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
18558946
label
Final Report - Draft, 10/28/75 (2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
18558946
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Final Report - Draft, 10/28/75 (2)
citationUrl
collections
Charles E. Goodell Papers
Presidential Clemency Board Subject Files
subjects
President (1974-1977 : Ford). Presidential Clemency Board. 9/16/1974-9/15/1975
Amnesty
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
18558946
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-10-31
month
10
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-10-01
month
10
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
5c64a525820367de
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 5, folder "Final Report - Draft, 10/28/75 (2)" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 5 of the Charles E. Goodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
TODAY'S DATE 10/28/75
1633
06 lst111e
222-001
CUSTOMER a2220 OPERATOR 001 PCB
222-001
Chapter 3
001 Chapter 3
DATE STORED 10/28/75
1256
3
WIDTH 060 DEPTH 64
t
t
t
t
7
pj
PRINT POSITION 07 LINE 03
FORD & LIBRARY 97V839
A. Introduction
Chance and circumstance had much to do with the
sacrifices faced by each individual during the Vietnam War.
Only 9% of all draft-age men served in Vietnam. War and
conscription are, by nature, selective. In a sense,
Clemency Board applicants were victims of misfortune as much
as they were guilty of willful offenses. Most other young
Americans did not have to face the same choices. Less than
2% ever faced charges for draft or desertion offenses, and
only 0.4%--less than one out of two hundred--were convicted
or still remain charged with these offenses. By contrast,
60% of all draft-age men were never called upon to serve
their country.1 For this reason alone, applicants to the
President's clemency program deserve the compassion of their
countrymen.
As we decided cases, we came to understand better the
kinds of people who had applied for clemency. By the time
we had reviewed all cases, each of us had read approximately
3,000 case summaries for our respective Board panels. From
these case summaries, we learned what applicants' family
backgrounds were like, what experiences they had with the
draft and the military, why they committed their offenses,
and what punishments they endured.
Many applicants fell into common categories: the
civilian conscientious war resister who was denied his
application for conscientious objector (CO) status and faced
trial and punishment was a matter of principle; the
Jehovah's Witness who, although granted a CO exemption, went
to jail because his religious convictions prohibited him
from accepting an alternative service assignment from
Selective Service; the Vietnam veteran who went AWOL because
FORD
of his difficulties in adjusting to post-combat garrison
duty; the young serviceman, away from home for the first
time, who could not adjust to military life; the serviceman
with his family on welfare who went AWOL to find a better-
paying job to support them.
We also had more extreme cases: the civilian who dodged
and manipulated the system not for conscientious reasons,
but simply to avoid fulfillment of any kind of obligation of
national service--or the soldier who deserted his post under
fire.
In this chapter, we describe civilian and military
applicants to the Clemency Board. Who were they? What did
they do? Why did they do it? Excerpts from actual cases
tell much of the story, supplemented by the results of a
comprehensive survey we conducted from the case summaries of
almost 1,500 applicants. (See Appendix C.O In our
conclusion, we try to identify who did not apply, why they
did not, and what happens to them next.
The excerpts from our case summaries illustrate a broad
range of fact situations. Many of the applicants were
recommended for outright pardons, others for conditional
clemency with alternative service, and a few were denied
clemency. (See Chapter V.) Information in these excerpts is
based upon the applicants' own allegations, sometimes
without corroboration. In the spirit of the clemency
program, if we were unable to verify applicants' claims, we
usually accepted their allegations at face value when making
dispositions in their cases. Our perspective was more
limited than that of draft boards, judges, commanding
officers, and court-martial judges. Therefore, these
excerpts must be interpreted with some caution.
With few exceptions, the statistics are based upon our
sample of 472 civilian applicants and 1,009 military
applicants -- roughly 25% and 7% of the total number of our
eligible civilian and military applicants, respectively.
(See Appendix C.)
As we describe the circumstances and experiences of the
applicants, we are doing so only from the perspective of the
14,500 cases we decided. These were individuals whom the
military, the draft system, and the judiciary had to judge
on the basis of more information and different standards
than we did. Our mission was clemency; theirs was the
enforcement of federal law and military discipline.
The applicants' allegations -- and the Board's
recommendations for clemency -- should not be used to infer
any improper actions on the part of draft boards, courts, or
the military. These agencies did their duty during the
Vietnam era, as set forth by the President, the Congress,
and the Supreme Court. It was not our intent to undermine
the effectiveness of those institutions in carrying out
their legitimate functions in peace and war.
2
B. Civilian Applicants
In other ways, the civilian applicants were not unlike
most young men of their age throughout the United States.
Born largely between 1948 and 1950, they were part of the
"baby boom" which was later to face the draft during the
Vietnam War. They grew up in cities (59%) and suburbs (19%)
with disproportionately many in the West and few in the
South.
They were predominantly white (87%) and came from
average American families. Twenty-nine percent came from
economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Over two-thirds
(69%) were raised by both natural parents, and evidence of
severe family instability was rare. The proportion of
blacks (11%) and Spanish-speaking persons (1.3%) was about
the same as found in the general population. Over three-
quarters (79%) had high school diplomas, and 18% had
finished college. A very small percentage (4%) had felony
convictions other than for draft offenses.
Two things set our civilian applicants apart. First,
75% opposed the war in Vietnam strongly enough to face
punishment rather than be inducted. Many were Jehovah's
Witnesses (21%) or members of other religious sects opposed
to war (6%). Second, they - unlike many of their friends
and classmates - were unable or unwilling to evade the draft
by exemptions and deferments or escape prosecution through
dismissal and acquittal. They stayed within the system and
paid a penalty for their refusal to enter the military.
In the discussion which follows, we trace the general
experiences of civilian applicants to the Clemency Board.
We look first at their experience with the draft system.
After examining the circumstances of their draft offenses,
we focus on their experience in the courts and prisons.
Finally, we describe the impact of their felony convictions.
With few exceptions, our statistics are based upon our
sample of 472 civilian applicants - roughly one-fourth of
our total number of civilian applications. (See Appendix
C.)
Selective Service Registration
Civilian applicants, like millions of other Americans,
came into contact with the Selective Service System when
they reached the age of eighteen -- usually between 1966 and
1968. They then were required by law to register for the
draft. Often, it was their first direct contact with a
government agency. A few (3%) of our applicants committed
draft offenses by failing to register with the draft -- or
failing to register on time. Ignorance or forgetfulness was
no defense, but draft boards rarely issued complaints for
failure to register unless an individual established a
pattern of evasion.
3
(Case 3-1)
Applicant was convicted of failing to
register for the draft. As a defense, he
stated that he was an Italian immigrant
who did not understand the English
language. However, there were numerous
false statements on his naturalization
papers and he was able to comply with
state licensing laws as he developed
several business enterprises in this
country.
After registration, civilian applicants were required to
keep their local board informed of their current address.
Failure to do so was a draft offense, for which ten percent
of them were convicted. These tended to be itinerant
individuals with little education, who by background were
unlikely to understand or pay due respect to their Selective
Service responsibilities.
(Case 3-2)
Applicant's father, a chronic alcoholic,
abused applicant and his mother when
intoxicated. Applicant left his home to
seek work, without success. Because of
his unsteady employment, he was compelled
to live with friends and was constantly
changing his address. His parents were
unable to contact him regarding pertinent
Selective Service materials. After his
conviction for failing to keep his draft
board informed of his address, applicant
apologized for his "mental and emotional
confusion," acknowledging that his failure
to communicate with the local board was an
"error of judgment on my part."
The local board was under no obligation to find an
individual's current address, and it was his responsibility
to make certain that Selective Service mail reached him.
(Case 3-3)
Applicant registered for the draft and
subsequently moved to a new address. He
reported his change of address to the
local post office, but he did not notify
his local board. He mistakenly thought
this action fulfilled his obligation to
keep his local board informed of his
current address.
Applicant's mother telephoned his new
address to the local board. Selective
Service mail still failed to reach him,
and he was convicted for failure to keep
his board informed of his whereabouts.
The last address his mother had given was
correct, but the court did not accept his
defense that mail did not reach him
because his name was not on the mailbox.
4
Selective Service Classification
Immediately after civilian applicants registered with
the local board, they were given Selective Service
classifications. There were a number of different kinds of
deferments and exemptions for which they applied to their
local boards. Many of the forty-four percent who attended
college received student deferments. Some applied for
hardship deferments, occupational deferments, physical or
mental exemptions, or ministerial exemptions (particularly
the twenty-one percent who were Jehovah's Witnesses). The
greatest number applied for conscientious objector
exemptions. Some applied for numerous deferments and
exemptions, with draft boards offering procedural rights
even for claims that were obviously dilatory.
(Case 3-4)
Applicant had a student deferment from
1965 to 1969. He lost his deferment in
1969, apparently because of his slow
progress in school (he did not graduate
until 1973). His two appeals to keep his
student deferment were denied. After
passing his draft physical and having a
third appeal denied, he applied for a
conscientious objector exemption. This
was denied, and his appeal was denied
after a personal appearance before his
state's Selective Service Director. After
losing another appeal to his local board,
he was ordered to report for induction.
One day after his reporting date, he
applied for a hardship postponement
because of his wife's pregnancy. He was
granted a nine-month postponement. He
then requested to perform civilian work in
lieu of military service, but to no avail.
After his wife gave birth, he fled to
Canada with her and the child. He
returned to the United States a year
later, and was arrested.
Very few of our applicants hired attorneys to help them
submit classification requests and appeals. Others relied
on the advice of local draft clerks. Others turned to
friends, family, and draft-resistance organizations.
However, it was the responsibility of our applicants to make
themselves aware of the legal rights available to them.
(Case 3-5)
Applicant made no attempt to seek a
personal appearance before the local board
or appeal its decision, on the basis of
advice given by the clerk that the board
routinely denied such claims made by
persons like himself.
Some tried to interpret Selective Service forms without
help from either legal counsel or draft board clerks. At
times, this prevented them from filing legitimate claims.
(Case 3-6)
Applicant initially failed to fill out a
form to request conscientious objector
5
status because the religious orientation
of the form led him to believe he would
not qualify. After Welsh,2 he believed he
might qualify under the expanded "moral
and ethical" criteria, so he requested
another form. When his local board sent
him a form identical to the first one, he
again failed to complete it believing that
he could not adequately express his
beliefs on a form designed for members of
organized religions.
Others relied only on their personal knowledge of
Selective Service rules, without making inquiry.
(Case 3-7)
Applicant failed to apply for
conscientious objector status because he
mistakenly believed that the Supreme Court
had ruled that a prerequisite for this
classification was an orthodox religious
belief in a supreme being.
Some civilian applicants' requests for deferments or
exemptions were granted; others were denied. In case of
denial, an individual could appeal his local board's
decision to the state appeals board. A few of our
applicants claimed that local board procedures made appeals
difficult, but it was their own responsibility to learn
about their opportunities for appeal.
(Case 3-8)
Applicant claimed that he was given no
reasons for the denial of his claim for
conscientious objector status. As a
result, he said that he was unaware of how
or where to appeal his case to a higher
level.
Others lost their appeal rights because of their failure
to file appeal papers within the time limits established by
law.
(Case 3-9)
Applicant, a Jehovah's Witness, was
unaware of the time limitations on filing
notices of appeal. He continued to gather
evidence for his appeal, but it was
ultimately denied on the procedural
grounds of his failure to make timely
application for appeal.
If a civilian applicant failed to appeal his local
board's denial of request for reclassification, he might
have been unable to raise a successful defense at trial.
(Case 3-10)
Applicant failed to appeal his local
board's denial of his conscientious
objector claim, which he claimed was done
without giving any reasons for the denial.
Although this trial judge indicated that
the local board's action was improper, he
nevertheless approved a conviction because
applicant had failed to exhaust his
6
administrative remedies by appealing his
local board's decision.
Even if an applicant had been unsuccessful in his
initial request for reclassification -- whether or not he
appealed his local board's decision -- he could request a
rehearing at any time prior to receiving his induction
notice. If a registrant could submit a prima facie case for
reclassification, his local board had to reopen his case.
When this happened, he regained his full appeal rights.
(Case 3-11)
Applicant's local board decided to give
him another hearing after he accumulated
additional evidence to support his claim
for reclassification. Despite this
rehearing, his local board found the
evidence insufficient to merit a reopening
of his case. Without a formal reopening,
applicant could not appeal his board's
findings upon rehearing.
Many applicants exercised a variety of procedural rights
in their requests for all types of deferments and
exemptions. Some of their claims appeared to be contorted
efforts to avoid induction.
(Case 3-12)
Applicant claimed that his wife, who had
been under psychiatric care, began to
suffer hallucinations when he received his
induction notice. He requested a hardship
deferment, with two psychiatrists claiming
that he should not be separated from his
"borderline psychotic" wife. This request
was denied. Applicant later tried to get
a physical exemption by having braces
fitted on his teeth. However, he instead
was convicted of conspiring to avoid
induction. (His dentist also faced
charges, but fled to Mexico to escape
trial. The dentist applied to the
Clemency Board for clemency, but we did
not have jurisdiction over his case.)
