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
18558770
label
Correspondence (8)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
18558770
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Correspondence (8)
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
18558770
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1977-12-31
month
12
year
1977
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-07-01
month
7
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
f91bc8466c9e1eac
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 3, folder "Correspondence (8)" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 3 of the Charles E. Goodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
November 8, 1976
Mr. Ronald A. Taylor
51 West 81st Street
New York, New York 10024
Dear Mr. Taylor:
In going through his Clemency Board files, Mr. Goodell came
across your letter of March 5, 1975. He recalls having autographed
a book for you some time ago. He would like to know whether or
not you ever seceived it. If not, please let us know and we will
see to it that a copy of De sent to you as soon as possible.
With kind regard,
Very truly yours,
Deborah A. Wood
Secretary to Mr. Goodell
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
FROM:
graid
DATE:
3/27
TO: Goodell x
Knisely
ACTION:
Baskir
Lang
Broder
Liekweig
Brown
Lipscombe
17
FYI & Retention
Bott
Lohff
Chaney
Meinking
/
/
FYI & Return to
Chazen
MacQueeney
Chambers
Mitchell
/ / Prepare Reply
Craig
Norby
Dancheck
Nickolas
/
See Me
Benson
O'Hare
Fenig
Pacini
/
Clear & Return
Fornoff
Poole
Guritz
Puller
TI
Rush
Necessary Action
Hastings
Hausman
Robinson
-
II
Other:
Horn
Slattery
Handwerger
Strauss
Heitz
Tropp
Hickman
Vinson
I
RT or mm - do
Horton
Zani
Hansen
Smith
Kodak
I
you Know what happend
Klein
to bookd previous litter
RONALD A. TAYLOR
1571
MAR 5 1975
February 28, 1975
Honorable Charles Goodell
Office of the President
Executive Office Building
Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Goodell;
A few months back I sent you a copy of your book with
a request that you autograph it. To date I have not
recieved it.
Hopefully it is just the mails
however please ask someone
on your staff to check and see if it is around the office.
Very truly yours,
Pantangh
may
MAR 10001 NEW PM IN YORK.
/
2
1975
UNITED
10
STATES
Honorable Charles Goodell
Office of the President
Executive Office Building
Washington, D.C.
PERSONAL
RONALD A. TAYLOR
51 West 81st Street
New York, NY, 10024
November 29, 1976
Lawrence M. Baskir
Vietnam Offender Study
1826 Jefferson Place, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
Dear Larry:
The
I believe I sent you a copy of the enclosed letter from
Mr. Morse to the President when I received it in March. I have
had another inquiry with reference to the accuracy of Mr. Morse's
interpretations. Do you or Bill have any comments?
With kind regard, I am
Sincerely,
Charles E. Goodell
/daw
Enclosure
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
Presidential Libraries Withdrawal Sheet
WITHDRAWAL ID 02000
REASON FOR WITHDRAWAL
Donor restriction
TYPE OF MATERIAL
Letter
CREATOR'S NAME
Richard Schultz
RECEIVER'S NAME
Charles Goodell
DESCRIPTION
re possible upgrade of a discharge
CREATION DATE
11/02/1976
COLLECTION/SERIES/FOLDER ID
019300022
COLLECTION TITLE
Charles Goodell Papers
BOX NUMBER
3
FOLDER TITLE
Correspondence (4)-(8)
DATE WITHDRAWN
11/20/1990
WITHDRAWING ARCHIVIST
WHM
November 30, 1976
Mr. Lawrence Baskir
Vietnam Offender Study
1826 Jefferson Place, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
Dear Larry:
Enclosed is a letter from Richard Schultz together with
a copy of his application for review of discharge. I intend
to use this in support of my recommendations to President Ford
and thought it might be useful to you in documenting the situation
for the Carter people.
If you have any other specific suggestions as to how we
might help Mr. Schultz with his own case, please let me know.
With warm regard, I am
Very truly yours,
Charles E. Goodell
/daw
Enclosure
FORD is LIBRARY OERALD
VIETNAM OFFENDER STUDY
CENTER FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME
LAWRENCE M. BASKIR
1826 JEFFERSON PLACE. N.W.
PROJECT DIRECTOR
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036
WILLIAM A. STRAUSS
(202) 296-1767
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
PADDY TALBOYS SHAKIN
ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY
CHARGIE -
RECEIVED DEC 3 1976
PLEASE TELL JS WHAT you THINK
of THESE LETTERS, PER OVR CONVERSATION.
THANKS.
Bur
& 070830 FIF :
VIETNAM OFFENDER STUDY
CENTER FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME
LAWRENCE M. BASKIR
1826 JEFFERSON PLACE. N.W.
PROJECT DIRECTOR
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036
WILLIAM A. STRAUSS
(202) 296-1767
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
PADDY TALBOYS SHAKIN
ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY
November 30, 1976
Mr. Byron V. Pepitone
Director
Selective Service System
1724 F Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Pepitone:
Mr. Walter Morse, former General Counsel of
Selective Service, has taken issue with conclusions
drawn by the Clemency Board report that 55% of all
indicted Vietnam-era draft offenders had their cases
dismissed, and that 85% of those who pled not guilty
were not convicted. We are enclosing a copy of our
response, and we understand that Sen. Charles E.
Goodell is also responding to his letter.
Our research has subsequently discovered that
over half of the 210,000 individuals referred to U.S.
Attorneys for prosecution had their cases dropped
because of substantive or procedural errors. This
contrasts with the public impression that 80% of the
cases were dropped because the violator submitted to
induction.
We are engaged in writing a book which will be
published early in 1977. The book will include an
assessment of the administration and enforcement of the
Selective Service Act during the Vietnam era. The
matters described above are essential to such an assess-
ment and bear heavily on the public's understanding of
how the draft system was administered.
&
FORD
Most of our new information comes from officials
at various levels of the Justice Department, but we have
CERALD
thus far been unable to get data from Selective Service
not contained in your semi-annual reports. We would
appreciate any assistance you can give us in improving
Mr. Byron V. Pepitone
November 30, 1976
Page Two
our understanding of these issues.
Sincerely,
Lawrence M. Baskir
William A. Strauss
Enc.
FORD i GERALD LIBRARY
VIETNAM OFFENDER STUDY
CENTER FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME
LAWRENCE M. BASKIR
1826 JEFFERSON PLACE. N.W.
PROJECT DIRECTOR
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036
WILLIAM A. STRAUSS
(202) 296-1767
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
PADDY TALBOYS SHAKIN
ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY
November 30, 1976
Mr. Walter H. Morse
2304 Wilson Blvd.
Arlington, Virginia
Dear Mr. Morse:
Sen. Charles E. Goodell sent us a copy of your
letter of March 29. To our understanding, the statistics
in question are correct, although we acknowledge that the
85% figure is an approximation based upon an extrapolation
of survey findings. That figure refers to the apparent
risk of conviction for an indicted draft offender.
In your letter, you noted that "records will
substantiate that 80% of these violations were dismissed
because the violator submitted to induction." For several
months, we tried to discover such records, but could not.
As you may recall, one of us spoke with you personally in
search of such information. Officials at all levels of
the Justice Department were skeptical about its accuracy,
and our independent investigation has learned that a much
smaller proportion of accused offenders ever entered the
military. Many others failed their pre-induction physical
examinations (sometimes after deliberate efforts to fail),
but it appears that over half of the 210,00 accused of-
fenders had their cases declined or dismissed because of
errors made by their draft boards.
The rate of unsuccessful prosecutions and the
number of cases dropped for substantive or procedural
errors are important indications of the enforcement of the
draft law during the Vietnam era.
If you have data of any kind which underlies
your 80% estimate or which pertains to the number of cases
dropped by U.S. Attorneys because of induction or other
reasons, we would appreciate hearing from you. Based upon
&
FORD
HURALD
Mr. Walter M. Morse
November 30, 1976
Page Two
the information currently available to us, our forth-
coming book will reach conclusions different from those
in your letter.
