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
18558977
label
Memoranda - Internal (3)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
18558977
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Memoranda - Internal (3)
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
18558977
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-08-31
month
8
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1974-09-01
month
9
year
1974
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
4f4c6f5e97f9443a
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 7, folder "Memoranda - Internal (3)" of the
Charles E. Goodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Charles Goodell donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 7 of the Charles E. Goodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
at
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
August 1, 1975
MEMORANDUM
GERALD
TO
: All Hands
FROM : Lawrence M. Baskir mB
At the Full Board meeting on the morning of July 31, 1975, several
board members brought to my attention areas of uncertainty in the
preparation of cases. Please conform your preparation and
presentation of cases to the following:
1. Mitigating factor #3 is marked for drug addiction, but not
for drug use.
2. "VCM" in the list of decorations means "Vietnam Campain Medal",
and not "Vietnam Commendation Medal." It is neither an award
for valor nor a unit citation (Mit. #14 & 15).
3. Vietnamese decorations:
A. The Vietnam Cross of Gallantry (with palm) is a personal
decoration, awarded by the Vietnamese government and
approved by the U.S. Government. This medal is not
listed on the Awards Chart since it is a Vietnamese medal,
although it may be awarded to an American serviceman (Mit. #15).
B. The Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation (which
has a palm and a metal border) is also awarded by the
Vietnamese government, but it is not a personal decoration.
It is (obviously) a unit citation (Mit #14).
4. Creditable time for a former serviceman does not include
periods spent attending weekly or monthly meetings of an active
duty reserve unit. It does include any periods of active
duty for training (ACDUTRA) such as the initial training
period, the two week summer camp, or any period of active duty
of two weeks or longer which occurred during the reserve
obligation (Mit. #6).
5. Unexecuted discharges from Special Court Martial:
A. If an applicant was awarded a suspended (unexecuted)
punitive discharge by Special Courtmartial, subsequently
went AWOL, and then the suspended discharge was imposed,
there was no "Other adult conviction" and Aggravating
Factor #1 is inapplicable. Aggravating Factor #7, violation
of probation or parole, is applicable, however. The question
of apprehension or voluntary submission is determined only
by the last AWOL. If the unexecuted discharge was for
an AWOL offense, then that period of abserce should be
counted towards the length of AWOL (Agg #9).
page 2
B. If an applicant was awarded a suspended punitive discharge
by Special Courtmartial, but for a subsequent AWOL he was
given an Undesirable Discharge, then Aggravating Factor
#1 is applicable, along with Aggravating Factor #7. The
last AWOL again determines submission or apprehension; if
the unexecuted discharge was for an AWOL offense, that
period of absence should not be counted towards the
length of AWOL (Agg #9), but towards multiple AWOLs (Agg. #8)
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
August 1, 1975
MEMORANDUM
GERALD
TO:
All Team Leaders and Asst. Team Leaders
FROM:
Chuck Hilbert
Assistant General Counsel
GU
SUBJECT:
Reconsideration of cases by Board resulting from new
relevant information submitted by applicant
My team is now receiving all PCB correspondence from applicants. Most of
the correspondence is in reference to case summaries. The correspondence is
reviewed to determine whether it is in any possible way relevant to the
decision reached by the Board. Relevance is taken to mean any information which
might have affected the marking of an "Ag" or "Mit" factor, or which might have
altered the term of alternative service assessed an applicant. If you have
received a communication from an applicant which might be relevant and his
case has been decided by the Board, the case must be stopped before the
Board's decision goes to the White House. Please bring all such corres-
pondence, as soon as possible, to Communications and Appeals, 2033 M St.,
7th Floor, see Gil Weidenfeld. We have a procedure to stop those cases that
may need to be re-presented. If you are uncertain if the correspondence
you have is relevant bring it to us for a determination.
Case writers on all teams will be contacted if relevant correspondence is
received for one of their cases.
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
TO:
LARRY BASKIR
COLONEL WILLIAM C. MCN DICKMAN
FROM:
DATE:
AUGUST 4, 1975
SUBJECT:
Minority Report to Director Pepitone
on Alternate Service
GERALD
Attached please find a copy of the Minority Report signed by:
General Lewis W. Walt
James P. Dougovito
Dr. Ralph Adams
Colonel Harry Riggs
Would you please include it in the General Board Report when you
send that along to Selective Service.
Also, I would appreciate receiving a copy of your report as soon
as you complete it.
Thanks.
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
August 4, 1975
is
FORD
Memorandum to: Lawrence M. Baskir
From: Bill Strauss
GERALD
Subject: Conversations with PCB Applicants
From July 31 through August 3, I traveled through Southwestern
Ohio, Southern Indiana, and Northern Kentucky, trying to find
persons whose cases had already been decided by the PCB and
announced by the President. This part of the country accounted
for 20 of the first 372 cases announced. All 20 were military
cases, about equally divided between immediate pardons and
pardons conditioned upon alternative service.