(Case 3-13)
Applicant instructed his draft board that
he had a weak back and weak knees. The
physician who examined his refused to
verify this. Applicant then forged the
physician's name and returned the document
to his draft board.
Other claims appeared to have more merit, but were
nonetheless denied by local boards. The local boards had
the benefit of the full record in these cases, and had to
weigh them against claims made by other registrants.
(Case 3-14)
Applicant's father was deceased, and his
mother was disabled and suffered from
sickle cell anemia. His request for a
hardship deferment was denied. Also,
applicant claimed that he suffered from a
back injury. This allegation was
7
supported by civilian doctors, but denied
by military doctors.
(Case 3-15)
Applicant's parents were divorced when he
was 16, with his father committed to a
mental institution. Applicant dropped out
of school to support his mother. A
psychiatrist found applicant to suffer
from claustrophobia, which would lead to
severe depression or paranoid psychosis if
he entered the military. However, he did
not receive a psychiatric exemption.
The classification of greatest concern to most civilian
applicants was the conscientious objector exemption. Almost
half (44%) took some initiative to obtain a "CO" exemption.
Twelve percent of our applicants were granted CO status,
17% applied but were denied, and the remaining 15% never
actually completed a CO application.
of the fifty-six percent of the civilian applicants who
took no initiative to obtain CO status, roughly half (25%)
committed their draft offenses for reasons unrelated to
their opposition to war. Others may not have filed for a CO
exemption because they were unaware of the availability of
the exemption, knew that current (pre-Welsh) CO criteria
excluded them, or simply refused to cooperate with the draft
system.
(Case 3-16)
Applicant, a Jehovah's Witness, had his
claim for a ministerial exemption denied.
Since he made no claim for conscientious
objector status, he was classified 1-A and
ordered to report for induction. (He
complied with his draft order, but he
later went AWOL and received an
Undesirable Discharge.)
(Case 3-17)
Applicant did not submit a CO application
because it was his understanding that
current (pre-Welsh) CO rules required that
he be associated with a widely recognized
pacifist religion. His refusal to
participate in war stemmed from his
personal beliefs and general religious
feelings.
(Case 3-18)
Applicant, a Jehovah's Witness, refused to
file for CO status because he felt that by
so doing he would be compromising his
religious principles, since he would be
required by his draft board to perform
alternative service work.
Usually, those who took some initiative but failed to
follow through with their CO application were pessimistic
about their chances for success.
(Case 3-19)
Applicant filed a CO claim in 1969, after
he received his order to report for
8
induction. His draft board postponed his
induction date and offered him a hearing.
However, applicant did not come to his
hearing and advised his draft board that
he no longer desired CO status. He stated
at trial that he decided not to apply for
a CO exemption because the law excluded
political, sociological, or philosophical
views from the religious training and
beliefs necessary for CO status at the
time.
Some did not pursue a CO exemption because of their
inability to qualify under pre-Welsh rules. Occasionally,
applicants claimed that they had been discouraged from
applying.
(Case 3-20)
In reply to applicant's request for a CO
application form, his local board included
a note stating that a CO classification
was given only to members of pacifist-
oriented religions. Accordingly, he did
not bother to return the form.
Some applicants failed to submit their CO applications
on time, because of inadvertence or lack of knowledge about
filing requirements.
(Case 3-21)
Applicant wished to apply for CO status,
but his form was submitted late and was
not accepted by his local board. His
lawyer had lost his application form in
the process of redecorating an office.
(Case 3-22)
Applicant applied for CO status after his
student deferment had expired. He did
hospital work to support his beliefs, but
he failed to comply with time requirements
for status changes under the Selective
Service Act. Consequently, his local
board refused to consider his CO
application.
In the midst of the Vietnam War, the substantive law
regarding conscientious objectors changed dramatically,
profoundly affecting the ability of many applicants to
submit CO claims with any reasonable chance of success. In
June 1970, the Supreme Court clarified conscientious
objection in Welsh V. United States, stating that this
exemption should be extended to those whose conscientious
objection stemmed from a secular belief. Section 6 (j) was
held to exempt from military service those persons whose
consciences, spurred by deeply held moral, ethical or
religious beliefs, would give them no rest or peace if they
allowed themselves to become a part of an instrument of
war.3 In the later case of Clay V. U.S., the court stated
RALD
the three requirements for CO classification as: (1) It
must be opposition to war in any form; (2) the basis of
opposition to war must be moral, ethical, or religious; and
(3) the beliefs must be sincere.4
9
Why then did so few civilian applicants seek CO status?
Twenty-three percent claimed that they committed their
offense primarily because of ethical or moral opposition to
all war -- and thirty-three percent said they committed
their offense at least partly because of such ethical or
moral feelings. of these ethical or moral objectors, only
eleven percent took any initiative to obtain a CO exemption,
eight percent filing for CO status. Only 0.2% were
successful.
Ninety percent registered prior to Welsh, so their first
information about the CO exemption was that it applied
primarily, if not exclusively, to members of pacifist
religions. Many passed through the Selective Service System
before the middle of 1970, when Welsh was announced. Fifty-
three percent of our applicants who applied for a CO
exemption did so before Welsh, and thirty-five percent
committed their draft offense before the decision. However,
only thirteen percent were actually convicted of their
offense before Welsh. Many of these individuals could have
raised Welsh defenses at trial, but most (74%) pled quilty
to their charges.
Three explanations are the most persuasive in explaining
why more of our applicants did not apply for, qualify for, a
CO exemption. First, a great many apparently did not
understand what Selective Service rules were or what
defenses could be raised at trial.
(Case 3-23)
Applicant failed to submit a CO
application after allegedly being told by
his local board that only members of
certain religious sects were eligible.
This occurred after the Welsh decision.
Second, many others objected not to war in general, but to
the Vietnam War alone. These "specific war" objectors could
not qualify for CO exemptions even under the post-Welsh
guidelines.
(Case 3-24)
Applicant's claim for conscientious
objector status was denied by his local
board because he objected only to the
Vietnam War, rather than all wars. than
on moral or ethical grounds.
Third, some applicants claimed that they were denied CO
status because their local boards applied pre-Welsh rules to
their post-Welsh CO claims. of the civilian applicants who
raised post-Welsh "moral and ethical" CO claims, only ten
percent were successful. By contrast, CO applicants who
claimed to be members of pacifist religions enjoyed a fifty-
six percent success rate before and after Welsh. Many of
the moral and ethnical objectors may have failed to meet the
post-Welsh requirement of sincere beliefs. Local boards
made their determinations on the basis of the record
available to them.
(Case 3-25)
Applicant's request for conscientious
objector status was denied, partially on
10
the basis that he had no particular
religious training or experience to
establish opposition to war. This
determination was made after Welsh ruled
that such formal religious training was
not a prerequisite to conscientious
objector status.
It did not appear that the CO application form
significantly discouraged CO applications; twenty-eight
percent of those with college degrees applied for CO status,
versus nineteen percent of these with less education. The
less-educated applicants were successful in fifty-three
percent of their CO claims, while those with college degrees
were successful in only fourteen percent of their CO claims.
This may be attributable to the fact that those with less
education more often based their claims on religious
grounds,
Alternative Service for Conscientious Objectors
Approximately one-eighth of our civilian applicants did
receive CO exemptions. Rather than face induction into the
military, they were assigned to twenty-four months of
alternative service in the national interest. However, they
refused to perform alternative service as required by law
and were subsequently convicted of that offense.
Some individuals had difficulty in performing
alternative service jobs because of the economic hardships
they imposed.
(Case 3-26)
Applicant was ordered to perform
alternative service work at a soldier's
home for less than the minimum wage. The
Soldier's Home was fifty miles away from
his residence, and he had no car.
Applicant claimed that it was impossible
to commute there without a car, and that
even if he could, he would be unable to
support his wife and child on that salary.
Not knowing what legal recourses were
available to him, he simply did not do the
work, although he was willing to perform
some other form of alternative service.
Others decided that they could not continue to cooperate
with the draft system because of their opposition to the
war.
FORD
(Case 3-27)
Applicant refused to perform alternative
service as a protest against the war in
GERALD
Vietnam.
However, most of our applicants assigned to alternative
service who refused to perform such work were Jehovah's
Witnesses or members of other pacifist religions. Their
religious beliefs forbade them from cooperating with the
orders of any institution (like Selective Service) which
they considered to be part of the war effort. They were
11
prepared to accept an alternative service assignment ordered
by a judge upon conviction for refusing to perform
alternative service. Many judges sent them to jail,
instead.
(Case 3-28)
Applicant, a Jehovah's Witness, refused to
perform alternative service ordered by the
Selective Service System, on the grounds
that even this attenuated participation in
the war effort would violate his religious
beliefs. He did indicate that the would
be willing to perform similar services
under a court order of probation. Rather
than comply with his request, the judge
sentenced the applicant to prison for
failure to perform alternative service.
Induction Orders
Those who were not granted CO exemptions were
reclassified 1-A after their other classifications had
expired. Their induction orders may have been postponed by
appeals or short-term hardships, but eventually they -- like
almost two million other young men during the Vietnam War --
were ordered to report for induction. Only 4% of our
applicants failed to report for their pre-induction physical
examination. It was not until the date of induction, after
complying with regulations to the fullest extent, that 70%
violated the Selective Service laws. In fact, of those
applicants who received orders to report for induction,
nearly one-third (32% of all civilian applicants) actually
appeared at the induction center. When the time came to
take the symbolic step forward, these applicants refused to
participate further in the induction process.
Once the induction order had been issued and all
postponements had been exhausted, applicants had a
continuing duty to report for induction. It was sometimes
the practice of local boards to give individuals several
opportunities to comply by issuing more than one induction
orders before filing a complaint with the United States
Attorney.
(Case 3-29)
Applicant was ordered to report for
induction, but he instead applied for CO
status. His local board refused to reopen
his classification, and he was again
ordered to report for induction. He again
failed to report, advising his draft board
after-the-fact that he had been ill. He
received a third order to report, but
again did not appear. Thereafter, he was
convicted.
On occasion, applicants claimed that they never received
induction orders until after Selective Service had issued
complaints. However, applicants were legally responsible to
make sure that mail from their draft boards reached them.
12
(Case 3-30)
While applicant was attending an out-of-
state university, his mother received some
letters from his draft board. Rather than
forward them to him, she returned them to
the board. Her husband had recently died,
and she feared losing her son to the
service. Subsequently, applicant was
charged with a draft offense.
(Case 3-31)
Having been classified 1-A, applicant
informed his draft board that he was
moving out of town to hold a job, giving
the Board his new address. He soon found
that his job was not to his liking. He
then returned home, and not long
thereafter he told his draft board that he
was back. However, in the interim an
induction order had been sent to his new
address, he had not appeared on his
induction date, and a complaint had been
issued.
Sometimes, personal problems hindered applicants from
appearing as ordered at an induction center.
(Case 3-32)
Applicant failed to report to his pre-
induction physical because he was
hospitalized as a result of stab wounds.
He was again ordered to report, but he did
not appear because he was in jail. He was
ordered to report for a third time, but
applicant claimed he failed to report
because of his heroin addiction.
Therefore, he was convicted for his draft
offense.
Many applicants claimed that the realization that they
were conscientiously opposed to war came only after they
received an induction notice. This notice may have acted as
the catalyst which led to a late crystallization of an
applicant's beliefs.
(Case 3-33)
Applicant stated that "the induction order
forced me for the first time to make a
decision as to my views with regard to
war."
However, a registrant could not request a change in
status because of "late crystallization" after his induction
notice was mailed, unless he experienced a change in
circumstances beyond his control. In 1971, the Supreme
FORD
Court held in Ehlert V. U.S.S that a post-induction-notice
claim for conscienious objector status did not constitute a
change in circumstances beyond the applicant's control.
GERALD
Draft Offenses
To be eligible for clemency, civilian applicants must
have committed at least one of six offenses enumerated in
the Executive Order (See Chapter 2.B). As described
13
earlier, three percent failed to register, ten percent
failed to keep their local boards informed of their address,
thirteen percent failed to perform alternative service as
conscientious objectors, four percent failed to report for
pre-induction physical exams, thirty-eight percent failed to
report for induction, and thirty-two percent failed to
submit to induction. At the time of most applicants' draft
violations, they were between the ages of 20 and 22, and the
year was 1970 - 1972. For over ninety-five percent of these
applicants, their failure to comply with the Selective
Service law was their first offense.
Numerous reasons were given by civilian applicants for
their offenses. The most frequent of their reasons was
their conscientious objection to war in either general or
particular form. Fifty-seven percent expressed either
religious, ethical or moral objection to all war, and an
additional fourteen percent expressed specific objection to
the Vietnam War. When other related reasons were considered
(such as denial of CO status), seventy-five percent of the
civilian applicants claimed that they committed their
offenses for reasons related to their opposition to war.
Likewise, expressions of conscience were found by the
Clemency Board to be valid mitigating circumstances in
seventy-three percent of our cases.
(Case 3-34)
Applicant had participated in anti-war
demonstrations before refusing induction.