Sincerely,
Lawrence M. Baskir
William A. Strauss
CC: Charles E. Goodell
Byron V. Pepitone
Mr. Walter H. Morse
2304 Wilson Blvd.
Arlington, Virginia
Dear Mr. Morse:
Please excuse my tardy response to your letter
of March 29 in which you questioned the accuracy of state-
ments in the Clemency Board's final report. The discussion
on pages 45 and 46 was based partly on survey data collected
by the Board (see Appendix C of the report) and partly on
data obtained from the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts. The 85% statistic to which you refer pertains
only to accused draft offenders who pled not guilty, and
it is based upon assumptions which are clearly stated in
the text.
From my experience at the Clemency Board, I could
see that substantive or procedural errors were common in
draft cases. In light of this, I do not consider the 55%
or 85% figures to be especially surprising.
Lawrence M. Baskir and William A. Strauss, the two
Clemency Board staff members principally responsible for
the report, have undertaken considerable research in this
area as part of the Vietnam Offender Study. I understand
they will be responding separately to your letter.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Goodell
CC: Lawrence M. Baskir
William A. Strauss
Byron N. Pepitone
White House
December 3, 1976
Jim:
Per our conversation, here are the clemency materials. In
the Presidential Clemency Board's final report, you will be
interested particularly in pages xv-xvi, 52-80, 138-45, and 201n29.
I have attached with the materials a copy of a memo which I
wrote and you reviewed before the Board's first meeting, on
Guidelines on Categorization of Cases and Application of
Mitigating and Aggravating Factors. That memo, particularly
at pp. 8-14, suggests workable categories which you may
want to treat differently in a proposed new amnesty. The
Board's final report will also suggest some categories to
you (see, e.g., p. 78 on veterans who had Honorable Discharges
prior to getting a bad discharge on their second tour).
As I mentioned to you, it is critical that any new amnesty
program address the problem of deserters, because there are
over 100,000 of them (probably some 10,000 fugitive, the rest
cashiered with discharges under other than honorable conditions)
from the Vietnam era. By contrast, there are only a couple
of thousand evaders--not counting the indeterminate number of
non-registrants--who can be reached by a new amnesty program.
Those who live abroad--a very tiny portion--are largely settled
into jobs and families where they are, and will not come back
even if they are lauded as heroes.
Aside from the 100,000+ deserters, there are at least another
400,000 veterans with bad discharges from the Vietnam era, some
of their discharges generated by war protest offenses (e.g.:
disobeying a lawful order). The class of 500,000+ veterans
is the largest one which needs some kind of clemency.
The problem, and the complexity, of the mess is sketched out
on page 8 of the attached draft memo to the President. Most
of the deserters and evaders at issue were uneducated, poor,
inarticulate persons with family or emotional problems which
caused their offense. Nearly none of them were motivated by
opposition to the war. If you get into the business of mass
categorical amnesties instead of case-by-case review, you
will ignore the distinction between those who really were
motivated by anti-war feelings, those who had family or emotional
problems and were trapped by an administrative system they did
not understand, and those who were just plain screw-ups.
I suspect this is just as true for the rest of the 400,000+
bad paper veterans as it is of deserters.
&
FORD
Once you get into case-by-case decision-making, however, you
create an administrative burden and a time lag between an
CERALD
amnesty proclamation and its implementation.
You may want to give some thought to several categories of folk
aside from the categories in my 10/4/74 memo:
1. Veterans with bad discharges for non-absence offenses, and
with allegations in their record that they acted out of
conscientious anti-war motivation. Perhaps there should be
a presumption that anyone who alleged conscientious motivation
had it, and will receive unconditional amnesty under a new
program.
- 2 -
2. Civilians, both fugitives and those already convicted, who
committed a non-draft Federal offense (i.e.: an offense outside
the jurisdiction of President Ford's program), with allegations
in their record that they acted out of conscientious anti-war
motivation. Perhaps there should be a presumption that, as
with bad-discharge veterans, anyone who alleged conscientious
motivation had it, and will receive amnesty under a new program.
This class, unlike the veterans, is susceptible of case-by-case
review, because (i) very few civilians committed non-draft
anti-war offenses, and (ii) most of those few offenses involved
state law, not federal law, and are therefore outside a
President's clemency authority.
These cases will be quite sticky in some instances, such as
those of destruction of Federal property. It may be that
once you get into the details of the cases, you would be
uncomfortable in recommending amnesty for them. That problem
also argues for case-by-case review.
At a minimum, the Pardon Attorney's office in Justice could
be instructed to consider with sympathy all requests for
clemency by convicted civilians who allege conscientious
motivation for non-draft anti-war Federal offenses. The
Criminal Division could be instructed to open no new cases
in this category, and to review its files on all outstanding
fugitive cases--under a presumption of acceptance of
allegation of conscientious motivation--in order to determine
which ones can be publicly closed.
3. Perhaps a new program should start by commuting the alternative
service conditions of persons who have received conditional clemency
under the 1974 program, and by instructing the Attorney
General immediately to issue pardons which were suspended
pending completion of alternative service. The Secretary
of Defense would be instructed to immediately issue Clemency
Discharges under the old program to all veterans affected
by commutation of alternative service.
4. Perhaps the military services' discharge review boards should
be instructed to automatically raise, without application
from persons affected, the cases of all veterans with
discharges under-other-than-honorable-conditions from the
Vietnam era, in order to consider which veterans should be
upgraded to General and Honorable Discharges. The boards
could be instructed to review records without regard to
the offense for which an individual has received a pardon
either under the Ford program or under a new amnesty.
5. Undesirable Discharges as a class were a tremendous problem
to the Presidential Clemency Board, and will be to a new
amnesty program as well. Some veterans took UDs because
they knew that a court-martial would convict them and throw
them into prison, some were railroaded by officers who wanted
to avoid the administrative hassle of a court-martial, and
some simply took a UD to get out of the service fast, unaware
of the deleterious job-market consequences of a UD and unaware
that they could never have been convicted of any offense if
they had asked for due process.
- 3 -
The UD category contains all manner of misfits, malingerers,
criminals, and innocents. It is impossible to distinguish
one from another because a UD, by its nature, does not leave
a record. Absent a record, you either have to treat them all
as innocents or to establish a rebuttable presumption that
they are all misfits or criminals, and then look at amnesty
applicants on a case-by-case basis.
If you treat them all as innocents, there is going to be
a lot of embarrassment for the new President and his program
when the press goes after details of some UD cases. The
military used the UD to get a lot of real screw-ups, in
some cases criminals, out of the service quickly and without
an administrative hassle during the Vietnam war.
On the other hand, if you get into a case-by-case process
to rebut a negative presumption, it's going to be a real
chore. Most of the 500, 000+ bad discharges are UDs without
available records on which to base a decision. Even if
an amnesty decision is to be based on retrieval just of
one or two kinds of facts, there is going to have to be
fact-finding communication with all those people.
It may be that the best solution for the UD category, albeit
cumbersome, is to offer amnesty only to applicants (non-"universal"),
and to focus the application process on retrieval of a very
limited number of dispositive facts.
If an amnesty is to have any real-world meaning for those receiving
it, you will run into the problem of what happens when a recipient
applies for a job. Employers can discover that he has had a
civilian or military criminal record, and that he has had--if
it is a military case--an other-than-honorable discharge. "Amnesty"
has no real-world meaning unless it is accompanied by a series
of steps to remedy that problem.
Several questions then arise:
(i) Will Justice Department criminal records (including but
not limited to NCIC) be either expunged or sealed?
(ii) Will military services' discharge records be either
expunged or sealed?
(iii) Will DD Forms 214 (discharge forms) be issued de novo,
and old 214s thrown into the ash can? Will new discharge
certificates be issued?
(iv) What can a President do to seal or expunge records owned
by Federal courts, not by the Executive Branch? Certainly
nothing by a proclamation or an executive order.
(v) What can a President do to get state criminal records
under the jurisdiction of state governors (much less
records owned by state courts) sealed or expunged?
(vi) For each record sealed but not expunged, for what limited
purposes will access be permitted? by what categories of
persons? under what procedures? with what notice to the
subject of the record?
- 4 -
These may seem to be questions which can be resolved long
after a new amnesty program is announced, but they are not.