As we both expected, it was difficult to locate them. Out of
the 20, I was only able to meet with 7. The following is the
breakdown:
7 - person-to-person meetings with applicants
2 - person-to-person meetings with applicants'
spouses or girl friends
3 - telephone contact with applicants' families,
with future telephone contact with the
applicants themselves now possible
2 - no contact, but confirmation from neighbors
that the address was correct
4 - applicants had moved, leaving no forwarding
address
2 - applicant had given the PCB a non-existent
address
Some summary statistics are of interest. 10/20 lived in cities
(Dayton, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, and Lexington), with the rest
living in small towns or on farms. 18/18 are living in either
total or near poverty; 8/9 have had problems getting or holding
jobs. 3/9 have been in trouble with the law since their clemency
application; 11/18 have moved at least once since their clemency
application (i.e., since September or October).
In general, they were either of a disadvantaged background or
downwardly mobile. They were barely articulate, with a limited
educational background. Their one strong point was their close
family tie -- with wives, parents, and others. In most cases,
I could easily see how family problems could lead them to go AWOL.
-- 2 --
Almost everyone with whom I spoke considered the military to have
been fair before they (or their husbands, etc.) returned from
their AWOL offenses. Two noteworthy exceptions: One applicant
went AWOL partly because of racism at an Army base, and another
(who opposed the Vietnam War) went AWOL partly because the Army
broke an alleged promise not to send him to combat. All but
one were bitter about the military's treatment of their offense;
in part, their bitterness was a reflection of their disdain for
those who escaped confinement altogether because of the clemency
program.
The major motivation for applying for clemency was about equally
split between regaining at least some veterans benefits and
restoring one's good name. Almost all found out about the
clemency program either during confinement at Ft. Leavenworth
or shortly after confinement, through correspondence from
counselors or attorneys at Ft. Leavenworth. Two applied out
of the blue, not knowing whether or not they were eligible,
but thinking they had nothing to lose by trying.
No one knew anything of the PCB's policies and procedures. They
did not know how the PCB was considering their case, nor did they
realize that they could get a Clemency Discharge and/or a pardon
by applying. Only one recalled having received his case summary,
but everyone did in fact recognize it when I showed it to him.
Only one (the same one) had a careful recollection of all corres-
pondence between the PCB and himself. By curious coincidence,
that same individual was the only one who had any third party
assistance during his application process (the manager of the
small company which employs him). The unanimous feeling about
our case summaries (which I had them re-read carefully) was
that they were complete, accurate, and fair. The few errors
identified by them were trivial.
Board delay did seem to be a problem. Some thought their case
had been forgotten. One tried to reach his action attorney but
was not called back. Almost all were surprised when they first
received word of their case disposition. Of greater consequence
is the fact that at least three (out of nine) felt that they
needed their disposition several months earlier to help them
apply for jobs denied them because of their bad discharges. The
most unfortunate of the three cases involved a sporadically
employed applicant who, just one week before we cabled the news
of his unconditional pardon to him, apparently committed an
armed robbery offense for which he is now in jail awaiting trial.
His grandmother received our cable but could not read it. County
jail officials would not let her show it to him. His trial is
scheduled for this week, and had I not told him, neither he nor
his sentencing judge would have known that he had been pardoned
for his military offenses.
-- 3 --
I contacted four persons (or families of persons) assigned to
alternative service employment. One had found a job and, with
Selective Service's permission, had moved out-of-state to begin
working. Two had contacted Selective Service and had begun
looking. The parents of the fourth were not sure what he had
done. It may be coincidence, but 5/6 of those who had left no
forwarding address or had given a wrong address were assigned
alternative service -- versus only 5/14 of those who had main-
tained clearer local ties. Given the problem of forwarding mail,
finding alternative service work, and staying on those jobs once
found, I would be surprised if more than 3 or 4 of the 10 indi-
viduals assigned alternative service ever will complete it and
earn their pardons. One small note of encouragement: 5/7 of
those contacted who had unconditional pardons said they would
have tried to do alternative service if that had been required
of them.
Most were pleased with their grants of clemency, once I explained
what they meant. They all considered it an improvement over what
they had and clearly worth the little effort they had put into
getting it. However, only a few were confident that it would
make more than a little bit of difference to them. The people
who seemed the most pleased were the applicants' families and
friends, so perhaps shyness or left-over bitterness was the
reason for their pessimism. Everyone was interested in pursuing
appeals with the VA and DRB when I explained to them that they
still had that option -- and that their pardon and clemency dis-
charge might improve their chances in subsequent appeals. Only
one had realized that he could do this before our conversation.