He stated that he could not fight a war
which he could not support. However, he
does believe in the need for national
defense and would have served in the war
if there had been an attack on United
States territory. He stated that "I know
that what is happening now is wrong, so I
have to take a stand and hope that it
helps end it a little sooner."
(Case 3-35)
Applicant applied for conscientious
objector status on the ground that because
he was black he could not serve in the
Armed Forces of "a nation whose laws and
customs did not afford (him) the same
opportunities and protection afforded to
white citizens." His application was
denied, and he refused induction.
By contrast, less than one out of six of all our
civilian applicants were found by the Board to have
committed their offenses for selfish reasons.
Other major reasons for their offenses include medical
problems (6%) and family or personal problems (10%). In
evaluating these reasons, the Clemency Board found that
these problems were mitigating in nearly all of the cases in
GERALD
which applicants raised them.
(Case 3-36)
When applicant was ordered to report for
induction, his wife was undergoing
numerous kidney operations, with a
terminal medical prognosis. She was
14
dependent upon him for support and care,
so he failed to report for induction.
Experiences as Fugitives
At one time or another, all civilian applicants faced
the difficult decision whether to submit to the legal
process or become fugitives. Nearly two-thirds immediately
surrendered themselves to the authorities. of the remaining
one-third who did not immediately surrender, the vast
majority never left their hometowns. Of the eighteen
percent who did leave their hometowns to evade the draft,
slightly less than half (8%) ever left the United States.
Most at-large civilian applicants remained fugitives for
less than one year. Many reconsidered their initial
decision to flee. About one-third surrendered, and many of
the rest were apprehended only because they lived openly at
home and made no efforts to avoid arrest. Over two-thirds
of our at-large applicants were employed full-time; most
others were employed part-time, and only one out of ten was
unemployed. Very few assumed false identities or took steps
to hide from authorities.
Most fugitive applicants who chose to go abroad went to
Canada. Geographical proximity culture, history, and
language were two reasons why they chose Canada. However,
the major reason for the emigration of American draft
resisters to Canada was the openness of their immigration
laws.6 Some of our applicants were either denied immigrant
status or deported by Canadian officials. Otherwise they
might have remained there as fugitives.
(Case 3-37)
After receiving his order to report for
induction, applicant went to Canada. He
was denied immigrant status, so he
returned to the United States and applied
for a hardship deferment. After a
hearing, his deferment was denied. He was
once again ordered to report for
induction, but he instead fled to the
British West Indies. He returned to
Florida to make preparations to remain in
the West Indies permanently, but he was
apprehended.
Most applicants who went to Canada (6%) stayed there
briefly, but some remained for years. A few severed all
American ties, with the apparent intention of starting a new
life there.
(Case 3-38)
In response to Selective Service
FORD
inquiries, applicant's parents notified
the local board that their son was in
Canada. However, they did not know his
GERALD
address. Applicant lived and worked in
Canada for almost four years.
The only applicants for our program who remained
permanently in Canada were those who fled after their
conviction to escape punishment.
15
(Case 3-39)
Applicant was convicted for refusing
induction, but remained free pending
appeal. When his appeal failed, he fled
to Canada. He remained in Canada until he
applied for Clemency.
Pre-Trial Actions
Civilian applicants began to face court action when
their local draft boards determined that sufficient evidence
of Selective Service violations existed to warrant the
forwarding of their files to United States Attorneys. After
complaints were issued and indictments or information
returned against them, the litigation fell within the
jurisdiction of the Federal district courts.
The courts dismissed many draft cases. From 1968
through 1973, the number of cases and the dismissal rate
continuously increased. Through 1968, only about twenty-
five percent of all cases resulted in dismissal. From 1969
through 1972, about fifty-five percent were dismissed -- and
in 1973, over two-thirds were dismissed.'
One important element influencing the dismissal rate in
particular jurisdictions was the practice of forum shopping.
Many defendants searched for judges with a reputation for
leniency or a tendency to dismiss draft cases. As an
example, in the Northern District of California since 1970,
nearly 70% of the cases tried in that court resulted in
dismissal or acquittal.7 At that time, many young men
transferred their draft orders to the Oakland induction
center before refusing induction, thus enabling them to try
their cases in the Northern district. In 1970, its
dismissal rate averaged 48.9 draft cases per 10,000
population, closely followed by the Central District of
California with 43.1. The national average was 14.1. Some
Clemency Board applicants apparently "forum shopped" in
California and other Western states; five percent received
their convictions in the Ninth Circuit, even though their
homes were elsewere.
Jurisdictional inequities in the dismissal rate for
draft offenses within the same state were common during the
war era. For example, in contrast to the dismissal rate in
the Northern District of California (70%), the Eastern
District of California dismissed only 40% of its draft
cases. Similarly, in the Eastern District of Virginia 63%
of the draft cases were dismissed, versus 35% in the Western
District.
Convictions and Acquittals
FORD
After civilian applicants were indicted and their
motions for dismissal refused, 26% pled not guilty, and they
GERALD
next entered the trial stage. The rest pled either guilty
(68%) or nolo contendere (6%). Many of those who pled
quilty did so as part of a "plea bargain," whereby other
charges against them were dismissed.
16
of the 21,400 draft law violators who stood trial during
the Vietnam era, 12,700 were acquitted.' Assuming that all
those acquitted pled not guilty, and assuming, by
extrapolation, that 2,300 (26%) of convicted draft offenders
pled not guilty, it appears that an individual stood an
eighty-five percent chance of acquittal if he pled not
guilty. However, no Clemency Board applicant was among the
12,700 who were acquitted of draft charges.
Changing Supreme Court standards occurring after the
offense but before trial may have led to acquittals. of
special importance was the 1970 Welsh case which broadened
the conscientious objector exemption criteria to include
ethical and moral objection to war.
Some applicants may have been convicted because of the
apparent poor quality of their legal counsel.
(Case 3-40)
Applicant joined the National Guard and
was released from active duty training
eight months later. While in the National
Guard reserves thereafter, he was referred
to Selective Service for induction for
failure to perform his reserve duties
satisfactorily. He obeyed an order to
report for induction, but claimed that he
negotiated an agreement to settle his
National Guard misunderstandings at the
induction center. He pled not guilty of
refusing to submit to induction, and he
was convicted. Apparently, his trial
attorney failed to call several important
defense witnesses who had been present at
the induction center. Applicant's present
attorney believes that his trial attorney
represented him inadequately. After
conviction but before execution of his
sentence, applicant completed his National
Guard service and received a discharge
under honorable conditions.
On occasion, applicants were given the opportunity to
enlist or submit to induction up to the time of trial, as a
means of escaping conviction. Some applicants later claimed
that they were caught in "Catch-22" situations in which they
could neither be inducted nor escape conviction for failing
to be inducted.
(Case 3-41)
Ordered to report for induction, applicant
refused to appear at the induction center.
While charges were pending against him, he
was informed that he could seek an in-
FORD
service CO classification after entering
the military. With this knowledge, he
agreed to submit to induction, and the
GERALD
court gave him a 30-day continuance. He
did seek induction, but ironically, he
could not be inducted because he failed to
pass his physical due to a hernia
condition. When his continuance expired,
17
he was convicted of failure to report for
induction.
However, others were convicted despite every possible
attempt by authorities to deal fairly and leniently with
them.
(Case 3-42)
An order to report for induction was
mailed to applicant's parents, but he
failed to report. Over one year later,
applicant's attorney contacted the United
States Attorney and indicated that
applicant had severe psychiatric and other
medical problems which could make him fail
his pre-induction physical. In response,
the United States Attorney offered
applicant an opportunity to apply for
enlistment and be disqualified. However,
applicant could not be found, and a grand
jury subsequently issued an indictment.
Typically, applicants were convicted around the age of
23, nearly two years after their initial offenses. Less
than one out of ten, appealed their convictions.
An analysis of conviction rates for draft offenses shows
clear jurisdictional discrepancies. For instance, the
Southern States had the highest propensity for conviction,
with the Eastern states and California having the lowest.
In 1972, there were twenty-seven draft cases tried in
Connecticut, with only one resulting in conviction. In the
Northern District of Alabama during the same period, sixteen
draft cases resulted in twelve convictions. These different
conviction rates apparently occurred because of wide
differences in attitude toward the draft violators. These
differences in treatment may have encouraged form shopping
by our applicants.10
The conviction rate itself varied considerably during
the war era. In 1968, the conviction rate for violators of
the Selective Service Act was sixty-six percent; by 1974,
the conviction rate was cut in half to thirty-three percent.
Apparently, as time went by, prosecutors, judges and juries
had less inclination to convict draft-law violators.
Sentences
Only about one-third of the civilian applicants ever
went to prison. The remainder were sentenced to probation
and, usually, alternative service. A majority applicants
(56%) performed alternative service. Typically, they
FORD
performed twenty-four or thirty-six months of alternative
&
service, but a few served as many as five years. Some
applicants performed their alternative service on a part-
time basis. The jobs they performed for similar to those
GERALD
filled by conscientious objectors. However, they had to
fulfill other conditions of probation.
(Case 3-43)
As a condition of probation, applicant
worked full-time for Good-Will Industries
18
and a non-profit organization which
provided jobs for disabled veterans. He
received only a token salary.
(Case 3-44)
Applicant worked for three years for a
local emergency housing committee as a
condition of probation. He worked full-
time as a volunteer.
A few (6%) failed to comply with the terms of their
probation, often by refusing to do alternative service work.
Some fled and remained fugitive until they applied for
clemency.
(Case 3-45)
Convicted for a draft offense, applicant
was sentenced to three years probation,
with the condition that he perform
civilian work in the national interest.
About one year later, his sentence was
revoked for a parole violation (absconding
from supervision). He was again sentenced
to three years probation, doing
alternative service work. He did not seek
such work and left town. A bench warrant
was issued for his arrest. Applicant,
still a fugitive, now resides in Canada.
Some were required, as a condition of probation, to
enlist in military service. They suffered a felony
conviction, served full enlistments in the military, and
sometimes remained on probation after discharge. One
percent of our civilian applicants became Vietnam veterans.
(Case 3-46)
Applicant refused induction because of his
moral beliefs. He was sentenced to three
years imprisonment, suspended on the
condition that he enlist in the military.
Applicant did enlist, serving a full tour
of duty. He served as a noncombatant in
Vietnam, earning a Bronze Star. Awarded
an Honorable Discharge, he still had one
year of probation to complete before his
sentence was served.
of our applicants sentenced to imprisonment, most served
less than one year. Only thirteen percent spent more than
one year in prison, and less than one percent were
incarcerated for more than two years.
The sentencing provisions of the Military Selective
Service Act of 1967 provided for jail terms ranging from
i
FORD
zero to five years, giving judges almost unlimited
sentencing discretion. The sentencing dispositions of the
courts were inconsistent and widely varying, dependent to a
GERALD
great extent upon year of conviction, geography, race, and
religion. In 1968, seventy-four percent of all convicted
draft offenders were sentenced to prison, their average
sentence was thirty-seven months, and thirteen percent
received the maximum five-year sentence. By 1974, only
twenty-two percent were sentenced to prison, their average
sentence was just fifteen months, and no one received the
19
maximum. Geographic variations were almost as striking, In
1968, almost one-third of those convicted in the southern-
states Fifth Circuit received the maximum five-year prison
sentence, but only 5% received the maximum in the eastern-
states Second Circuit. During the early years of draft
offense trails in 1968, of thirty-three convicted Selective
Service violators in Oregon, eighteen were put on probation,
and only one was given a sentence over three years. In
Southern Texas, of sixteen violators, none were put on
probation, fifteen out of sixteen received at least three
years, and fourteen received the maximum five-year
sentence. 11
Other sentencing variations occurred on the basis of
race. In 1972, the average sentence for all incarcerated
Selective Service violators was thirty-four months, while
for blacks and other minorities the average sentence was
forty-five months. This disparity decreased to a difference
of slightly more than two months in 1974.12 While we did
not perceive such a disparity as a general rule, some cases
appeared to involve racial questions.
(Case 3-47)
Applicant belongs to the Black Muslim
faith, whose religion principles
prohibited him from submitting to
induction. He has been actively involved
in civil rights and other social movements
in his region of the country. He was
convicted for his draft offense and
sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
Applicant stated that his case was tried
with extreme prejudice. He spent 25
months in prison before being paroled.
Some religious inequities may also have occurred. For
the years 1966 through 1969, incarcerated Jehovah's Witness
received sentences averaging about one month longer than the
average Selective Service violators. During this same
period, religious objectors other than Jehovah's Witnesses
received average sentences about 6 months shorter than the
average violator.
Although a variety of sentencing procedures were
available, the majority of convicted Selective Service
violators were sentenced under normal adult procedures. If
the offender were sentenced to jail, two types of sentence
were available: (1) a sentence of definite time during
which he might be paroled after serving one-third of his
term; or (2) an indeterminant sentence during which parole
eligibility might be determined by a judge on the Board of
Parole at a date before but not after one-third of the
sentence had expired. Offenders sentenced under the Federal
FORD
Youth Correction Act, could be unconditionally discharged
before the end of the period of probation or commitment.
