideology. The economically and socially disadvantaged\ndid most of the fighting. They also paid most of the penalties\nfor not fighting.\"\nThe report blames much of the divisiveness about\namnesty on popular \"myths\" surrounding the young men commonly\nlabeled \"draft evaders\" and \"deserters.\" For example:\nMyth: Young men who avoided military service were\npunished.\nFact: Draft avoidance was widespread among the\n27,000,000 men of draft age during the\nVietnam era. Sixteen million never\nserved in the military, two-thirds of\nwhom took positive steps to avoid the\ndraft through legal means. Just 8,800\nwere convicted for \"draft evasion.\"\nMyth: \"Draft evaders\" and \"deserters\" were white,\nwell-educated, and staunchly anti-war.\nFact: The overwhelming majority of Vietnam-\nera offenders came from underprivileged\nbackgrounds. Almost half of all \"draft\nevaders\" were members of minority groups\n(More)\n- 3 -\nwho never registered for the draft.\nThree-quarters of the \"deserters\" were\nhigh school dropouts, and less than\n1% ever graduated from college. Most\noffenses were motivated primarily by\npersonal or family problems.\nMyth: Many \"deserters\" were cowards who fled\nfrom combat, endangering their fellow\ntroops.\nFact: Very few \"desertion\" offenses were\nconnected with service in Vietnam. Just\n24 servicemen were convicted of desertion\nto avoid hazardous duty in Vietnam. About\n2,000 others were punished for less serious\nabsence offenses in the combat zone, and\nanother 7,000 for refusing to report there --\na small fraction of the 100,000 servicemen\nwho bear the label of \"deserter.\"\nThe report follows a year-long study supported by a\nspecial grant from the Ford Foundation. Its authors, Lawrence\nM. Baskir and William A. Strauss, were formerly top officials\nin the Ford Clemency Program. The findings of the report\nare based on extensive field research, new statistical infor-\nmation, and data from official sources.\n\"This report is the most thorough analysis ever done\non Vietnam-era offenders, and also on any amnesty attempt in\nAmerican history,\" according to Father Theodore M. Hesburgh,\nPresident of the University of Notre Dame and chairman of the\nstudy advisory committee.\n\"I hope that the findings and recommendations in this\nreport can steer us all toward a practical, comprehensive\nresolution of one of the major tragedies of the Vietnam era,\"\nhe added.\nThe other members of the advisory committee are:\nU.S. Senator Charles Mathias of Maryland; William Klaus, a\nPhiladelphia attorney; Morris Janowitz, Professor of military\nsociology of the University of Chicago; Roger Kelley, Vice\nPresident of the Caterpillar Tractor Co., and formerly an\n(More)\n- 4 -\nAssistant Secretary of Defense, Eddie Williams of the Joint\nCenter for Political Studies, and Professor Jefferson\nFordham of the University of Utah Law School.\nExcerpts from the report are attached. Copies may\nbe obtained from the University of Notre Dame Press, Notre\nDame, Indiana 46556, or the Vietnam Offender Study offices\nat 1826 Jefferson Place, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.\n(END)\n12/4/77/95\nPres,\n1) Clemency\n2) Paley\n3) Gordon Liddy\n4) CBI, Colleton River\n5) Concorde & Reo,\nGETATO R. FORD TIRRAT\nAMCHINES AND IN RECORDS\nGerald R. Ford Library\n1000 Beal Avenue Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-2114\n1985\nMemo to the pile:\nCopies (3) of the final report have been removed and added\nto the Ford Library book collection.\nLET 11/89\nA Presidential Library Administered by the National Archives and Records Administration"
}