There is no amnesty in the real world for recipients as long
as they are not addressed. Presumably, one of the points of
an amnesty is to enable the recipient to seek a job without
constraint by prior record, and without pervasive anxiety
that an employer can learn something any minute which will
trigger his immediately firing the recipient.
That suggests the last problem to which you ought to give
long thought: the process question of just how the President-elect
is going to spring his new program on the American people. We
found that recipients of President Ford's clemency had unbelievably
painful problems in re-entering their home communities, both
in getting jobs and in simply being able to live as part of
a neighborhood. Veterans groups protested when city governments
and private employers gave them jobs, however menial and
poorly compensated. Neighbors ostracized them, banks and
other service institutions refused to serve them, civic
and veterans organizations attacked them and would not let them
fade quietly back into normal life.
There are a hell of a lot of people out there who have fathers,
sons, brothers, and husbands who were disabled, killed, or
irrevocably emotionally scarred in Vietnam. There are more
of those people than there are families of draft evaders and
deserters. Because of the comparative nature of the injuries
suffered, most of the veterans' families show a hell of a lot
more emotion about their side of the issue than the draft
evader and deserter families show about theirs.
That emotion, and the scars which generate it, are going to
come down hard on the President-elect, as they did with intense
bitterness on the Presidential Clemency Board. And that
emotion is going to come down particularly hard, much more
so than you probably anticipate, on amnesty recipients in
their home communities.
In order to pre-empt as much of this fire as possible, the
President-elect's staff has to do some tedious groundwork
among all of the veterans' groups (not just the Legion, the
VFW, and the DAV), and among civic groups which dominate the
public opinion patterns of small communities--especially small
business, farm, +church groups. It is absolutely necessary
that that ground-work be done among the veterans' and civic
groups at the local level, not just with their leadership in
Washington.
If local veterans' and civic groups do not come to understand
what kinds of people are getting amnesty and what their real
problems have been, the President is going to get a lot of
avoidable political flak. More to the point, the lives of
some amnesty recipients are going to be, in part avoidably,
very grim.
If I had 1975 to relive, this is the first chore to which I
would allocate much more of my energies, and the Board's.
- 5 -
On the materials I am giving to you:
(i) I would appreciate a copy of the Board's final report back
eventually, especially since this will be your third. My
stock is short, and there are constant needs for it.
(ii) You can do whatever you want with the 10/4/74 (Guidelines
on Categorization of Cases ) memo, including disseminating
it to anyone else.
(iii) The Executive Grant of Pardon warrant is the one which
will be technically necessary for a new amnesty. I have
included the Executive Grant of Clemency (conditional
pardon) warrant which the Board used, on the off chance
that you may tinker with conditional amnesty for some classes
of people.
(iv) The draft memorandum for the President is obviously
extremely sensitive. It is my draft, not necessarily
what will go when Charlie finishes editing it. Please
show this document to no one, and make no copies. Feel
free to steal large substantive chunks of it for papers
under your name, but please under no circumstances cite
the draft memo, refer to its existence, or allude to
either Charlie's or my involvement in the recommendations
made in it. Otherwise, we may impair the possibility of
helping the clemency recipients involved, and of setting
the political stage for an even broader effort by the
President-elect.
(v) For obvious reasons, please also do not show this page
to anyone and please make no copies of it. Feel free
to distribute the rest of this letter as you please,
and to associate my name with it--or not--as seems
helpful.
Best of luck, and please let me know if I can be of any
further help.
Regards,
Rick Trapp
Rick Tropp
Anihersity of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, Indiana 46556
Office of the President
CABLE ADDRESS "DULAC"
December 13, 1976
RECEIVED DEC :6
Mr. Lawrence Baskir
Vietnam Offender Study
1826 Jefferson Place, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
Dear Larry:
I have found our missing case with the detached
retina and I am sending you the case summary. I would
appreciate it very much if you could get his name and
address from Justice and inform Dr. David Paton,
Ophthalmology Department, Baylor University Medical
School, Houston, Texas. His phone number is: 713-
790-4637. It should be a nice Christmas present to
this veteran to finally get some attention to the one
good eye he has left. I am grateful for all of the
effort you will put forward to bring this to a success-
ful conclusion.
All best holiday wishes for you, Bill, and
all the family.
Sincerely yours,
(Rev.) Theodore M. Hesburgh, C.S.C.
President
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
CASE SUMMARY
PCB Attorney: L.H. Dancheck
Case Number: 74-423-MB-M
Telephone Number: (202) 456-2110
Branch of Service: Armv
Summary Completed: 10 Mar 1975
Age: 25 (26 - 24 Mar 1975)
Current Sentence: BCD, CHL for 15
Present Status: Civilian with punitive
months - total forfeiture and
discharge
reduction to Private (E-1)
Date of Application: 9 Dec 1974
Court: Original trial court,
General Court, Ft. Gordon,
Georgia - sentence
Rehearing court, General Court,
Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas
Total Time Served: 18 months, 15 davs
( 7 months, 1 day pre-trial and pre-
Pardin
rehearing detention
8 Jan 1969 - Pre-trial detention
23 May 1969 - Sentence
6 Mar 1970 - Released
6 Mar 1970 - Detained
22 May 1970 - Rehearing
23 Jul 1970 - Released from USDB
Discharge Status: Executed BCD
Offense: Desertion (13 Aug 1968 to
7 Jan 1969)
Total Creditable Service: 10 months, 2 davs
Background:
Applicant was born in a Midwestern state, the older of two children in an
unstable Caucasian family. When he was three, his father deserted the
family. The mother supported the family after the father deserted bv
employment as a waitress. The mother has married four times. Applicant
has three step-siblings from his mother's subsequent marriages. Because
the mother was unable to care for all of the children, three of them were
placed for adoption. Applicant's formative vears were depressing and
stressful, caused by frequent family moves and hostile relations with a
succession. of stepfathers. Applicant has GT and AFOT scores of 104 and
34 (Category III), respectively. Applicant completed the 11th grade in
school, but withdrew at 18 to enter the Armv. Fe found it difficult
to adjust to a succession of new schools caused hv family moves. Fe
maintained good relations with his teachers and neers. Constant mental
depression made it difficult for him to study. "e won four sports awards
in school. He completed the high school GED tests in the Armv.
Applicant was inducted on 10 Oct 1967. The highest grade held was
Corporal (F-4). lle qualified as an expert with the M-14 rifle and as
a sharpshooter on the M-16 rifle. lle completed RCT at Tt. Benning, Georgia
and AIT as a light weapons infantryman at Ft. McClellan, Alabama. He
attended the NCO candidate course, but failed to complete the course.
Thereafter, he was reassigned to Vietnam where he served in the First
Cavalry Division.
Applicant welcomed induction, as he believed the military would offer him
vocational and educational opportunities not readilv available to him as a
civilian. He was enthusiastic about his training and readilv accented
enrollment in an NCO academv. Performance deficiencies caused the
termination of his enrollment. He was pleased bv his assignment to
Vietnam because of his confidence in his training and membership in
a cohesive, elite unit.
A psychiatrist of the military prison diagnosed applicant as having an
emotionally unstable personality, chronic, moderate, manifested bv
depression, impairment of judgment and insight, and low resistance to
frustration. lle was classified as having a psvchiatric profile rating
of 2 on a scale of 0 to 4 in order of severity.
Applicant's pre-induction employment history reflects work as a theater
usher, painter's helper and service station attendant.
Circumstances of Offense:
In Vietnam, applicant was assigned to an infantrv unit. During his
service here he sustained trauma which caused his vision to blur
in one eve. He also injured an ankle. His vision steadilv worsened.