This discharge automatically operated to set aside the
GERALD
conviction. Additionally, because commitments and
probations under the Youth Corrections Act were
indeterminate, the period of supervision might have lasted
as as long as six years. 13 Bureau of Prison statistics
indicate, however, that the Youth Corrections Act was used
as a sentencing procedure only in 10% of all violation
20
cases. When it was applied, the six year maximum period of
supervision was imposed in almost all cases. 14
Prison Experiences
One-third of the civilian applicants received prison
sentences and served time in Federal prison. Most served
their time without great difficulty.
(Case 3-48)
Applicant served eighteen months in
Federal prison. His prison report
indicated that he did good work as a cook
and had "a very good attitude." The
report noted no adjustment difficulties,
no healthy problems, and no complaints.
However, some experienced greater difficulty in adapting
to prison life.
(Case 3-49)
Applicant, a member of Hare Krishna, was
sentenced to a two-year prison term for a
draft offense. Because of his religious
convictions and dietary limitations, life
in prison became intolerable for him. He
escaped from Federal prison, surrendering
three years later.
Although very rare, isolated instances of harsh
treatment were claimed to have occurred.
(Case 3-50)
Applicant was arrested in Arizona and
extradited to the Canal Zone for trial
(the location of his local board). Prior
to trial, he was confined for four months
in four by six foot cell in a hot jungle.
Some evidence exists that he was denied
the full opportunity to post reasonable
bail. At his trial, applicant was
convicted and sentenced to an additional
two months confinement. By the time of
his release, his mental and physical
health substantially deteriorated. He was
then confined in a mental hospital for
several months. His mental health is
still a subject of concern.
Some could not escape the effects of their prison
experience even after their relase.
(Case 3-51)
Applicant became addicted to heroin while
FORD
serving the prison sentence for his draft
conviction. Unable to legitimately
support his habit after he was released,
GERALD
he turned to criminal activities. He was
later convicted of robbery and returned to
prison.
Parole grants for Selective Service violators was
determined primarily by the nature of their offense. It was
the policy of many parole boards that draft violators serve
21
a minimum of two years for parity with military duty, but
most Selective Service violators were released after their
initial parole applications. Jehovah's Witnesses received
first releases in nearly all instances. Most Selective
Service violators were granted parole after serving
approximately half their prison sentences, but many with
prison sentences less than one year served until their
expiration dates. In each year from 1965 to 1974, Selective
Service violators were granted parole more often than other
Federal criminals. 15
Consequences of Felony Convictions
A felony conviction had many grave ramifications for
civilian applicants. The overwhelming majority of states
construe a draft offense as a felony, denying applicants the
right to vote -- or, occasionally, just suspending it during
confinement. Felony convictions carry other serious legal
consequences. (See Chapter 2-c.)
The principal disability arising from a felony
conviction is its effect upon employment opportunities.
Often, this job discrimination is reinforced by statute.
States license many occupations, often requiring good moral
character" often barred from such occupations as attorney,
accountant, architect, dry cleaner, and barber.
(Case 3-52)
Applicant, a third year law student, was
told he could not be admitted to the bar
because of his draft conviction.
Even more severe restrictions exist in the public
employment sector.
(Case 3-53)
Applicant graduated from college, but was
unable to find work because of his draft
conviction. He qualified for a job with
the Post Office but was then informed that
his draft conviction rendered him
ineligible.
(Case 3-54)
Applicant qualified for a teaching
position, but the local board of education
refused to hire him on the basis of his
draft conviction. The board later
reversed its position at the urging of
applicant's attorney and the local Federal
judge.
Despite these handicaps, civilian applicants fared
FORD
reasonably well in the job market. Over three out of four
were employed either full time (70%) or part-time (7%) when
they applied for clemency. Only two percent were unemployed
GERALD
at the time of their application. The remainder had
returned to school (14%), were presently incarcerated (2%),
or were furloughed by prison officials pending disposition
of their cases by our Board (5%). Almost half (45%) had
married, and many (20%) had children or other dependents.
22
C. Military Applicants
Despite the popular belief that Clemency Board
applicants were mostly war resisters, the vast proportion of
our military applicants were not articulate, well-educated
opponents of the war; less than one percent had applied for
a conscientious objector draft classification before
entering the military. Less than five percent attributed
their offenses to opposition to the Vietnam War. Their
average IQ (98) was very close to the national average.
Nonetheless, over three-quarters dropped out of high school
before joining the service, and less than one-half of one
percent graduated from college. They were raised in small
towns or on farms (40%). Generally, they came from
disadvantaged environments. Many grew up in a broken homes
(60%) struggling to cope with low incomes (57%). A
disproportionate percentage were black (21%) or Spanish-
speaking (3.5%). A few (0.1%) were women.
In the discussion which follows, we trace the general
experiences of military applicants. We look first at the
circumstances of their induction or enlistment and their
early experiences in the military. We then describe how 27%
of them served in Vietnam, many with distinction. After
considering the circumstances of their AWOL offenses, we
look at their experiences with the military justice system.
Finally, we describe the impact of their bad discharges.
Almost two-thirds were in the Army, much of our discussion
about military procedures (especially the military justice
system) pertains to the Army; the procedures of the other
services were not greatly different from those of the Army.
Induction or Enlistment in the Military
Almost one-third of the military applicants enlisted at
age 17, and over three-quarters were in uniform by their
20th birthday. Most (84%) enlisted rather than be drafted.
Our applicants served in the Army (63%), the Marines (23%),
and to a lesser degree, the Navy (12%) and the Air Force
(3%).
Their reasons for enlistment ranged from draft pressure
to the desire to learn a trade, to the simple absence of
anything else to do. Others saw the military as an
opportunity to become more mature21.
(Case 3-55)
Applicant enlisted after high school
because he did not want to go to college
FORD
or be inducted into the Army.
(Case 3-56)
Applicant enlisted to obtain specialized
GERALD
training to become a microwave technician.
(Case 3-57)
Applicant enlisted at age 17 because he
wanted "a place to eat" and a "roof over
(his) head."
23
(Case 3-58)
Applicant enlisted because he was getting
into trouble all the time and felt that
service life might "settle (him) down.'
As the Vietnam war expanded, America's military manpower
needs increased. Many recruiters helped arrange entry into
their preferred military occupational specialties and
geographic areas of assignment. However, some of our
applicants claimed, often without corroboration, that their
unauthorized absences were motivated by the services'
failure to assign them to the positions they themselves
wanted.
(Case 3-59)
Applicant enlisted at age 17 for motor
maintenance training, but instead was
trained as a cook. This action caused him
disappointment and frustration. His
grandmother contended that he was misled
by the recruiter.
Before the Vietnam War, the military generally did not
accept persons for enlistment or induction if they had
Category IV (below the 30th percentile) scores on their
Armed Forces Qualifying Tests for intelligence (AFQT) 22;
some who scored between the 15th and 30th percentiles were
brought into the service under special programs. 23 In August
1966, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara announced Project
100,000 to use the training establishment of the Armed
Forces to help certain young men become more productive
citizens upon return to civilian life. Project 100,000
extended the opportunity and obligation of military service
to marginally qualified persons by reducing mental and
physical standards governing eligibility. Persons scoring
as low as the 10th percentile on AFQT tests became eligible
for military service. During its first year, 40,000
soldiers entered the military under this program. For two
years thereafter, it lived up to its name by enabling
100,000 marginally qualified soldiers to join the service
each year.24
Military studies have indicated that the opportunity for
technical training was the principal motivation for the
enlistment of Category IV soldiers. However, over half
enlisted at least partly because of draft pressure. Other
reasons for enlistment were to travel, obtain time to find
out what to do with one's life, serve one's country, and
enjoy educational benefits after leaving the service. 25 Some
learned marketable skills, and 13% of our applicants
received a high school equivalency certificate while in the
service.
Almost one-third of our applicants (32%) were allowed to
join the military despite pre-enlistment AFQT scores at or
below the 30th percentile.
(Case 3-60)
Applicant had an AFQT of 11 and a GT (IQ
GERALD FORD
score) of 61 at enlistment.
He
successfully completed basic training, but
went AWOL shortly thereafter.
24
(Case 3-61)
Applicant had an 8th grade education, an
AFQT of 11, and a GT of 62. Coming from a
broken home, he was enthusiastic about his
induction into the Army, believing that he
would gain technical training and
financial security. His lack of physical
ability and difficulties in reading and
writing caused him to fail basic training.
He was in basic training for nine months
before he was sent to Advanced Individual
Training (AIT) as a tank driver. He
continued to have learning problems in
advanced training. According to
applicant, this problem was compounded by
the ridicule of other soldiers upon their
discovery that he had required several
months to complete basic training.
Not all of our Category IV applicants joined the service
because of Project 100,000. Some had other test scores
qualifying them for enlistment under the earlier standards.
Nonetheless, many of our applicants would probably never
have been in the service were it not for Project 100,000.
The Category IV applicants tended to be from
disadvantaged backgrounds. Compared to other applicants,
they were predominantly Black or Spanish-speaking (42% of
Category IV versus 18% of all other applicants) and grew up
in cities (55% versus 44%). Their families struggled with
low incomes (72% versus 49%), and they dropped out of high
school (75% versus 56%). The quality of their military
service was about the same as that of our other applicants:
they did not have significantly more punishments for non-
AWOL offenses (53% versus 52%) or non-AWOL charges pending
at time of discharge (13% versus 12%). Despite this, a
greater percentage received administrative Undesirable
Discharges (68% versus 57%).
of course, we saw only the Category IV soldiers who did
not succeed in service. The experiences of Clemency Board
4,000-plus Category IV applicants do not reflect the
performance of all Category IV soldiers, including the
quarter-million men brought into the service by Project
100,000. Many of our Category IV applicants served well
before committing their qualifying AWOL offenses.
(Case 3-62)
Applicant, a Black male from a family of
12 children, dropped out of high school
before his induction into the Army. His
GT was 114 and his AFQT was 18 (Category
IV). Applicant spent 6 years on active
duty, including service as a military
policeman in Korea. Following a three
month stint in Germany, he served an 8
month tour in Vietnam as an assistant
platoon leader. On a second tour in
Vietnam, where he served as a squad leader
and chief of an armored car section, he
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
earned the Bronze Star for Heroism. He
departed AWOL while on leave from his
second tour in Vietnam.
25
Early Experiences in the Military
Military applicants' first encounter with the military
was in basic training. 26 It was during these first weeks
that they had to learn the regimen and routine of military
life. For many, this was their first experience away from
home and the first time they faced such intense personal
responsibilities.
Although the applicants' general emotional problems--
homesickness and the trauma of separation or a different
life-style--were no different from those which other young
men have always faced upon entering the service, some did
not adjust well to the demands placed on them:
(Case 3-63)
Applicant went on aimless wanderings prior
to advanced training. He finally lost
control of himself and knocked out 20
windows in the barracks with his bare
hands, suffering numerous wounds.
Social and cultural differences among recruits posed
problems for others who did not get along well in the close
quarters of the barracks environment.
(Case 3-64)
Applicant, of Spanish heritage, was
subjected to physical and verbal abuse
during boot camp. He recalls being called
"chili bean" and "Mexican chili." His
ineptness in boot camp also led to
ridicule. He wept at his court martial
when he recalled his early experiences
that led to his AWOL.
(Case 3-65)
Applicant's version of his various
problems is that he could no longer get
along in the Marine Corps. Other Marines
picked on him because he was Puerto Rican,
and wouldn't permit him to speak Spanish
to other Puerto Ricans. When he resisted,
they tried to "get (him) into trouble."
(Case 3-66)
Applicant was a high school graduate with
a Category I AFQT score and GT (IQ test)
score of 145. She complained that other
soldiers harrassed her without cause and
accused her of homosexuality. She went
AWOL to avoid the pressure.
Incidents of AWOL during basic training usually resulted
in minor forms of punishment. Typically, a new recruit
would receive a nonjudicial punishment resulting in
restriction, loss of pay, or extra duty. Seven percent of
the military our applicants were discharged because of an
AWOL commencing during basic training.
Following basic training, those in the Army transferred
to another unit for advanced or on-the-job training.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Altogether, ten percent were discharged for an AWOL begun
during advanced training. Individual transfers resulted in
26
breaking up units and, frequently, the ending of personal
friendships. The AWOL rate tended to be higher for soldiers
in transit to new assignments. 27 Some underwent training in
jobs which they found unsatisfying, and others were given
details which made no use of their newly-learned skills. A
few applicants thought the service owed them an obligation
to meet their preferences; when the military used them in
other necessary functions, they went AWOL.
(Case 3-67)
Applicant enlisted in the Army for a term
of three years, specifying a job
preference for electronics. The recruiter
informed him that the electronics field
was full, but that if he accepted
assignment to the medical corps he could
change his job after commencement of
active duty. Once on active duty,
applicant was informed that his Military
Occupational Speciality (MOS) could not be
changed. He claimed that he was
unsuccessful in obtaining the help of his
platoon sergeant, company commander, and
chaplain, so he went AWOL.
