Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1506020
label
Panel Counsel Meetings
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1506020
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Panel Counsel Meetings
citationUrl
collections
Charles E. Goodell Papers
Presidential Clemency Board Subject Files
subjects
Amnesty
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1506020
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-06-30
month
6
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-06-01
month
6
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
20fac773aefe8cc5
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 8, folder "Panel Counsel Meetings" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
June 16, 1975
MEMORANDUM TO:
Larry Baskir
Buy
FROM:
Bill Strauss
SUBJECT:
Panel Counsel Meetings of June 13
COPIES TO:
Panel Counsels (Distribution c)
As you know, the PM & E staff held a series of six meetings with Panel
Counsels on Friday, June 13. The meetings were well-attended and were
quite useful in identifying policy discrepancies between the Clemency
Law Reporter's language and the apparent policy of Board panels and
action attorneys. The number of discrepancies was fairly large, perhaps
to be expected insofar as these were our first meetings of this kind.
(This reinforces our need for weekly meetings to keep communication lines
open between Panel Counsels and ourselves.)
The following issues were raised -- and, if at all possible, you or the
Board should clarify what is our policy on them:
AGGRAVATING FACTOR #1: There was considerable disagreement about what
the term "felony conviction" does or should mean. Does a one-year suspended
sentence apply? Does a six-month jail term for an offense which could have
had a longer sentence apply? We need a firm rule for cases in which it is
not clear whether the crime has in fact been designated as a felony under
state law.
AGGRAVATING FACTOR #2: No issues.
AGGRAVATING FACTOR #3: No issues.
AGGRAVATING FACTOR #4: Not included in the Clemency Law Reporter language,
but articulated by PM & E staff, was the test that this factor applies
only if there is some evidence of (a) cowardice or (b) some risk of immediate
danger to other troops. However, some members of the Board have been
applying this factor in all cases where applicants went AWOL from ahywhere
else in Vietnam but Saigon -- or even while on home leave (or R&R) from
Vietnam.
2
AGGRAVATING FACTOR #5: Should we omit the language "in circumstances
where a reasonable inference may be drawn that the offense had been
committed for selfish and manipulative reasons?" The Board may not be
applying the rule in this manner, with the simple absence of evidence
sufficient of itself to bring about this factor. However, except in
extraordinary cases (e.g., very thin files), the absence of any
explanation or circumstantial mitigating evidence tends to create a
reasonable inference that the offense was indeed for selfish and
manipulative reasons. It is my understanding that the Board may. not
apply this rule in thin (or absent) file cases.
AGGRAVATING FACTOR #6: Does this factor apply to a Jehovah's Witness who
refuses to accept draft-board-ordered alternative service for non-religious
(e.g., financial) reasons?
AGGRAVATING FACTOR #7: Does this factor apply just to civilian cases? In
at least one instance, the Board has applied it to a military case. If it
is to be so applied, should a suspended sentence in the military be
equated with probated sentences and parole in the civilian context? If a
suspended sentence is vacated in the military because of some misconduct
on the part of the soldier, the Board has considered the vacation the same
as a revocation of probation or parole and checked this factor. Frequently,
in the military, when a suspended sentence is vacated, the soldier, is sent
back to confinement, and in addition he must face a new court martial on
the charges that caused the suspension to be vacated. The result is that
the Board now checks this factor--and also checks aggravating factor #1
for an additional adult conviction.
AGGRAVATING FACTOR #8: Do unpunished AWOLs count in assessing multiple
AWOLs? If the general rule is no, what about UD-unfitness cases where the
discharge was the disciplinary response to the AWOL offenses? What if the
UD had been based on both punished and unpunished AWOL offenses? What
the UD had been based at least in part on non-qualifying AWOL offenses? Also,
action attorneys now must describe the form of punishment for each AWOL
offense--listing summary court martials and non-judicial punishments.
This is prejudicial and does not bear on any aggravating factor and so might
be excluded from our summary format. However, changing our summary format
would be painful. Should action attorneys continue to mention summary
court martials for AWOL offenses--or should they simply note that it was
a " punished AWOL offense."
AGGRAVATING FACTOR #9: Again, do unpunished or non-qualifying AWOLs count
in tabulating the length of AWOL offenses? (We probably should apply the
same rule for both aggravating #8 and #9.) Also, does the Board apply
this factor to the last qualifying AWOL offense, to the longest qualifying
AWOL offense, or to a cumulation of all qualifying AWOL offenses. Different
Board panels seem to be applying the rule differently.
-- Do not count previous AWOLS for wh he's been punished
3
AGGRAVATING FACTOR #10: Does "overseas assignment" include Alaska
and Hawaii?
AGGRAVATING FACTOR #11: There was considerable confusion about this
factor. This factor was originally established to report a non-absence
offense which contributed, along with an absence offense, to a discharge.
So far, it has been applied by action attorneys only in UD-Chapter 10
cases. It has been applied by the Board panels in some UD-Unfitness
cases, however. Should it apply in UD-Unfitness cases? If so, should
this factor apply if the non-absence offenses resulted only in a general
or special court martial -- or should it apply if any punishment resulted?
Does it apply if no punishment (other than the UD-Unfitness discharge)
resulted? Finally, do we apply this factor when an applicant receives
a BCD or a DD for charges which include both absence and non-absence
offenses? It appears that the Board panels have in fact done SO.
AGGRAVATING FACTOR #12: Does the Board apply the same rule as in
mitigating factor #11 -- that only the last qualifying offense counts?
Also, the Board does in fact consider simple apprehension to be sufficient
to bring about this factor. The language in the Clemency Law Reporter
indicated that some evidence of willful evasion of authorities is also
needed, but the Board has yet to apply this rule.