He sought medical attention in the division where it was believed that
he needed corrective lenses and was referred to an evacuation hospital
in Danang for testing. Applicant recalls in sworn testimony at his
sentence rehearing these events:
I went to the 95th Evac. (SIC). I don't
remember what day I got there but I got there late
in the afternoon and I spent the night in a
transient tent and I reported to the Processing
Center the next dav and they assigned me to the
ward of a doctor to see. I went to see the doctor,
the doctor wasn't in, but his assistant which was
a Specialist Fourth Class was in, and I told him
about mv problems, mv eve and mv ankle also, and
he told me that the doctor had too many eve patients
alreadv. He said his books were full and that T
would have to report back to mv unit and come back
to the hospital in a couple of weeks. And at this
point I got real discouraged because mv eve was
real bad and I wanted something done about
it
(Page 22, Vol. I, Trial Transcript)
Applicant's associates described him at trial as a willing and
enthusiastic soldier in Vietnam. Frustrated by the rejection and
fearful of his inahility to function in an infantrv unit, applicant
encountered and talked with another soldier. Both decided to leave
Vietnam and were successful in obtaining bookings on a flight to
Ft. Lewis, Washington from Cam Ranh Dav. On return to the United
States, applicant went home to Florida. Applicant is now nearlv
blind in one eve. An ophthalmologist testified during sentencing
that applicant sustained some tvpe of trauma, probably in Vietnam,
which caused his retina to become detached in his left eve.
Applicant was subjected to 4 months of pre-trial confinement. His
counsel at trial argued that this factor coupled with the delav in
prosecuting the case was a denial of a speedy trial. This assignment
of error was rejected at trial and on apneal. At trial, applicant's
counsel attempted to introduce the testimony of the attending
ophthalmologist on the merits to prove that applicant absented
himself to obtain medical treatment and not to desert. The militarv
judge refused to admit the expert testimonv, absent introduction
of independent evidence of relevancy. The rejection of proof was
raised on appeal as error, but was likewise rejected. The reversal
and order for rehearing was restricted solelv to the sentence as
approved.
Applicant did undergo retinal surgerv in Januarv 1970. The operation
was unsuccessful in reattaching the retina. His left eve vision is
now 12/300. In a report on possible future militarv assignment of the
applicant, the physician indicated that he should have no dutv
assignment involving the handling of explosives, high caliber weanons,
etc., when he might endanger his good eye, no duty assignment when
he would be crawling, stooping, running, jumping or having to stand
or march for prolonged periods, no duty assignment involving jarring
activities such as hand-to-hand combat and no dutv assignment where
an ophthalmologist is not available.
Vietnam Service:
Applicant served from 8 Jul 1968 to 13 Aug 1968 as an ammunition
bearer in a machine gun team in an airmobile division.
Chronology:
24 Mar 1949
Date of Birth
Jun 1967
Withdrew from school
8 Oct 1967
Enlisted
10 Oct - 2 Mar 1968
BCT and AIT
2 Mar 1968 - 26 Apr 1968 NCO candidate
Page 4
Case Number: 74-423-MWB-M
26 Apr 1968 - 29 May 1968
Casual status
29 May 1968
Enroute to RVN
8 Jul 1968
Arrival in RVN
13 Aug 1968
Began AWOL
7 Jan 1969
AWOL terminated hv arrest bv
civilian police
8 Jan 1969
Pre-trial detention
22-23 May 1969
Trial and sentence
22 May 1970
Sentence rehearing
23 Jul 1970
Released from prison
23 Jul - 26 Oct 1970
Duty status
26 Oct 1970
Leave status began
9 Sep 1971
Discharged
9 Dec 1974
PCB application
Awards and Decorations:
National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service and Campaign Medals,
Sharpshooters Badge (M-16 rifle), Expert Badge (M-14 rifle) and
2nd Crass Gunner (1-60).
Prior Militarv Convictions and Disciplinary Punishments: None
Sentence History:
23-23 May 1969
Adjudged: DD, total forfeitures, CHI.
for 3 years, reduction to E-1.
11 Jul 1969
Approved: DD, total forfeitures, CHL
for 2 vears, and reduction to E-1.
23 May 1969
Judgment and sentence affirmed bv the
U.S. Armv Court of "ilitarv Review
6 Mar 1970
U.S. Court of Military Anneals reversed
affirmance of sentence. Grounds:
Instructional error
20 Mar 1970
Restoration to duty, clemency and parole
disapproved
22 May 1970
Rehearing on sentence conducted. Adjudged
Sentence: DD, CHL for 15 months, total
forfeitures and reduction to E-1.
14 Aug 1970
Convening authority approved sentence adjudged
at rehearing
29 Dec 1970
Affirmed a BCD, CHL for 15 months,
total forfeitures, and reduction
to E-1.
16 Aug 1971
Sentence ordered into execution
Sources:
Trial transcript (Vols. I and II)
Military Personnel Record's jacket
Official Military Personnel file
Health Record
Correspondence File
PCB application with enclosure
HYDEMAN, MASON & GOODELL
1220 NINETEENTH STREET, N. W.
ARTHUR K. MASON
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
LEE M. HYDEMAN
TELEPHONE
HAROLD E. MESIROW
202 833-9040
JOHN M. BURZIO
JAMES T. LLOYD
JAMES H. HELLER
CHARLES E. GOODELL
CABLE ADDRESS
THOMAS W. MCLAUGHLIN
HASTEN
OF COUNSEL
ALGER B. CHAPMAN
ALEXANDER M. LANKLER
February 28, 1977
The Honorable Jimmy Carter
President
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
As the former Chairman of President Ford's Clemency Board, I
strongly believe in the need for a national reconciliation after
Vietnam. I believe the other members of the Clemency Board share
my view in that regard, since they devoted substantial time and
effort, at considerable sacrifice, to implement President Ford's
clemency program.
Recently, you pardoned all draft offenders in an effort to
achieve the goal of reconciliation after Vietnam. Accepting that
decision on your part, I would sincerely urge upon you that it is
grossly unfair to ignore military offenders while dealing only with
civilian offenders. My observation is based upon the more than
20,000 applications made to President Ford's clemency program, which
provides us with the most accurate sampling of the type of individuals
who committed civilian or military offenses during the Vietnam era.
Twenty-seven percent of the military applicants to the Clemency
Board had served in Vietnam. A very, very small number of those
applicants deserted under combat conditions. Most of the military
applicants committed their AWOL offenses after they returned from
Vietnam. For the most part, they were poorly educated, low IQ youths
from low-income families. On the other hand, the civilian offenders
who have now been pardoned were overwhelmingly white, middle-class,
and far better educated. I heard you speak movingly and eloquently
during the campaign about those who served their country in Vietnam.
It would be a tragic irony and injustice if they were left out of
your new approach to reconciliation.
I understand, from experience, that the military and veterans'
groups vigorously resist further clemency to military offenders.
Having served in both the Navy and the Air Force, I am confident that
the military services are perfectly capable of enforcing military
GERALD FORD VIBRARY
-2-
discipline in the future, regardless of the exercise of Presidential
clemency for those who have committed past offenses. I believe the
history of amnesty actions in the past will bear that out. I also
have no doubt that a national conscription in time of true national
need in the future would be unaffected by amnesty actions taken by
you today.
I believe it is entirely feasible to construct a program of
amnesty for military offenders which would avoid obvious pitfalls.
Those who committed military offenses for which there is a comparable
civilian offense could be excluded. Such an exclusion would cover
offenses such as larceny, assault, murder, etc. In addition, those
who deserted their comrades under fire or in combat zones could be
excluded. I recommend to you the study entitled, Reconciliation
After Vietnam, sponsored by the Center for Civil Rights at the
University of Notre Dame. The authors, Lawrence M. Baskir and
William A. Strauss, were high administrative officials in President
Ford's Clemency Board and are intimately acquainted with the nature
of the problem. I believe their recommendations are eminently
sensible and realistic.
I respectfully urge you to utilize this study as a basis for
further action on amnesty for military offenders.
In addition, I would be remiss if I did not call to your atten-
tion several examples of military cases which cry out for further
action from the President of the United States. Although I made
recommendations on these cases to President Ford, they remain unacted
upon. I enclose a separate description of those categories of cases.
I have enclosed the descriptions of those five categories of
cases as examples of the minimum action which I believe should be
taken to complete President Ford's clemency program. I wish to
emphasize my conviction that those actions would not alone reconcile
the injustice produced by ignoring the military offenders while
granting amnesty to civilian offenders.
As you have often pointed out, disadvantaged young men did a
disproportionate share of the fighting in Vietnam. It is unfair to
continue to require them to pay a disproportionate share of the
penalties as well. I urge you to extend your program of amnesty to
military offenders.