Military life, especially for those of low rank,
required the performance of temporary, menial duties for
which no training was required, such as kitchen patrol (KP)
and cleanup work. Some of our applicants spurned these
responsibilities and went AWOL.
(Case 3-68)
Applicant found himself pulling details
and mowing grass rather than working in
his military occupational specialty. He
then went AWOL and did not return for over
three years.
After several months in the military, others were still
having difficulty adjusting to the many demands of military
life. Some had difficulty reconciling themselves to a daily
routine which had to be followed, superiors who had to be
treated with respect, and orders which had to be obeyed.
Over half (53%) were punished for one or more military
offenses. Only three percent were also punished for
military offenses comparable to civilian crimes such as
theft or vandalism.
(Case 3-69)
Applicant had difficulty adjusting to the
regimentation of Army life. While he was
in the service, he felt that he needed to
have freedom of action at all times. He
would not take guidance from anyone, was
repeatedly disrespectful, and disobeyed
numerous orders. His course of conduct
resulted in his receiving three
nonjudicial punishments and three Special
Court-Martials.
Altogether, a majority (52%) of military applicants were
discharged for AWOL offenses occurring during stateside
duty, other than training, which did not follow a Vietnam
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
tour.
27
Requests for Leave, Reassignment, or Discharge
Many military applicants complained of personal or
family problems during their military careers. Parents
died, wives had miscarriages, children had illnesses, houses
were repossessed, families went on welfare, and engagements
were broken.
(Case 3-70)
During his 4-1/2 months of creditable
service, applicant was absent without
official leave on five occasions. He was
motivated in each instance by his concern
for his grandmother who was living alone
and whom he believed needed his care and
support.
The military had remedies for soldiers with these
problems. They could request leave, reassignment, and, in
extreme cases, discharge due to a hardship. Unit officers,
chaplains, attorneys of the Judge Advocate General's Corps,
and Red Cross workers were available to render assistance
within their means. Despite the help they received, some
applicants did not come back when their personal problems
were resolved.
(Case 3-71)
Applicant requested, and was granted, an
emergency leave due to his mother's death.
Applicant did not return from leave. He
was apprehended one year and eight months
later.
The Department of Defense discovered that 58% of its
clemency applicants sought help from at least one military
source before going AWOL. However, only 45% approached
their commanding officer, and fewer yet approached an
officer above the company level.28 Many Clemency Board
applicants never tried to solve their problems through
military channels. Others indicated that, before going
AWOL, they tried some of these channels but failed to obtain
the desired relief.
(Case 3-72)
Applicant's wife was pregnant, in
financial difficulties, and facing
eviction. She suffered from an emotional
disorder and nervous problems.
Applicant's oldest child was asthmatic and
an epileptic, having seizures that
sometimes resulted in unconsciousness.
Applicant's request for a transfer and a
hardship discharge which were denied. He
then went AWOL.
Requests for leave were matters within a commanding
officer's discretion. However, leave was earned at the rate
of 30 days per calendar year, and individuals often used
leave substantially in excess of the amount they had earned.
Commanding officers could not normally authorize advance
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
leave in excess of 30 days, so a soldier who had used up his
advance leave had to go AWOL to solve his problems. This
28
was especially true if the enormity of the problem made one
period of leave insufficient.
(Case 3-73)
While applicant was home on leave to get
married, a hurricane flooded his mother-
in-law's house, in which he and his wife
were staying. His belongings and almost
the entire property were lost.
He
requested and was granted a 21-day leave
extension, which he spent trying to repair
the house. However, the house remained in
an unliveable condition, and his wife
began to suffer from a serious nervous
condition. Applicant went AWOL for four
days to ease the situation. He returned
voluntarily and requested a Hardship
Discharge or a six-month emergency leave,
both of which were denied. He then went
AWOL.
Of military applicants who requested leave or
reassignment, roughly 15% had their request approved.
Slightly over one percent were granted leave or reassignment
to help them solve the problem which later led to their
AWOL. By contrast, nine percent had their leave or
reassignment requests turned down. Their requests were
evaluated on the basis of information available to
commanding officers, who had to weigh the soldier's personal
needs against the needs of the military.
The Hardship Discharge offered a permanent solution to
the conflict between a soldier's problem and his military
obligations. To get a Hardship Discharge, he had to submit
a request in writing to his commanding officer, explaining
and documenting the nature of his problem and how only a
discharge would help him solve it. The Red Cross was often
asked for assistance in substantiating the request. Some
did not have the patience to proceed through channels.
(Case 3-74)
Applicant states that his father, who had
suffered for three years from cancer,
committed suicide by hanging. His
family's resources and morale had been
severely strained by the father's illness
and death. Applicant spent a period of
time on emergency leave to take care of
funeral arrangements and other matters.
At the time, his mother was paralyzed in
one arm and unable to work. Applicant
sought a hardship discharge, but after
three weeks of waiting, his inquiries into
the status of the application revealed
that the paperwork had been lost.
Applicant then went AWOL.
The soldier who was conscientiously opposed to war could
FORD
apply for in-service conscientious objector status. Very
few of our applicants did: only one percent took any
LIBRARY
initiative to obtain this in-service status, and only one-
half of one percent made a formal application. However, the
Clemency Board found five percent to have committed their
29
offenses for conscientious reasons. Some applicants alleged
that they were unaware of what they had to do to get such
status, probably as a result of their misunderstanding of
military regulations.
(Case 3-75)
From the time of his arrival at his Navy
Base, applicant consulted with medical,
legal, and other officers on how to obtain
a discharge for conscientious objection.
He was told that the initiative for such a
discharge would have to be taken by the
Navy, and that he would first have to
demonstrate that he was a conscientious
objector. He then went AWOL to prove his
beliefs. Following his court-martial
conviction for that brief AWOL, he
requested a discharge as a conscientious
objector. His request was denied.
Military applicants could have submitted two types of
conscientious objector applications. One resulted in
reassignment to a noncombatant activity, while the other
provided for a discharge under honorable conditions. Each
type involved separate but similar procedures.
Understandably, military procedures put the burden of proof
on the applicant. He was required to submit statements on
six separate questions concerning the origin, nature, and
implications of his conscientious objection. Military
regulations required that the applicant "conspicuously
demonstrate the consistency and depth of his beliefs. 2911
Some of our applicants did not persuade authorities of their
conscientious objector beliefs.
(Case 3-76)
For a year-and-a-half after he was
drafted, applicant tried to obtain CO
status, because he did not believe in
killing human beings. He talked to his
Captain and the Red Cross, neither of whom
found his aversion to taking human life to
be persuasive. The applicant is minimally
articulate, but states that even if
someone was trying to kill him, he could
not kill in return. When he had exhausted
his application for CO status and was
scheduled for Vietnam, he went AWOL.
After submitting an application for conscientious
objector status, a soldier was interviewed by a chaplain and
a military psychiatrist. The chaplain commented on the
sincerity and depth of the applicant's belief, and the
psychiatrist evaluated him for mental disorders. Some of
our applicants claimed they were victims of irregularities,
and they went AWOL rather than seek remedies within
channels.
(Case 3-77)
Three years after enlisting in the Navy,
applicant made several attempts to be
recognized as a conscientious objector.
FORD i LIBRARY 078830
He spoke with chaplains, legal officers,
doctors, and a psychiatrist. He told the
psychiatrist of his opposition to the war
30
in Vietnam and of his heavy drug use.
Applicant claimed that the psychiatrist
threw his records in his face and told him
to get out of his office. He went AWOL
after his experience with the
psychiatrist.
The conscientious objector's next step was to present
his case before a hearing officer, who in turn made a
recommendation through the chain of command. The final
authority rested either with the General Court-Martial
Convening Authority or with the administrative affairs
office in the appropriate service department headquarters.
Assignment to Vietnam
During the height of the Vietnam War, many of our
applicants were ordered to Vietnam, usually about six months
after entering the service. About one-third (34%) of our
applicants volunteered or received orders for Vietnam. Most
complied with the orders, but many did not. Seven percent
were discharged because they went AWOL when assigned to
Vietnam.
(Case 3-78)
Applicant received orders to report to
Vietnam. While on leave before he had to
report, he requested help from his
Congressman so that he would not be sent
overseas. He also applied for an
extension of his departure date on the
grounds that his wife was eight months
pregnant and that he was an alien. His
request was denied, and he went AWOL.
The other 27% did go to Vietnam, often on assignment to
combat units. Once there, very few went AWOL. Roughly one
in eight (three percent of all military applicants) went on
extended AWOL while in Vietnam. Typically, AWOLs in Vietnam
resulted from personal problems, often of a medical nature.
(Case 3-79)
Applicant was assigned to an infantry unit
in Vietnam. During his combat service, he
sustained an injury which caused his
vision to blur in one eye. His vision
steadily worsened, and he was referred to
an evacuation hospital in DaNang for
testing. An eye doctor's assistant told
him that the doctor was fully booked and
that he would have to report back to his
unit and come back to the hospital in a
couple of weeks. Frustrated by this
rejection and fearful of his inability to
function in an infantry unit, applicant
went AWOL.
GEBALD FORD LIBRARY
Only about one percent of the military applicants went AWOL
from a combat zone, and very few of those cases involved
demonstrable cowardice. We estimate that only about one-
31
tenth of one percent of our applicants actually deserted
under fire.
(Case 3-80)
Applicant would not go into the field with
his unit, because he felt the new
commanding officer of his company was
incompetent. Applicant was nervous about
going out on an operation in which the
probability of enemy contact was high.
(His company was subsequently dropped onto
a hill where it engaged the enemy in
combat.) He asked to remain in the rear,
but his request was denied. Consequently,
he left the company area because, in the
words of his chaplain, "the threat of
death caused him to exercise his right of
self preservation." Applicant was
apprehended while traveling on a truck
away from his unit without any of his
combat gear.
Once a soldier arrived in Vietnam, he was less likely to
go AWOL. However, he was permitted to return to the United
States on emergency leave when appropriate. Also, he was
offered several days of "R&R" (rest and relaxation) at a
location removed from combat zones, and frequently outside
of Vietnam. It was on these sojourns outside of Vietnam
that some of our applicants went AWOL.
(Case 3-81)
Applicant was granted emergency leave from
Vietnam due to his father's impending
death. Applicant failed to return from
the leave.
Many military applicants served with distinction in
Vietnam. They fought hard and well, often displaying true
heroism in the service of their country. of those who
served in Vietnam, one in eight was wounded in action.
(Case 3-82)
While a medic in Vietnam, applicant (an
American Indian) received the Bronze Star
for Heroism because of his actions during
a night sweep operation. When his platoon
came under intense enemy fire, he moved
through a minefield under a hail of fire
to aid his wounded comrades. While in
Vietnam, he was made Squad Leader of nine
men, seven of whom (including himself)
were wounded in action. In addition to
his Bronze Star, he received the Army
Commendation Medal with Valor Device, the
Vietnam Service Medal with devices, the
Vietnam Campaign Medal, and the Combat
Medic's Badge.
Others experienced severe psychological trauma as a
result of their combat experiences; some applicants turned
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
to drugs.
(Case 3-83)
During his combat tour in Vietnam,
applicant's platoon leader, with whom he
32
shared a brotherly relationship, was
killed while awakening applicant to start
his guard duty. He was mistaken for a
Viet Cong and shot by one of his own men.
This event was extremely traumatic to
applicant, who subsequently experienced
nightmares. In an attempt to cope with
this experience, he turned to the use of
heroin. After becoming an addict, he went
AWOL. During his AWOL, he overcame his
drug addition only to become an alcoholic.
After obtaining help and curing his
alcoholism, he turned himself in.
Still other applicants indicated that combat experience was
a source of personal fulfillment.
Applicant, who was drafted, was pleased
(Case 3-84)
by his assignment to Vietnam. He was
proud of his training and membership in a cohesive, elite
unit.
of the military applicants who served in Vietnam, almost
half had volunteered either for Vietnam service, for Combat
action, or for an extended Vietnam tour. They enjoyed the
close companionship of combat situations and felt a sense of
accomplishment from doing a difficult job well. Some
applicants went AWOL because of their inability to extend
their tour in Vietnam.
(Case 3-85)
While in Vietnam, applicant tried to
extend his tour, but his request was never
answered. He was told much later that he
would have to wait until he returned
stateside. After he did, he was told that
he could not return, so he went AWOL. He
had derived satisfaction from his work in
Vietnam because he was respected and found
the atmosphere close and friendly.
In contrast, combat experience for other applicants
produced a sense of uneasiness about the cause for which
they were fighting.
(Case 3-86)
Applicant was successfully pursuing his
military career until he served in
Cambodia assisting the Khmer Armed Forces.
He began to question the legality and
morality of Army operations in Cambodia.
This resulted in disillusionment and led
to his AWOL offense.
Our Vietnam veteran applicants frequently experienced
severe readjustment problems upon returning to the United
States. Almost all of them (23% of all military applicants)
FORD
went AWOL after returning from their Vietnam tour of duty.
This "combat fatigue" or "post-Vietnam syndrome" was partly
the result of the incessant stress of life in combat. The
GERALD
LIBRARY
Clemency Board found that six percent of all military
applicants suffered from mental stress caused by combat.
33
(Case 3-87)
After returning from two years in Vietnam,
applicant felt that he was on the brink of
a nervous breakdown. He went AWOL from
his duty station, telling his commander
that he was going home and could be
located there, if desired.
Two-fifths of the Vietnam veteran applicants (11% of all
military applicants) claimed to have experienced severe
personal problems as a result of their tour of duty. These
problems were psychological, medical, legal, financial, or
familial in nature. One-third of their psychological and
medical problems were permanent disabilities of some kind.
They often complained that they had sought help, received
none, and went AWOL as a consequence.
(Case 3-88)
(This is a continuation of the case of the
American Indian who received a Bronze Star
for Heroism). After applicant's return to
the United States from Vietnam, he asked
his commanding officer for permission to
see a chaplain and a psychiatrist. He
claimed that he was denied these rights,
so he decided to see his own doctor. He
was given a psychological examination and
was referred to a Veterans Administration
hospital. After a month of care, he was
transferred back to camp. He again sought
psychiatric care, but could find none.
Later, he was admitted to an Army
hospital. One examining psychiatrist
noted that he needed prompt and fairly
intensive short-term psychiatric care to
avert further psychological complications
from his war experience. His many
offenses of AWOL were due to the fact that
he felt a need for psychiatric treatment
but was not receiving it.
Our Vietnam veteran applicants frequently complained
that they had difficulty adjusting to the routine of
stateside duty which contrasted sharply with the more
demanding combat environment. Some adjustment problems may
have resulted from their injuries.
(Case 3-89)
After his return from Vietnam, applicant
was frustrated over his inability to
perform his occupational specialty as a
light vehicle driver due to his injuries.
His work was limited to details and other
menial and irregular activity. He began
to feel "like the walls were closing in on
(him) " so he went AWOL.
Unfortunately, other soldiers who had never seen combat
FORD
experience were sometimes unfriendly to our applicants who
had, adding to the combat veteran's readjustment problems.
LIBRARY
(Case 3-90)
While in Vietnam, applicant saw much
combat action and received numerous
decorations. He was an infantryman and
34
armor crewman who served as a squad and
team leader. He participated in six
combat campaigns, completed two tours in
Vietnam, and received the Bronze Star for
heroism. In one battle, he was wounded --
and all of his fellow soldiers were
killed. His highest rank was staff
sergeant. Upon his return from Vietnam,
he went AWOL because of harassment from
fellow servicemen that he was only a "rice
paddy NCO" who would not have earned his
rank if not for the war.
Veterans of other wars usually came home as national
heroes. The Vietnam veteran, however, was sometimes greeted
coolly. Some Vietnam Veteran applicants were disappointed
by the unfriendly reception they were given by their friends
and neighbors. Many, deeply committed to the cause for
which they had been fighting, were unprepared to return home
to an America in the midst of divisive controversy over the
war.
(Case 3-91)
Applicant received a Bronze Star and
Purple Heart in Vietnam. He wrote the
following in his application for clemency:
"While in Vietnam, I didn't notice much
mental strain, but it was an entirely
different story when I returned. I got
depressed very easily, was very moody, and
felt as if no one really cared that I
served their country for them. And this
was very hard to cope with, mainly because
while I was in Vietnam I gave it 100%. I
saw enough action for this life and
possibly two or three more. I hope that
someone understands what I was going
through when I returned."
(Case 3-92)
On his return from combat in Vietnam,
applicant found it difficult to readjust
to stateside duty. He was shocked by the
civilian population's reaction to the war
and got the feeling he had been wasting
his time.
AWOL Offenses
By going AWOL, our military applicants committed at
least one of three specific military offenses: Desertion,
AWOL, and Missing Movement. (See Chapter 2-B.) of the
three, desertion was the most serious offense. To commit
desertion, a soldier had to be convicted of shirking
important service (the most serious form of desertion),
departing with the intent to avoid hazardous duty, or
departing with the intent to remain away permanently.
Though the military service administratively classified most
GERALD FORD LIBRART
of our applicants as deserters, usually because they were
gone for periods of excess of 30 days, only nine percent
were convicted of the offense of desertion. Desertion
35
convictions were infrequent because of the difficulty in
proving intent.
A soldier could be convicted for missing movement when
he failed to accompany his unit aboard a ship or aircraft
for transport to a new position. Only one percent of the
military applicants were convicted for missing movement.
The majority -- 90% -- were punished for AWOL. AWOL was
the easiest form of authorized absence to prove. Where the
evidence did not establish the intent element of desertion,
a military court could still return a finding of AWOL.
Military applicants went AWOL from different
assignments, for different reasons, and under a variety of
circumstances. As described earlier, seven percent left
from basic training, ten percent from advanced individual
training, seven percent because of assignment to Vietnam,
three percent from Vietnam, and one percent from Vietnam
leave, two percent went AWOL from overseas assignments in
countries other than Vietnam, 23% from post-Vietnam
stateside duty, and 52% from other stateside duty.
As a criminal offense, AWOL is peculiar to the military.
If a student leaves his school, he might be expelled. If an
employee leaves his job, he might be fired and suffer from a
loss of income. But if a serviceman leaves his post, he
might not only be fired, but also criminally convicted,
fined, or imprisoned. These extra sanctions are necessary
-- especially in wartime -- to maintain the level of
discipline vital to a well-functioning military. Desertion
in time of Congressionally-declared war carries a possible
death penalty, and of the offenses committed by many of our
applicants could have brought them long periods of
confinement. Such swift, certain, and severe penalties are
necessary to deter military misconduct. They can be
literally a matter of life and death in the face of enemy
fire.
In light of this, why did all of the military applicants
go AWOL? Almost 4,000 were Vietnam combat veterans, yet
they risked -- and lost -- many privileges and veterans
benefits as a result of their offenses.
Though the general public has frequently assumed that
many unauthorized absences during the Vietnam era were
motivated by conscientious opposition to the war, less than
five percent of the military applicants went AWOL primarily
because of an articulated opposition to the war. 30
(Case 3-93)
Applicant decided he could not
conscientiously remain in the Army, and he
went to Canada where he worked in a
civilian hospital. Prior to his
discharge, applicant stated: "In being
part of the Army, I am filled with guilt.
That guilt comes from the death we bring,
the tremendous ecological damage we do,
GERÄLD, FORD LIBRARY
the destruction of nations, the uprooting
of whole families, plus the millions of
dollars wasted each year on scrapped
36
projects and absue of supplies. I am as
guilty as the man who shoots the civilian
in his village. My being part of the Army
makes me as guilty of war crimes as the
offender."
An additional two percent went AWOL to avoid serving in
combat, and ten percent left because they did not like the
military. In some cases, these reasons may have implied an
unarticulated opposition to the war. Thus, anywhere from
five percent to 17% of the military applicants offenses may
have fit a very broad definition of opposition to the war or
the military. However, few of the additional 12% offered
any evidence of conscientious objection to war.
(Case 3-94)
Applicant left high school at age 16 due
to poor grades and disinterest. He was
inducted, but after one week of basic
combat training, he went AWOL. Though he
was not discharged until two years later,
he only accumulated 18 days of creditable
service.
A small but significant two percent of our applicants
went AWOL because of post-combat psychological problems.
(Case 3-95)
Applicant went AWOL because he was
"disturbed and confused" upon returning
from Vietnam. He described himself as
"restless" and "really weird, enjoying
killing and stuff life that." During his
AWOL, he states that he was totally
committed to Christ and the Ministry.
In some instances, an applicant's actions seemed beyond
his reasonable control.
(Case 3-96)
Applicant participated in seventeen combat
operations in Vietnam. He was medically
evacuated because of malaria and an acute
drug-induced brain syndrome. He commenced
his AWOL offenses shortly after he was
released from the hospital. Since his
discharge, applicant has either been
institutionalized or under constant
psychiatric supervision.
Approximately 13% of the military applicants left the
military because of denied requests for hardship leave,
broken promises for occupational assignments and improper
enlistment practices, or other actions by their superiors
which they did not like.
(Case 3-97)
Applicant enlisted for the specific
purpose of learning aircraft maintenance,
but instead was ordered to artillery
FORD LIBRARY
school. When he talked with his
commanding officer about this, he was told
that the Army needed him more as a
fighting man. He later went AWOL.
37
(Case 3-98)
Applicant, a Marine Corps Sergeant with
almost ten years of creditable military
service, several times requested an
extension of his tour in Okinawa to permit
him time to complete immigration paperwork
for his Japanese wife and child. His
requests were denied. Upon return to the
United States, he requested leave for the
same purpose. He was unable to obtain
leave for five months; it was finally
granted after he sought help from a
Senator. Applicant relates that his
superior officer warned him, before he
went on leave, that "he was going to make
it as hard for him as he could" when he
returned, because he had sought the
assistance of a Senator.
Some may have committed their offenses because of their
basic unfitness for military service at the time of their
enlistment.
(Case 3-99)
Applicant had a Category IV AFQT score.
He went AWOL because he was apparently
unaware of the existence of the Army drug
abuse program. The corrections officer at
the civilian prison where he is
incarcerated believes that applicant's
retardation, while borderline, makes it
impossible for him to obey rules and
regulations.
Sixteen percent committed their offenses because of
personal problems -- usually medical or psychological in
nature. Half of their problems were related to the use
alcohol or drugs.
(Case 3-100)
Applicant started drinking at age 13 and
was an excessive user of alcohol.
Awaiting court-martial for one AWOL
offense, he escaped but soon returned
voluntarily. He claimed that his escape
was partly the result of his intoxication
from liquor smuggled in by another
detainee. A psychiatrist described him as
emotionally unstable and unfit for
military service.
The bulk of the military applicants (41%) committed
their offenses because of family problems. Sometimes these
problems were severe, and sometimes not.
(Case 3-101)
Applicant commenced his absence from a
leave status because of his father's
failing health and his mother's poor
economic prospects. He had applied twice
for hardship discharges before his
offense. While applicant was AWOL his
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
father died of a stroke. His mother was
left with a pension of $22 a month. In
38
addition, she was a polio victim and
unable to work.
(Case 3-102)
Applicant had been granted leave so he
could be with his wife and newborn child,
but he remained home in AWOL status.
Finally, 12% of our sample of applicants went AWOL for
reasons of immaturity, boredom, or just plain selfishness.
These tended to be people who could not, or would not,
adjust to military life.
(Case 3-103)
As a youth, applicant experienced numerous
conflicts with his parents and ran away
from home on several occasions. He joined
the Army because there was "nothing else
to do" in the rural community in which he
was raised. Applicant had difficulty
adjusting to the regimentation of Army
life, and he went AWOL four times.
Some applicants offered bizarre excuses for their
offenses.
(Case 3-104)
Applicant states he was traveling across
the Vietnamese countryside with another
soldier, when they were captured by the
Viet Cong. He claimed that he was a
prisoner-of-war for two months before he
finally escaped and returned, 30 pounds
lighter and in rags, to his unit. His
unit commander did not believe his story,
and his defense counsel advised him to
plead guilty to AWOL at his court-martial.
Military applicants typically went AWOL three times.
Over four-fifths went AWOL more than once. They were around
nineteen or twenty when they committed their first offenses,
and twenty or twenty-one when they committed their last
offenses. Their first offense usually occurred around 1968-
1970, and their last around 1969-71. Typically, their last
AWOLs were their longest, lasting seven months. One-fourth
(25%) were AWOL for three months or less, and 27% were AWOL
for over one year. Only three percent were AWOL for more
than four years.
(Case 3-105)
Applicant's military records reflect a
series of unauthorized absences, the
longest amounting to five years and five
months, with only one month's creditable
service.
At the time of their last AWOL, military applicants had
typically accumulated fourteen months of creditable military
service time; 81% had six months or more of creditable
service, enough to qualify them for veterans benefits. Only
one percent used any force to effect their escape from the
military.
FORD & LIBRARY
39
Experiences as Fugitives
Over three-quarters (76%) either returned to military
control immediately or settled in their hometowns under
their own names. Most carried on life just as they had
before they joined the service. Another 13% settled openly
in the United States, and six percent settled in the foreign
country where they had been assigned (often Germany). Only
five percent became fugitives: two percent in Canada, two
percent in other foreign countries (often Sweden), and one
percent in the United States.
(Case 3-106)
Applicant went back to his old job after
going AWOL. He never changed his name or
tried to conceal his identity.
While AWOL, most applicants (81%) were employed full-
time. Only 8% were unemployed. Often they worked in jobs
in which they would have been fired, lost their union
membership, or had their trade license revoked if their AWOL
status had been known.
(Case 3-107)
During his AWOL, applicant found
employment as a tile and carpet installer.
He became a union member in that trade.
During his AWOL period, applicant worked
as a carpenter to support his sister's
family. Later, he worked as a security
guard.
Slightly over half (52%) of the military applicants were
arrested for their last AWOL offenses. Some efforts were
made to apprehend AWOL soldiers, but those efforts were
startlingly ineffective. Normally, an AWOL offender's
commanding officer sent a letter to his address of record
within ten days of his absence. In addition, he would
complete a form, "Deserter Wanted by the Armed Forces,"
which went to the military police, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, and, eventually, to the police in the
jurisdiction of the soldier's home of record.