If I can be of further assistance to you, I would be glad to
meet with you or whomever you designate.
Respectfully Charles E. yours, Goodell
Charles E. Goodell
/daw
Enclosures
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COMPLETION OF PRESIDENT FORD'S
CLEMENCY PROGRAM
1. There are about 250 cases of individual applicants to
the Clemency Board who served heroically in Vietnam. In many
instances, they volunteered for extra hazardous duty and re-upped
for a second tour in Vietnam. President Ford's Clemency Board
recommended that these individuals not only receive pardons, but
also be awarded veterans' benefits. These cases were referred to
the Department of Defense for action over a year ago, but I am
informed that very few, if any, of those cases have been acted upon.
2. Although the exact number is not clear, there are between
500 and 700 applicants to the Clemency Board who suffered physical
disabilities while serving in Vietnam and are not eligible for
medical benefits because of subsequent military offenses. The
Clemency Board unanimously recommended that these individuals be
granted medical benefits only, not general veterans' benefits.
These individuals were injured in the service of their country and
many of them now incur continuing medical expenses for injuries
suffered in Vietnam. To my knowledge, no action has been taken on
these cases.
3. One of the most difficult types of cases the Clemency
Board faced involved individuals who had committed felonies after
they left the service. Some of the Clemency Board members felt that
they should be denied any benefit from President Ford's clemency
program because of the subsequent felonies. Others on the Board
felt that the Clemency Board should deal only with the individual's
military record and should, therefore, ignore any felonies committed
subsequent to military service. A majority of the Clemency Board
rejected both of these approaches and separated the cases on the
basis of the types of felonies subsequently committed. We generally
denied clemency to those who had committed a felony involving violence
to another human being. Those who committed crimes against property
were generally granted clemency, if otherwise qualified under our
standards, unless the property crimes were highly repetitive or
there were aggravated circumstances. There are, I believe, about
800 felony cases which were referred to the Justice Department
(Pardon Attorney's Office) with a recommendation from the Clemency
Board that they be granted clemency. I am informed that they have
not been acted upon.
4. There are an unascertained number of individuals still
performing alternative service under President Ford's clemency program.
I recommended to President Ford at the end of his administration that
he commute the remaining alternative service required of them.
Civilian offenders have obviously been covered by the amnesty you
have already declared for them, but military offenders continue to
-2-
perform alternative service. I recommend that these military
offenders be relieved of any further requirement of alternative
service immediately, whatever other action you may take in extending
your amnesty program to military offenders.
5. There are an estimated 3,000 individuals who are still
AWOL from the military and who did not participate in President
Ford's clemency program. I am sure many of them never realized
that they were eligible to receive an immediate undesirable discharge
and thereby end their fugitive status. Once again, whatever other
action you may take to extend amnesty to military offenders, I
recommend that you direct the Department of Defense, at a minimum,
to give these individuals an undesirable discharge in absentia.
VIETNAM OFFENDER STUDY
CENTER FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME
LAWRENCE M. BASKIR
1826 JEFFERSON PLACE. N.W.
PROJECT DIRECTOR
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036
WILLIAM A. STRAUSS
(202) 296-1767
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
PADDY TALBOYS SHAKIN
ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY
February 25, 1977
Charles E. Goodell, Jr., Esq.
Hydeman & Mason
1220 - 19th Street, NW, #700
Washington, DC 20036
Dear Charlie:
This letter is fine, if a little long.
I suggest you only make reference to the 5 recommenda-
tions to Ford in the body of the letter, and set them out
on a separate sheet. This makes the letter about 2 pages
which is the right length for Carter.
We will be pleased to help you poll the Board members.
But Kauffman, Everhard, and Carter need a direct call from
you. If Vernon is to be contacted, I think courtesy demands
you do it.
Best regards,
Lawrence Lay M. Baskir
LMB:al
Enc.
February 23, 1977
The Honorable Jimmy Carter
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
As the former Chairman of President Ford's Clemency Board,
I strongly believe in the need for a national reconciliation after
Vietnam. I believe the other members of the Clemency Board share
my view in that regard, since they devoted substantial time and
effort, at considerable sacrifice, to implement President Ford's
clemency program.
Recently, you pardoned all draft offenders in an effort to
achieve the goal of reconciliation after Vietnam. Accepting that
decision on your part, I would sincerely urge upon you that it is
grossly unfair to ignore military offenders while dealing only
with civilian offenders. My observation is based upon the more
than 20,000 applications made to President Ford's clemency program,
which provides us with the most accurate sampling of the type of
individuals who committed civilian or military offenses during the
Vietnam era.
Twenty-seven percent of the military applicants to the
Clemency Board had served in Vietnam. A very, very small number of
those applicants deserted "combat to conditions and it should be
noted that those who did could easily be excluded from any future
clemency program. Most of the military applicants committed their
AWOL offenses after they returned from Vietnam. For the most part,
they were poorly educated, low IQ youths from low-income families.
On the other hand, the civilian offenders who have now been pardoned
were overwhelmingly white, middle-class, and far better educated.
I
heard you speak movingly and eloquently during the campaign with
about
reference to those who served their country in Vietnam. It would be
a tragic irony and injustice if they were left out of your new
approach to reconciliation.
,
I understand from experience, that the military and veterans
groups vigorously resist further clemency to military offenders.
They argue that the pardoning of military offenders would undermine
military discipline and would make it difficult if not impossible s
to draft young men at a time of national need in the future I
bulieve both of those arguments are fgllacious. Having served in
both the Navy and the Air Force, I am confident that the military
-2-
services are perfectly capable of enforcing military discipline in
the future, regardless of the exercise of Presidential clemency
for those who have committed past offenses. I believe the history
of amnesty actions in the past will bear that out. I also have no
doubt that in a national conscription in time of true national need
in the future would be unaffected by amnesty actions taken by you
today.
Seen,
)
personally opposed unconditional amnesty for either the
civilian draft evaders or the military offenders. Nonetheless,
if civilian offenders are to be pardoned, as they have I believe
military offenders should be given equal consideration. If anything,
their cause is even more compelling than that of the civilian
ffenders.
I believe it is entirely feasible to construct a program of
anmesty for military offenders which would avoid obvious pitfalls
Those who committed military offenses for which there is a comparable
civilian offense could be excluded. Such an exclusion would cover
offenses such as larceny, assault, murder, etc. In addition, those
who deserted their comrades under fire or in combat zones could be
excluded. I recommend to you the enclosed study entitled,
Reconciliation After Vietnam, sponsored by the Center for Clemency
Research at the University of Notre Dame. The authors, Lawrence M.
Baskir and William A. Strauss, were high administrative officials
in President Ford's Clemency Board and are emanchtly intimately acquainted with
the nature of the problem. I believe their recommendations are
eminently sensible and realistic.
I respectfully urge you to utilize this study as a basis for
further action on amnesty for military offenders.
In addition, I would be remiss if I did not call to your
attention several examples of military cases which cry out for further
action from the President of the United States. Although I made
recommendations on these cases to President Ford, they remain unacted
upon.
Rics They completion follows on 7'm pep clem descrip Prog applicants those to the Claineng Deard
categouis
case
1. There are about 250 cases of individuals who served
heroically in Vietnam. In many instances, they volunteered for extra
hazardous duty and re-upped for a second tour in Vietnam. President
Ford's Clemency Board recommended that these individuals not only
receive pardons, but also be awarded veterans' benefits. These
cases were referred to the Department of Defense for action over a
year ago, but I am informed that very few, if any, of those cases
have been acted upon.