Either the local police never received these bulletins
about AWOL offenders, or they were unwilling to arrest them.
We had countless applicants who lived openly at home for
years until they surrendered or were apprehended by accident
(for example, through a routine police check after running a
red light). In some cases, an applicant's family was not
even notified of his AWOL status.
(Case 3-108)
Applicant had a duty assignment at a
military office in Germany. He
experienced a great deal of tension,
frustration, and restlessness, culminating
in a feeling one day that he "couldn't
face" going to work. He remained at his
off-post home during his AWOL. His office
made no effort to contact his wife during
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
the entire period of his AWOL. He drank
heavily, became anxiety-ridden, and
40
concealed his AWOL status from his wife by
feigning to go to work each morning. He
was eventually apprehended when his wife,
concerned over his strange behavior,
called his office to ask his co-workers if
they knew what was wrong with him. They
had not seen him in months.
Return to Military Control
Upon returning to military control, military applicants
had to face some form of disciplinary action. Some (14%)
faced other charges in addition to AWOL or desertion. In
all cases, their last AWOL offenses resulted in their
discharge under other than honorable conditions. Other AWOL
offenders were more fortunate. They received more lenient
treatment and later were discharged under honorable
conditions. About 22% of our applicants had records
reflecting at least one period of unauthorized absence with
no record of punishment.
Upon their return to military control, most of our Army
applicants in the Army who were AWOL for over thirty days
were processed through a Personnel Control Facility. Life
at these minimum-security facilities was not always easy for
them.
(Case 3-109)
Applicant voluntarily surrendered at an
Army post near his home town. He found
conditions in the Personnel Control
Facility intolerable due to the absence of
regular work, the prevalence of crime, and
the continued lack of regular pay. He
went AWOL again one week later.
While in the Personnel Control Facility, our applicants
were processed for administrative or court-martial action.
Also, it was here that the decision was made, in appropriate
cases, to place some of them returning offenders in more
secure pre-trial confinement. At the outset, they were
briefed by a military attorney who advised them generally
what disciplinary actions to expect. They were told about
their opportunity to request a discharge in lieu of court-
martial.
Administrative Discharges
Some first offenders were quickly re-integrated into
military life. Others faced more uncertainty about their
fates. They had to decide, in most instances, whether to
proceed to trial or accept an administrative discharge. The
decision to go to trial usually carried the risks of
conviction, a period of confinement, and perhaps a punitive
discharge. On the other hand, a court-martial did not
FORD : LIBRARY
always lead to discharge: a convicted soldier might be
returned to active duty, thereby given an opportunity to
complete his enlistment (extended by the amount of time he
41
was AWOL and in confinement). Even if a punitive discharge
had been adjudged, a return to duty was frequently permitted
if an individual demonstrated rehabilitative potential while
confined. In fact, over half (54%) of the first courts-
martial for AWOL faced by our applicants resulted in their
return to their units. They would have received a discharge
under honorable conditions, with entitlement to veterans'
benefits, if no further problems had developed. However,
they were unable to make the most of their second chances.
(Case 3-110)
Applicant was convicted for four periods
of AWOL totaling one year and two months.
He had an exemplary record for valor in
Vietnam. The convening authority
suspended the punitive discharge adjudged
by his court-martial. The discharge was
reimposed, however, after he failed to
return from leave granted him following
his court-martial.
Our applicants' decisions to accept administrative
discharges in lieu of trial amounted to a waiver of trial, a
virtual admissions of guilt, and discharges under less than
honorable conditions. However, the administrative process
was speedier, permitting rapid return home to solve personal
problems. It also involved no risk of imprisonment and no
Federal criminal conviction. However, it did impose a
stigmatized discharge. Recipients of administrative
discharges also los an opportunity to defend charges against
them. Thus, the choices between administrative discharge
and court-martial was very difficult. 31
If our applicant had established what his commander felt
was a pattern of misconduct, the commander might decide that
he was no longer fit for active duty. This usually resulted
in an Undesirable Discharge for Unfitness. 32
(Case 3-111)
Applicant was discharged for unfitness due
to repeated AWOL, frequent use of drugs,
habitual shirking, and the inability to
conform to acceptable standards of
conduct.
The commander would then notify the soldier of his
intention to discharge him. The soldier could then choose
to fight the action by demanding a board of officers. If he
asked for the board, the convening authority would then
detail at least three officers to hear the evidence, as
presented by the government and as rebutted by the soldier
and his assigned military defense counsel. The board was
then authorized to determine whether the soldier was either
unfit or unsuitable for further military duty, if it
believed he should be discharged. It could also recommend
his retention in the Service. If the Board found the
soldier unsuitable, the normal recommendation would be
discharge under honorable conditions. A discharge under
honorable conditions was also possible if unfitness were
found, but the usual result in such a case was to recommend
FORD LIBRARY
an undesirable discharge. Once the board made its
recommendations, the convening authority had to make a final
decision.
42
The choice between a discharge for unsuitability
(usually a General Discharge) and a discharge for unfitness
(usually an Undesirable Discharge) affected an AWOL
offender's reputation and eligibility for veterans' benefits
for the rest of his life. The decision was based upon a
serviceman's whole record. The rule-of-thumb often applied
was that an Unsuitable discharge went to a soldier "who
would if he could, but he can't"--in other words, to someone
with a psychological problem or lack of mental ability. An
Unfitness Discharge went to a soldier with more than an
attitude problem, "who could if he would, but he won't. "
However, each military base set its own criteria for
Administrative Discharges.
(Case 3-112)
Applicant was under consideration for an
unsuitability discharge. A military
psychiatrist indicated that he suffered
from a character and behavior disorder
characterized by "impulsive, escape-type
behavior" and "unresolved emotional needs
marked by evasion of responsibility."
Because of this diagnosis of a severe
character and behavior disorder, he
expected a General Discharge. Shortly
before his discharge, a racial disruption
occurred in his company, in which
applicant took no part. This disruption
led to the rescission of a lenient
discharge policy at his military base, and
applicant was given an Undesirable
Discharge for Unfitness.
The more common administrative procedure, accounting for
the discharge of 45% of our applicants, was the "For the
Good of the Service" discharge, given in lieu of court
martial. This discharge was granted only at the request of
a soldier facing trial for an offense for which a punitive
discharge could be adjudged. Until recently, it did not
require an admission of guilt, but it did require that the
AWOL offender waive his right to court-martial and
acknowledge his willingness to accept the disabilities of a
discharge under other than honorable conditions. Unlike our
applicants, a few AWOL offenders received General Discharges
through "Good of the Service" proceedings in lieu of court-
martial, because their overall records were satisfactory.
AWOL offenders did not have a right to a discharge in
lieu of court-martial; they could only make such a request.
To qualify, the AWOL for which they were facing trial had to
range between 30 days and a year and a half, depending on
the standards set by the court-martial convening authorities
at the bases where the AWOL offenders returned to military
control.
(Case 3-113)
Applicant was AWOL twice, for a total
absence of almost one year and two months.
He applied twice for a discharge in lieu
of court-martial for his AWOLS, but both
FORD & LIBRARY CERALD
requests were denied.
43
Some applicants returned from their AWOLs with the
expectation that they would receive "Good-of-the-Service"
discharges, freeing them from further military
responsibilities.
(Case 3-114)
Applicant wrote that he "looked around"
for ways to deal with his personal
pressures and finally decided to go AWOL.
After three months living in a commune, he
returned with the expectation he would be
discharged. He received a discharge in
lieu of court-martial.
A few indicated that they went AWOL specifically to
qualify for an Undesirable Discharge in lieu of court-
martial.
(Case 3-115)
After his third AWOL, applicant requested
a "Good-of-the-Service" discharge in lieu
of court-martial. It was denied, and he
then went AWOL three more times. He told
an interviewing officer after his sixth
AWOL that he had gone AWOL in order to
qualify for a discharge in lieu of court-
martial.
AWOL offenders who qualified for a discharge in lieu of
court-martial rarely chose to face trial. The desire was
often strong to leave the Personnel Control Facility or get
out of pre-trial confinement. If a soldier was granted a
discharge in lieu of court-martial, he was usually allowed
to leave confinement within one week after his application.
One to two months later, he was given his discharge.
Occasionally, our applicants claimed that they went home
expecting to receive a General Discharge, only to get an
Undesirable Discharge. While it was a permissible practice
in the Army prior to 1973 for an accused to condition his
request for discharge in lieu of trial upon his being
granted a General Discharge under honorable conditions, this
was rarely granted. In order to speed the discharge
application, many soldiers requested discharge, acknowledged
that they might be given an Undesirable Discharge, but
requested that they be furnished a General Discharge in a
separate statement. This may account for the
misunderstanding by some applicants as to the discharge they
would receive.
(Case 3-116)
Applicant's last AWOL ended in a 30-day
pre-discharge confinement, during which he
refused to accept a nonjudicial punishment
for his offense. He alleged that his
sergeant told him that if he did not sign,
he would be unable to see anyone about his
problem. He further alleged that he was
promised nothing more severe than a
General Discharge, so he signed the
GERALE FORD LIBRARY
papers. Later, he discovered that he was
given an Undesirable Discharge. He
appealed his discharge before the Army
Discharge Review Board, but he was
unsuccessful.
44
Applicants who received discharges in lieu of trial
generally were those whose last AWOL ended between 1971 and
1973. Their likelihood of receiving such discharges was
greater if their AWOL had been no more than one year in
length.
Table 5 and Table 6 describe the relative effects of "year
of discharge" and "length of last AWOL" on the type of
discharge received by our applicants.
TABLE 5: TYPE OF DISCHARGE VERSUS YEAR OF DISCHARGE
1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973
UD-in lieu of
court-martial:
3%
1%
11%
37%
34%
67%
62%
56%
UD-Unfitness:
26%
25%
27%
19%
10%
12%
6%
12%
Punitive Dis-
charge via
court-martial: 71%
74%
62%
54%
56%
21%
32%
32%
TABLE 6: TYPE OF DISCHARGE VERSUS LENGTH OF AWOL
0-6 months 7-12 months Over 12 months
UD - In lieu of
court-martial:
50%
45%
36%
UD - Unfitness:
21%
10%
7%
Punitive Discharge
via court-martial:
29%
45%
57%
Over half (51%) of the AFQT Category IV applicants
received discharges in lieu of court-martial compared to 44%
of our Category II and III applicants and only 32% of our
Category I applicants. Blacks were about as likely as
whites to receive discharges in lieu of court-martial (46%
versus 44%), but Spanish-speaking soldiers were much more
likely to receive them (66%).
Trials By Court-Martial
Frequently, the military insisted that AWOL offenders
face court-martial for their offenses. Less often, the
offenders themselves applicants themselves made such a
FORD i LIBRARY 074839
request. In a court-martial, they had greater opportunity
to deny or explain all charges brought against them, with
benefit of counsel and with full advance knowledge of the
prosecution's case. They also faced the threat of punitive
45
discharge and imprisonment. An accused soldier enjoyed at
least as many rights at trial as an accused civilian.
Usually, his court-martials took place very promptly, with
pre-trial delays (and confinement or residence at the
Personnel Control Facility) limited to two or three months
at most.
There were three forms of court-martial. The Summary
Court-Martial consisted of a hearing officer who called
witnesses for the prosecution and defense, rendered a
verdict, and adjudged sentence. The Summary Court adjudged
no sentence greater than confinement at hard labor for one
month, hard labor without confinement for 45 days, reduction
to the lowest enlisted pay grade, and forfeiture of two-
thirds of one month's pay. After 1971, no confinement could
be adjudged unless the accused were represented by
counsel. 33 No transcript of the trial was kept, and there
was no judicial review. However, a Summary Court-Martial
was never convened without the express consent of the
accused, who could refuse the court and leave to the
convening authority the decision whether to refer the
charges to a higher court. Altogether, 16% of our
applicants faced a Summary Court-Martial at least once.
The 54% of our applicants who faced a Special Court-
Martial were tried by a court of officers, unless the
accused specifically requested that at least one-third of
the court be from enlisted ranks. After 1969, a military
judge normally presided over the trial, and the accused was
entitled to request that the military judge alone hear the
case and adjudge sentence. In the absence of a military
judge, the senior member of the court of officers (the
President of the Court) presided over the trial. The
Special Court could adjudge no sentence greater than
confinement at hard labor for six months, two-thirds
forfeiture of pay for six months, reduction to the lowest
enlisted pay grade, and a Bad Conduct Discharge. of our
applicants tried by a Special Court, 50% received a Bad
Conduct Discharge. The other half were returned to their
units.
The 13% of our applicants who were tried by a General
Court-Martial faced a possible sentence of up to 5 years
imprisonment, a Dishonorable Discharge, and total forfeiture
of pay and allowances. The composition and procedures of
General Courts-Martial were similar to those of Special
Courts-Martial. of our applicants tried by a General Court,
99% were ordered discharged, almost all (85%) with a Bad
Conduct Discharge.
After 1969, AWOL offenders facing Special or General
Court-Martial were entitled to free military defense
counsel, who could be requested by name. They also could
secure a civilian attorney, but at their own expense.
Official military rules of evidence were followed and a
verbatim record of trial was required if punitive discharge
was adjudged. Those who were punitively discharged had
GERALD 1188441 GERALD R. FORD
their cases reviewed for errors of law by a military
attorney responsible to the court-martial convening
authority. They were further reviewed for errors of fact or
law by a Court of Military Review, Boards of Review,
46
Few of our applicants expressed objections to the
fairness of their trials, but some complaints were heard.
(Case 3-117)
Applicant, a Vietnam veteran, sustained an
eye injury (probably in Vietnam) which
caused his retina to become detached. He
is now nearly blind in one eye. At his
trial, his counsel attempted to introduce
the testimony of his attending
ophthalmologist to prove that he absented
himself to obtain medical treatment, not
to desert. The military judge refused to
admit the ophthalmologist's testimony in
the absence of independent evidence of its
relevancy. The Judge's decision was
upheld on appeal.
Altogether, 40% of our applicants stood Special or
General Court-Martial for their last AWOL offense. of
those, about 16% pled "not guilty." All were convicted, and
all but a few received punitive discharges. They were
further sentenced to pay forfeitures, reduction-in-rank, and
imprisonment, typically for seven months. Their sentences
were often reduced through the automatic review of a Court
of Military Review. Court-martialed applicants' final
sentences averaged five months, with only three percent
having to serve more than one year in prison.
Prison Experiences
Sentences under 30 days were usually served at the post
stockade. Convicted but undischarged AWOL offenders
sentenced to more than one month of imprisonment were
transferred to such correctional facilities as the Army
Retraining Brigade. Efforts were made to rehabilitate
offenders and enable them to complete his military service
successfully. However, many were habitual offenders. For
others, military life became even more difficult after
confinement.
(Case 3-118)
As the result of a two-month AWOL,
applicant was convicted by a summary
court-martial and sentenced to
confinement. After his release and return
to his former unit, he was constantly
harassed, ridiculed, and assigned to
demeaning work. He found this
intolerable, and he went AWOL again.
Those who were pending punitive discharges or had
received lengthy sentences were sent to confinement
facilities like the Disciplinary Barracks at Fort
GORALD FORD LIBHARI
Leavenworth, Kansas. Approximately 170 of our applicants
were still serving their terms when the President's Clemency
Program was announced. They were all released upon their
application for clemency.
47
Consequences of the Bad Discharge
All military applicants had one experience in common:
they all received bad discharges. Sixteen percent received
Undesirable Discharges for Unfitness, and 45% received
Undesirable Discharges in lieu of court-martial. Those who
faced court-martial and were sentenced to punitive
discharges received Bad Conduct Discharges (38%) or
Dishonorable Discharges (2%). In some states, a court-
martial conviction, particularly if it led to a discharge or
confinement over one year, incurs the same legal
disabilities as a felony conviction in the civilian courts.
Thus, some of our applicants lost their voting and property
rights and the opportunity to obtain certain licenses by
virtue of their punitive discharge.34
Civilian courts have taken judicial notice of the less-
than-honorable discharge, calling it "punitive in nature,
since it stigmatizes a serviceman's reputation, impedes his
ability to gain employment and is in life, if not in law,
prima facie evidence against a serviceman's character,
patriotism, or loyalty.
What was more important to military applicants was the
effect of a bad discharge on their ability to qualify for
veterans' benefits. Former servicemen with less than
honorable discharges are denied such veterans' benefits as
educational assistance, hospital and home health care,
pensions to widow and children, medical and dental care,
prosthetic devices, burial benefits, preference in
purchasing defense housing, and home, farm, and business
loans.
Perhaps the most important benefits lost are those
affecting employment opportunities, such as vocational
rehabilitation, Federal civil service preference, veterans'
re-employment benefits, and unemployment insurance benefits.
Most of our applicants were twenty to twenty-two years old
when they received their discharges. Many were looking for
their first full-time civilian job. Some were caught in a
downward spiral: they could not afford to train themselves
for a skilled job without veterans' benefits; employers
would not hire them for other jobs because of their
discharge; they then could not receive unemployment
compensation because of their discharge.
(Case 3-119)
Applicant was unable to go to accountant's
school without benefit of the GI Bill.
Finally, he found employment as a truck
driver for small trucking firms enabling
him to earn $70 per week. He could have
earned more with the larger trucking
companies, but they refused to hire him
because of his discharge.
FORD LIBRARY
(Case 3-120)
Applicant, a Vietnam veteran, was unable
to find work for his first month after
discharge because everyone insisted upon
knowing his discharge. He finally found
work as a painter but was laid off five
48
months later. Because of his discharge he
was denied unemployment benefits.
A number of studies have shown that employers
discriminate against former servicement who do not hold
Honorable Discharges. About 40% discriminate against
General Discharges, 60% against Undesirable Discharges and
70% against Bad Conduct or Dishonorable Discharges. Many
employers will not even consider an application from anyone
with less than an Honorable Discharge.36
The injury caused by the discharge under other than
Honorable Conditions is particularly acute in the case of
military applicants who served more than enough time to have
earned veterans' benefits, and who obtained Honorable
Discharges for the purpose of re-enlisting, but who received
bad discharges terminating their last period of enlistment.
In most cases, their bad discharges lost them the veterans'
benefits they had previously earned. Thirteen percent of
all military applicants had more than three years of
creditable service, and four percent had more than five
years.
(Case 3-121)
Applicant enlisted in the Marine Corps in
1961 and received his first Honorable
Discharge four months later, when he re-
enlisted for four years. He received his
second Honorable Discharge in 1965, and he
again re-enlisted. He received a third
Honorable Discharge in 1968 and again re-
enlisted. He had good proficiency and
conduct ratings (4.5), and he had attained
the rank of Sergeant E-5. He went AWOL
for 4-1/2 months in 1970 before receiving
a Bad Conduct Discharge in 1971. His
total creditable service was 9 years, 10
months, and 15 days.
Unfortunately, many military applicants had turned to crime.
At the time of their application, 12% of the military
applicants had been convicted of civilian felony offenses.
Seven percent were incarcerated for civilian offenses at the
time they had applied for clemency. Sometimes, their
civilian offenses resulted from their military experiences--
a drug habit developed in Vietnam, for example.
(Case 3-122)
Applicant served eight months in Vietnam
as a supply specialist before his
reassignment back to the United States.
His conduct and proficiency scores had
been uniformly excellent during his
Vietnam service. However, while in
Vietnam he became addicted to heroin. He
could not break his habit after returning
GERMLE FORD LIBRARY
stateside, and he began a series of seven
AWOL offenses as he "got into the local
drug scene.' Eventually, he "ran out of
money" and "had a real bad habit," so he
"tried to break into a store with another
guy that was strung out. He was arrested,
convicted for burglary, and given an
49
Undesirable Discharge for AWOL while on
bail.
of military applicants who are not incarcerated and whose
current employment status is known, six percent are in
school, 17% are unemployed, four percent are working part-
time, and the rest (73%) are working full time. Two-fifths
of those working full-time are in low-skilled jobs.
D. Non-Applicants
An estimated 113,300 persons could have applied for
clemency. Only 21,800 did apply. Who were the 91,500 who
did not? Why did they fail to apply? What happens to them
next?
Who Were They?
The following table identifies nonapplicants in a very
general sense:
TABLE : CHARACTERISTICS OF NON-APPLICANTS
Percentage
Total Number
Clemency
of
of
Program
Type of Applicants
Nonapplicants
Nonapplicants
PCB
Military-UD
87%
57,000
PCB
Military-BCD/DD
78%
19,400
PCB
Convicted Civilians
78%
6,800
DOD
Fugitive Servicemen
47%
4,500
DOJ
Fugitive civilians
84%
3,800
Total 81%
91,500
We know little more about their characteristics than
what this table shows. Discharged servicemen with
Undesirable Discharges were the least likely to apply, in
GLRALD FORD VIBRARY
terms of percentage and total numbers. This is probably
attributable to the fact that we mailed application
materials to eligible persons with Bad Conduct or
Dishonorable Discharges discharges, but were unable to do SO
for those with Undesirable Discharges. (See Chapter 2-E.)
The Department of Defense had access to the military
records of its eligible nonapplicants. Using these records,
it could make comparisons between its applicants and
50
eligible nonapplicants. In most ways, they were alike --
family background, AFQT score, education, type of offense,
and circumstances of offense. Only a few clear differences
could be found. Nonapplicants committed their offenses
earlier in the war, they were older, and they were more
likely to be married. This implies that many may not have
applied because their lives are settled, with their
discharges more a matter of past than present concern.
If the Department of Defense findings are correct -- in
other words, if nonapplicants are not very different from
applicants -- we can make some estimate as to how many draft
resisters of deserters ever were Canadian exiles. In our
program, 2% of our military applicants and 6% of our
civilian applicants had at one time been Canadian exiles.
In the Defense program, 2% had been Canadian exiles. Many
of the Department of Justice applicants may have been
Canadian exiles, but no official data exists. Extrapolating
from this data, it appears that, at most, 7,000 persons
eligible for clemency had ever been Canadian exiles. This
amounts to only 5% of all eligible individuals. However,
there may have been thousands more who fled to avoid the
draft, but for whom no indictments were ever issued.
At present, we estimate that about 4,000 persons are
still fugitives in Canada. Most are those who declined to
apply to the Department of Justice program. It is unlikely
that many of them misunderstood their eligibility for
clemency.
Throughout the Vietnam Era, there never had been any
tally -- even a partial tally -- of the number of war-
induced exiles. Some estimates were made, but they were
based upon very imperfect counting methods. For example,
figures of up to 100,000 were derived from the numbers of
files on American emigrants at aid centers. 37 Many emigrants
were not draft resisters or deserters, and many had files at
more than one center.
Why Did They Fail to Apply?
We can identify seven reasons why eligible persons did
not apply for clemency. We have listed them below in order
of the significance we attribute to each of them.
1. Unawareness of eligibility criteria. Despite our public
information campaign, many eligible persons may never have
GERALD FORD JOHNBI
realized that they could apply for clemency. Had we begun
our public information campaign earlier, or if the program
had been of longer duration, it is likely that even more
would have applied.
2. Settled status. Others may not have cared about the
kind of discharge they had, or they may have succeeded in
other endeavors since their convictions or discharges. They
may have wanted to avoid the risk that their employers
neighbors, or even families might find out about their past.
51
3. Misunderstanding about the offerings of the program.
Many prospective applicants may have been concerned about
the usefulness of a Clemency Discharge. Others may not have
known about the Presidential pardons given clemency
recipients who applied to our Board -- or they may not have
realized that our applicants were asked to perform an
average of only three months of alternative service.
4. Opposition to the Program by Interest Groups. Interest
groups on both sides of the clemency amnesty issue were not
cooperative in making accurate information available to
prospective applicants. Our media efforts were impaired by
demands for equal time by pro-amnesty groups. Some of the
latter discouraged eligible persons from applying.
5. Inability or unwillingness to perform alternative
service. Some individuals might have feared that if they
quit their jobs to perform alternative service, they would
not get them back later. Many fugitives in Canada had jobs
and homes there, with children in school, so they might have
seen two years of alternative service as more of a
disruption than they were willing to bear.
6. Personal opposition to the program. Some might have
felt, for reasons of conscience, that only unconditional
amnesty would be an acceptable basis for them to make peace
with the government.
7. General distrust of government. Unfortunately, some may
not have applied because they were afraid that, somehow,
they would only get in trouble by surfacing and applying for
clemency. Some might have been unsuccessful in pursuing
other appeals, despairing of any hope that a new appeal
would be of any help.
What Happens to Them Next?
Civilians convicted of draft offenses and former
servicemen discharged for AWOL offenses will have to live
with the stigma of a bad record. They still have the same
opportunities for appeal that existed before the President's
program -- principally through the United States Pardon
Attorney and the military discharge review boards -- but
their prospects for relief are, realistically, remote.
Military absentees still in fugitive status can
surrender themselves to civilian or military authorities.
They still face the possibility of court-martial, but it is
possible that many will quickly receive Undesirable
Discharges and be sent home.
CERALE FORD LIBRARY
Fugitive draft offenders can first inquire to learn
whether they are on the Department of Justice's list of 4522
indictments. If they are not, they are free from any
further threat of prosecution, unless they never registered
for the draft. If their names are on that list, they can
surrender to the United States Attorney in the district
where they committed their draft offense. They will then
probably stand trial for their offenses. Although there
have been exceptions, convicted draft offenders have been
52
recently sentenced to 24 months of alternative service and
no imprisonment. Nonetheless, they will still have a felony
conviction, involving a stigma and a loss of civil rights.
(y) FORD LIBRANY
53
END OF DOCUMENT Chapter 3
LINES PRINTED 02940
PAGES 0055
CUSTOMER a2220 OPERATOR 001
222 001 Chapter 3
FORD
LIBRARY