-3-
2. Although the exact number is not clear, there are between
500 and 700 applicants to the Clemency Board who suffered physical
disabilities while serving in Vietnam and are not eligible for
medical benefits because of subsequent military offenses. WClemency
Board unanimously recommended that these individuals be granted
medical benefits only, not general veterans' benefits. These
individuals were injured in the service of their country and many
of them now incur continuing medical expenses for injuries suffered
in Vietnam. 90 my knowledge, no action has been taken on these cases,
3. One of the most difficult types of cases the Clemency
Board faced involved individuals who had committed felonies after
they left the service. Some of the Clemency Board members felt that
they should be denied any benefit from President Ford's clemency
program because of subsequent felonies, committed. Others on the
Board felt that the Clemency Board should deal only with the indivi-
dual's military record and should, therefore, ignore any felonies
committed subsequent to military service. A majority of the Clemency
Board rejected both of these approaches and separated the cases on
the basis of the types of felonies subsequently committed. We
generally denied clemency to those who had committed a felony involving
violence to another human being. Those who committed crimes against
property were generally granted clemency, if otherwise qualified
under our standards, unless the property crimes were highly repetitive
or there were aggravated circumstances. There are, I believe, about 800
felony cases which were referred to the Justice Department (Pardon
Attorney's Office) with a recommendation from the Clemency Board
that they be granted clemency. I am informed that they have not been
acted upon.
these military offection
4. There are an unascertained number of individuals still
performing alternative service under President Ford's clemency program.
I recommended to President Ford at the end of his administration that
he commute the remaining alternative service required of them.
Civilian offenders have obviously been covered by the amnesty you
have already declared for them, but military offenders continue to
perform alternative service. I recommend that they be relieved of
any further requirement of further alternative service immediately,
whatever action you may take in extending your amnesty program to
military offenders.
5. There are an estimated 3,000 individuals who are still
AWOL from the military who did not participate in President Ford's
clemency program. I am sure many of them never realized that they
were eligible to receive immediately an undesirable discharge and
thenby
longer be fugitives Once again, whatever other action you may take
to extend amnesty to military offenders, I recommend that you direct
end their fugitive status.
-4-
the Department of Defense, at a minimum, to give these individuals
an undesirable discharge in absentia.
I have cited the above five categories of individuals as
examples of the minimum action which I believe should be taken to
complete President Ford's clemency program. I wish to emphasize
my conviction that those actions would not alone reconcile the
injustice produced by ignoring the military offenders while granting
amnesty to civilian offenders. WAS you have often pointed out,
disadvantaged young men did a disproportionate share of the fighting
in Vietnam. It is unfair to continue to require them to pay a
disproportionate share of the penalties as well. I urge you to
extend your program of amnesty to military offenders.
If I can be of further assistance to you, I would be glad to
meet with you or whomever you designate.
Respectfully yours,
Charles E. Goodell
/daw
Enclosure
The Honorable Jimmy Carter
President
The White House
As former members of President Ford's clemency
program, we strongly believe in the need for a national
reconciliation after Vietnam. Recently, you pardoned
all draft offenders in an effort to achieve that goal.
While some of us differ on the avisability of granting
blanket pardons to all draft evaders, we are all convinced
that any measure of forgiveness which excludes "deserters"
and other military offenders is incomplete. As a group,
these individuals committed acts that were comparable in
seriousness to those of draft evaders. In many respects,
they are even more deserving of understanding and sympathy.
A great many of them were poorly-educated, low-IQ youths from
low-income families. Over 20% served full tours in Vietnam.
Disadvantaged youths did a disproportionate share
of the fighting in Vietnam. It is unfair to continue to
have them pay a disproportionate share of the penalties,
as well. We urge you to extend your program to military
offenders.
Sincerely,
February 23, 1977
The Honorable Jimmy Carter
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
As the former Chairman of President Ford's Clemency Board,
I strongly believe in the need for a national reconciliation after
Vietnam. I believe the other members of the Clemency Board share
my view in that regard, since they devoted substantial time and
effort, at considerable sacrifice, to implement President Ford's
clemency program.
Recently, you pardoned all draft offenders in an effort to
achieve the goal of reconciliation after Vietnam. Accepting that
decision on your part, I would sincerely urge upon you that it is
grossly unfair to ignore "military" offenders while dealing only
with "civilian" offenders. My observation is based upon the more
than 20,000 applications made to President Ford's clemency program,
which provides us with the most accurate "sampling" of the type of
individuals who committed civilian or military offenses during the
Vietnam era.
Twenty-seven percent of the military applicants to the
Clemency Board had served in Vietnam. A very, very small number of
those applicants, deserted ME combat conditions, and it should be
noted that those who did could easily be excluded from any future
clemency program. Most of the military applicants committed their
AWOL offenses after they returned from Vietnam. For the most part,
they were poorly educated, low IQ youths from low-income families.
On the other hand, the civilian offenders who have now been pardoned
were overwhelmingly white, middle-class and far better educated.
I
heard you speak movingly and eloquently during the campaign with about
reference to those who served their country in Vietnam. It would be
a tragic irony and injustice if they were left out of your new
approach to reconciliation.
,
I understand, from experience, that the military and veterans
groups vigorously resist further clemency to military offenders.
They argue that the pardoning of military offenders would undermine
military discipline and would make it difficult, if not impossible
to draft young men at a time of national need in the future. I
believe both of those arguments are lacious. Having served in
both the Navy and the Air Force, I am confident that the military
-2-
services are perfectly capable of enforcing military discipline in
the future, regardless of the exercise of Presidential clemency
for those who have committed past offenses. I believe the history
of amnesty actions in the past will bear that out. I also have no
doubt that in a national conscription in time of true national need
in the future would be unaffected by amnesty actions taken by you
today.
been,
I personally opposed unconditional amnesty for either the
civilian draft evaders or the military offenders. Nonetheless,
if civilian offenders are to be pardoned, as they have I believe
military offenders should be given equal consideration. If anything,
their cause is even more compelling than that of the civilian
offenders.
I believe it is entirely feasible to construct a program of
anmesty for military offenders which would avoid obvious pitfalls.
Those who committed military offenses for which there is a comparable
civilian offense could be excluded. Such an exclusion would cover
offenses such as larceny, assault, murder, etc. In addition, those
who deserted their comrades under fire or in combat zones could be
excluded. I recommend to you the enclosed study entitled,
Reconciliation After Vietnam, sponsored by the Center for Clemency
Research at the University of Notre Dame. The authors, Lawrence M.
Baskir and William A. Strauss, were high administrative officials
in President Ford's Clemency Board and are internately acquainted with
the nature of the problem. I believe their recommendations are
eminently sensible and realistic.
I respectfully urge you to utilize this study as a basis for
further action on amnesty for military offenders.
In addition, I would be remiss if I did not call to your
attention several examples of military cases which cry out for further
action from the President of the United States. Although I made
recommendations on these cases to President Ford, they remain unacted
upon. They are as follows:
to Doard
1. There are about 250 cases of individuals who
heroically in Vietnam. In many instances, they volunteered for extra-
hazardous duty and re-upped for a second tour in Vietnam. President
Ford's Clemency Board recommended that these individuals not only
receive pardons, but also be awarded veterans' benefits. These
cases were referred to the Department of Defense for action over a
year ago, but I am informed that very few, if any, of those cases
have been acted upon.
-3-
2. Although the exact number is not clear, there are between
500 and 700 applicants to the Clemency Board who suffered physical
disabilities while serving in Vietnam and are not eligible for
medical benefits because of subsequent military offenses. JuClemency
Board unanimously recommended that these individuals be granted
medical benefits only, not general veterans' benefits. These
individuals were injured in the service of their country and many
of them now incur continuing medical expenses for injuries suffered
in Vietnam. 90 my knowledge, no action has been taken on these cases,
3. One of the most difficult types of cases the Clemency
Board faced involved individuals who had committed felonies after
they left the service. Some of the Clemency Board members felt that
they should be denied any benefit from President Ford's clemency
program because of subsequent felonies, committed. Others on the
Board felt that the Clemency Board should deal only with the indivi-
dual's military record and should, therefore, ignore any felonies
committed subsequent to military service. A majority of the Clemency
Board rejected both of these approaches and separated the cases on
the basis of the types of felonies subsequently committed. We
generally denied clemency to those who had committed a felony involving
violence to another human being. Those who committed crimes against
property were generally granted clemency, if otherwise qualified
under our standards, unless the property crimes were highly repetitive
or there were aggravated circumstances. There are, I believe, about 800
felony cases which were referred to the Justice Department (Pardon
Attorney's Office) with a recommendation from the Clemency Board
that they be granted clemency. I am informed that they have not been
acted upon.
these military offenders
4. There are an unascertained number of individuals still
performing alternative service under President Ford's clemency program.
I recommended to President Ford at the end of his administration that
he commute the remaining alternative service required of them.
Civilian offenders have obviously been covered by the amnesty you
have already declared for them, but military offenders continue to
perform alternative service. I recommend that they be relieved of
any further requirement of further alternative service immediately,
whatever action you may take in extending your amnesty program to
military offenders.
and
5. There are an estimated 3,000 individuals who are still
AWOL from the military who did not participate in President Ford's
were eligible to receive immediately an undesirable discharge and no Hereby
clemency program. I am sure many of them never realized that they
longer be fugitives. Once again, whatever other action you may take
to extend amnesty to military offenders, I recommend that you direct
end their frigitive status.
-4-
the Department of Defense, at a minimum, to give these individuals
an undesirable discharge in absentia.
I have cited the above five categories of individuals as
examples of the minimum action which I believe should be taken to
complete President Ford's clemency program. I wish to emphasize
my conviction that those actions would not alone reconcile the
injustice produced by ignoring the military offenders while granting
amnesty to civilian offenders. As you have often pointed out,
disadvantaged young men did a disproportionate share of the fighting
in Vietnam. It is unfair to continue to require them to pay a
disproportionate share of the penalties as well. I urge you to
extend your program of amnesty to military offenders.
If I can be of further assistance to you, I would be glad to
meet with you or whomever you designate.
Respectfully yours,
Charles E. Goodell
/daw
Enclosure
April 5, 1977
Messrs. Baskir and Strauss
Vietnam Offender Study
1826 Jefferson Place, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
Dear Larry and Bill:
Thanks for the copy of your book. Hope we
can get together shortly to talk about thaand other
matters.
With warm regard, I am
Sincerely,
/daw
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
VIETNAM OFFENDER STUDY
CENTER FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME
LAWRENCE M. BASKIR
1826 JEFFERSON PLACE. N.W.
PROJECT DIRECTOR
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20036
WILLIAM A. STRAUSS
(202) 296-1767
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
PADDY TALBOYS SHAKIN
ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY
March 25, 1977
RECEIVED APR 4 1977
Mr. Charles E. Goodell
Hydeman, Mason and Goodell
1220 19th Street
Washington, District of Columbia
Dear Charlie:
Now that our work is concluding we want to
thank you for the time and help you have
given us over the year. We enjoyed working
with you, and we are very pleased at the
success of the project. Our book "Chance
and Circumstance" is now at the publishers
and we expect it to be released next winter.
We hope you enjoy it.
With best wishes,
Lay
Lawrence M. Baskir
Blu
William A. Strauss
LMB: hwp
March 3, 1977
Ms. Margaret McKenna
Counsel's Office
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Ms. McKenna:
I am sending you the enclosed copy of the letter to
President Carter. I am doing so as a result of discussions
with Mike Cardozo last evening.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Goodell
/daw
Enclosures
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
HYDEMAN, MASON & GOODELL
1220 NINETEENTH STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036
CHARLES E. GOODELL
August 11, 1977
Rev. Mon. Francis J. Lally
St. Johns Hall
4001 14th Street, N. E.
Washington, D. C. 20016
Dear Monsignor Lally:
Enclosed are two photographs taken at the White
House which I thought you might like to have.
You made an extremely important contribution to
me and, I believe, the Presidential Clemency Board
and I am grateful to you for your participation. I
hope that our pthas will cross more often in the future.
With warm regard, I am
Very truly yours,
/daw
Enclosures
&
FORD
GERALD
HYDEMAN, MASON & GOODELL
1220 NINETEENTH STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
CHARLES E.GOODELL
August 11, 1977
Mr. James A. Maye
13821 Bansal Lane
Silver Spring, Maryland 20906
Dear Jim:
Enclosed are five photographs taken at the
White House which I thought you might like to have.
You made an extremely important contribution
to me and, I believe, the Presidential Clemency Board
and I am grateful to you for your participation. I
hope that our paths will cross more often in the future.
With warm personal regard, I am
Very truly yours,
/daw
Enclosures
:
FORD
GERALD
HYDEMAN, MASON & GOODELL
1220 NINETEENTH STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036
CHARLES E.GOODELL
August 11, 1977
Mr. John Everhard
136 Patrick Street, S. E.
Apartment 234
Vienna, Virginia 22180
Dear John:
Enclosed are two photographs taken at the
White House which I thought you might like to have.
I don't recall what we were getting such a big
belly laugh out of in the Cabinet Room, but I think
it is a nice picture.
You made an extremely important contribution
to me and, I believe, the Presidential Clemency Board
and I am grateful to you for your participation. I
hope that our paths will cross more often in the future.
With warm regard, I am
Very truly yours,
/daw
Enclosures
FOR
&
GERALD
HYDEMAN, MASON & GOODELL
1220 NINETEENTH STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
CHARLES E.GOODELL
August 11, 1977
Ms. Joan Vinson
2607 Childs Lane
Alexandria, Virginia 22308
Dear Joan:
Enclosed are three photographs taken at the
White House which I thought you might like to have.
I am sorry that in the larger photograph we only
got the top of your head, but I thought you would like
to have it.
You made an extremely important contribution to
me and, I believe, the Presidential Clemency Board
and I am grateful to you for your participation. I
hope that our paths will cross more often in the future.
With warm regard, I am
Very truly yours,
/daw
Enclosures
GERALD R. FORD
August 11, 1977
Dr. Ralph Adams
110 McKinley Drive
Troy, Alabama 36081
Dear Dr. Adams:
Enclosed are two photographartaken at the
White House which I thought you might like to have.
I think we participated in a very important
episode in American history and I enjoyed the opportunity
of being associated with you in that endeavor.
With all good wishes, I am
Very truly yours,
/daw
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Enclosures
August 11, 1977
Mr. Harry C. Riggs
1211 Wayland Street
Plainview, Texas 79072
Dear Harry:
Enclosed are two photographs taken at the
White House which I thought you might like to have.
I think we participated in a very important
episode in American history and I enjoyed the opportunity
of being associated with you in that endeavor.
With all good wishes, I am
Very truly yours,
/daw
Enclosures
FORD i GERALD LIB
HYDEMAN, MASON & GOODELL
1220 NINETEENTH STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
CHARLES E.GOODELL
August 11, 1977
Mr. Timothy L. Craig
307 South Renold P320
Alexandria, Virginia 22304
Dear Tim:
Enclosed are four photographs taken at the
White House which I thought you might like to have.
Apparently, the photographer thought the back
and side were the best views of you.
You made an extremely important contribution to
me and, I believe, the Presidential Clemency Board
and I am grateful to you for your participation. I
hope that our paths will cross more often in the future.
With warm regard, I am
Very truly yours,
/daw
Enclosures
&
FORD
GERALD
%
HYDEMAN, MASON & GOODELL
1220 NINETEENTH STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
CHARLES E.GOODELL
August 11, 1977
Mrs. Aida O'Connor
One Woodland Terrace
Orangeberg, New York 10962
Dear Aida:
Enclosed are six photographs taken at the White
House which I thought you might like to have.
You made an extremely important contribution to
me and, I believe, the Presidential Clemency Board
and I am grateful to you for your participation. I
hope that our paths will cross more often in the future.
With warm regard, I am
Very truly yours,
/daw
Enclosures
&
FORD
GERALD
HYDEMAN, MASON & GOODELL
1220 NINETEENTH STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C.20036
CHARLES E.GOODELL
August 11, 1977
Lewis B. Puller
1805 Windmill Lane
Alexandria, Virginia 22307
Dear Lu:
Enclosed are five photographs taken at the
White House which I thought you might like to have.
You made an extremely important contribution
to me and, I believe, the Presidential Clemency Board
and I am grateful to you for your participation. I
hope that our paths will cross more often in the future.
With warm regard, I am
Very truly yours,
/daw
Enclosures
&
FORD
GERALD
HYDEMAN, MASON & GOODELL
1220 NINETEENTH STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
CHARLES E.GOODELL
August 11, 1977
Mr. John Kauffmann
620 Boyle Lane
McLean, Virginia 22101
Dear Jack:
Enclosed are four photographs taken at the
White House which I thought you might like to have.
You made an extremely important contribution to
me and, I believe, the Presidential Clemency Board and
I am grateful to you for your participation. I hope that
our paths will cross more often in the future.
With warm personal regard, I am
Very truly yours,
/daw
Enclosures
&
FORD
GERALD
wt
JOHN J. ENTERPRISES, LTD.
1629 K STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
JOHN HOY KAUFFMANN
202-296-0311
PRESIDENT
202-296-8067
August 15, 1977
RECEIVED AUG 16 1977
Charles E. Goodell, Esquire
Hydeman, Mason, & Goodell
1220 Nineteenth St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
My dear Charlie,
It was great hearing from you, and I can't
thank you enough for the photographs.
You know how thoroughly I enjoyed working
with you on the Presidential Clemency
Board. We made a hell of a lot more sense
than our new President.
Are you still interested in the Republican
Party, or are you getting as bored as I am?
Let's have lunch, but soon. I miss our
friendship.
Cordially,
JHK: cm
Lack
FORD & LIURARY CERALD
3 15 AUG
AUG15'77
-
1077
D.C
Ph 865832
Charles E. Goodell, Esq.
Hydeman, Mason, & Goodell
1220 Nineteenth ST., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
JOHN J. ENTERPRISES, LTD.
1629 K STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
VH
THE
UNIVERSITY
TROY STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
03NSITUVIS
FOUNDED 1887
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
TROY, ALABAMA 36081
Phone: (205) 566-3000
August 17, 1977
RECEIVED AUG 22 1977
The Honorable Charles E. Goodell
Hydeman, Mason & Goodell
1220 Nineteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
Dear Senator:
This is just a few words to express my gratitude and thanks
for your thoughtfulness and kind consideration for sending me the
two White House photographs including you and President Ford and
other members of the Board.
These photographs are priceless and will always be treasured.
With warm regards and best wishes, I am
Yours sincerely,
Ralph Adams
President Ragh
RWA:jqm
P.S. Should you ever be in Alabama, we would be honored if you
would favor us with a visit.
&
FORD
GERALD
Troy State University
Troy State University
Troy State University
Troy State University
Main Campus
in Montgomery
in Dothan/Fort Rucker
in Europe
August 18, 1977
Mr. John A. Everhard
King, Biddle and Everhard
Suite 524 Southern Building
805 - 15th Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20005
Dear John:
Thank you for your very generous note of August 15, 1977. As
I am sure you are aware, you were a stalwart on the Clemency Board
and in many ticklish situations you performed the work of Solomon.
This was particularly true in the latter days when fatigue,
harried nerves and some other complications made our job more
difficult. It doesn/t seem possible that that was two years ago.
I am delighted at your thoughtful invitation to join you at
the theater. It will be a real pleasure to see you again and I
hope that the date will not present any irreconcilable conflicts.
I am sure Pat would love to see "A Chorus Line" too. She mentioned
trying to get tickets to that show, but she never got around to it
and it is probably too late now. She has been accepted as a fellow
at the Kennedy Institute this fall, beginning in mid-September, and
has a trip to the West Coast planned in early September! so she may
not be able to make it. At any rate, we can deal with that when
we know the date.
Thank you for your thoughtfulness, and I look forward to seeing
you.
With warm regard, I am
Sincerely,
Charles E. Goodell
/daw
i
FORD
GERALD
LAW OFFICE OF
KING, BIDDLE AND EVERHARD
CHARTERED
THOMAS H. KING
SUITE 524 SOUTHERN BUILDING
MAURICE F. BIDDLE
805 FIFTEENTH STREET, N. W.
CHARLES M. MUNNECKE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
JOHN A. EVERHARD
PAUL A. KIEFER
PHONE: (202) 347-6144
August 15, 1977
Honorable Charles E. Goodell
HYDEMAN, MASON & GOODELL
1220 Nineteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Charlie:
I very much appreciate having the pictures you sent
me, but I appreciated even more your thoughtful and
generous approbation. I believed that our task was
important, meaningful and worthwhile. I will always be
proud that you and President Ford saw fit to give me this
opportunity to serve our National interests.
In addition, working for you was a career enriching
and rewarding experience for me. I felt you handled a
frustrating, complex and demanding assignment with finesse,
judgment and sagacity. I have made good use of the lessons
in statesmanship I learned under your leadership, and I
would be delighted to work for you again, anytime.
Meanwhile, I am not content to leave to chance the
opportunity to see you again. I made an early application
for box seat tickets to the hit show, "A Chorus Line." I
don't have the tickets yet, but assuming I get them, I
would be pleased to have you and your guest join me and
Yvonne for an evening of dinner and theater. Subject to
your availability on the date to be determined. I hope
you will be agreeable to an acceptance.
Things have been doing quite well for me in private
practice, and I enjoy it tremendously.
Sincerely,
John A JOHN A. EVERHARD
JAE/mw
STATES
UNITED
CATHOLICE
UNITED STATES CATHOLIC CONFERENCE
Department of Social Development and World Peace
CONFERENCE
1312 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
Office of the Secretary
August 23, 1977
Mr. Charles E. Goodell
RECEIVED AUG 29 1977
Hydeman, Mason & Goodell
1220 Nineteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
Dear Charlie:
You were good to send along the pictures taken at the
White House. They will be pleasant souvenirs of our
days on the Clemency Board.
It seems a long time back now but, under your leadership,
I am confident we accomplished something meaningful for
America.
Very sincerely, Nal
(Rev. Msgr.) Francis J. Lally
&
FORD
RALD
Thankyou
Sept 14
Dear Charlie:
Thanks for the photographs- I
Appreciat your kindness
They bring brok fond memories
of our Association with the many
dedicated members and WORKERS
onthe olemency Board
I feel that each And every
one WAS dedicated And we can
be proud of the job that
WAS Accomplished.
Again [ thank you for
the opportunity of servy R. FORD LIB
with you.
Sincerely,
GERALD
Harry
PROCLAIM LIBERTY
II
HARRY OSSO
USA
13c
121 AYL AND ST
PLAINVIEW TEX:
79072
if SE
THROUGHOUT UGHOUT ALLTHE LAND
THE TIV
Mr Charles M. Goodell
Hydeman, MASON - Goodell
1220 NiNeteenth St. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
RECEIVED 19 197
PUC
PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, VA.
COUNTY ATTORNEY
December 13, 1977
Senator Charles A. Goodell
Hydeman, Mason and Goodell
1220 19th Street, N. W.
RECEIVED DEC 10 1977
Washington, D. C. 20036
Dear Senator Goodell:
This morning I received copies of the photographs
taken the day of the Rose Garden ceremony with President
Ford. I appreciate very much your have taken the time to
see that I received them.
I confess that I was unable to recognize myself
without the beard that currently renders me completely
hirsute.
You will note from the letterhead that I have left
the Federal Government and have become a simple country
lawyer. It is only a shame that Dulles Airport is not in
Prince William County else we might meet one day in Court.
Given the engine trouble that the craft has recently, and
repeatedly, manifested, I consider it possible we might
still have a Concorde landing in the County.
I trust that business is going well for you. I
would expect nothing else. I shall await to hear soon
that you have made your move for the 1980 Republican
nomination.
For your records, Ray Mitchell is practicing law in
Ocean Springs, Mississippi, where he is becoming a leading
light of the legal community, notwithstanding a complete
absence of talent. His address is P. O. Box 836, Ocean
Springs, Mississippi 39564, and his Office phone number
is (601) 875-1431, and he sent his regards to you this
morning when I spoke with him.
Sincerely yours,
JOHN H. FOOTE
Deputy County Attorney
&
FORD
GERALD
JHF/vc
9201 CHURCH STREET
*
MANASSAS, VA. 22110
(703)368-9171
PROCLAIM LIBERTY
USA13c
PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, VA.
9250 - AVENUE 9201 Church St.
MANASSAS, VIRGINIA 22110
NORTHERN 14 VIRGINIA PM DEC
1977
Senator Charles A. Goodell
Hydeman, Mason and Goodell
1220 19th Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
INTERNAL ZIP