One curious note: The majority of the applicants had a strong
negative feeling about draft resisters. They felt it was unfair
for draft resisters to avoid going to jail when they had spent
time in jail themselves -- and they considered failing to give
the Army a try a much worse offense than leaving it after giving
it a "fair try." Generally, they thought it was all right to
include draft resisters who had spent time in jail, or those who
had not -- assuming the latter did alternative service. Therefore,
most were against uncoinditional amnesty. Their opinion about the
war was about 2 - 1 against it, but their opposition was less
ethical than political. Many did not see why they should fight
in a "politician's war" that meant nothing to them.
My major conclusion from the conversations is that the applicants
needed to have someone to describe the program's benefits to them.
Few understood that they had received a pardon and a new discharge.
Most were confused about what they should say on employment appli-
cation forms. No one knew what a pardon did for them, so they
perceived it as no more than a Presidential gesture. Only one
knew about his right to appeal for benefits or for a further
upgrade of his discharge. It was clear that they were much more
pleased with what they received after our talks. It is equally
-- 4
clear that they would not have known what to do with their grants
of clemency without some counseling. ,Their telegrams and letters
would have remained buried in shoeboxes, perhaps.
Unless ours is to be an intellectual exercise, a due process
gavotte in which we give applicants nothing with great style,
we should do something about this cognitive problem. I suggest
dance
that we begin discussions with the Veterans Administration about
having local VA officials contact all clemency recipients personally
after the program has ended (preferably during autumn of this year)
bue
to explain their grants of clemency and their further opportunities
to appeal for benefits or upgrades. This would involve some work
from our end --- counseling workshops, preparation of materials,
you
geographical sorting of applicants, etc. Some of this preparatory
work might have to be done after September 15.
konund
RECOMMENDATION: That we discuss plans for direct personal
contacts with PCB applicants, preferably to be done by
you "Banoth
the Veterans Administration.
YES
NO
OTHER not VA
RECOMMENDATION: That such plans include some carry-over PCB
staff to prepare materials, conduct workshops, and
coordinate the process.
YES
NO
OTHER
the to Bef. not
very
a
it
PCB
this
regord
word
of
&
malite.
Otherse
and
&
vebibka
youl
the description
o
Cogntive
mis
best
totally
the
BERALE B. FORD LIBRARY
8/5
Evelyn-
pill Straws told me
that Claudia told hein that
the is "essentially through with
alien mail." l told him that
nothing had yet feen feut out
(per Carolyn this morning). Have
you Deeu any thing (i.e. stacks
of letter) for CEG pignature?
pul them asked me who was typesing
it and I told him I
had no idea. .
GMH
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
August 6, 1975
FORD
GERALD
MEMORANDUM FOR:
CHARLES E. GOODELL
FROM:
LAWRENCE M. BASKIR
IMB
SUBJECT:
FULL BOARD RECONSIDERATION OF FLAGGED CASES
Sometime soon the Board should begin to hear the cases identified by the
staff and accepted by you as needing reconsideration because of an ap-
parent deviation in results.
In case you start the process while I'm in Montreal (as I hope you
will), let me give you my thoughts:
1) The cases should be mixed in with other Board member
flags from panels. These cases are no different, and
shouldn't be treated (or regarded) as different.
2) There should be a short presentation:
"This case seems off
"Here are factors, baseline, result, and why it seems off
"Short review of facts if desired."
3) Presentation should be done by you, at least at first. Then
we can have our special barrister team - led by Neil Broder -
take over the function.
4) Since these are deviation cases, no severe case could get
higher A/S; no lenient case should get less.
5) There are some lenient pardon cases. Despite my reputation as
a bleeding heart, and the painful looks on the staff, they
should go to the Board as "too lenient" for reasons of con-
sistency, Board dynamics, and justice - an overly lenient
result is not fair to other applicants with better facts and
worse results.
- 2 -
6) The lenient cases are in Batch 6 or 7. You should
sprinkle them liberally in the first clutch of cases
to the Board.
7) The list and memos I send to you should be distributed
to the whole membership. The referral of inconsistent
cases is not a prerogative only of the Chair. Other
members should have the benefit of this staff review.
(You could profit by spreading the onus of this function.
And the applicants profit by having others see their
cases).
8) In reprise, I think you should start this process now.
No case has ever yet been reheard by this process; and
some are very old.
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
August 7, 1975
Memorandum
To:
Chairman Charles Goodell
From:
Staff Attorney Edward H. Fitch
5.H.7.
Subject: Case No. 9553-CSW-M, Vietnam Veteran
Yesterday, August 6, 1975, the Full Board made a preliminary vote of 7 to
6 that an applicant who had committed a subsequent armed felony would not
be eligible for consideration to receive a Presidential Pardon for his
military service during the war era. Your vote indicated that you person-
ally could recommend a pardon if the gun the applicant used in the subse-
quent offense was not loaded.
While I believe reasonable men can indeed logically reach such a decision,
I personally cannot subscribe to the limited arguments the members present
articulated. Nor can I subscribe to the argument that because the offense
committed by this applicant is so serious, it forever bars the exercise of
executive clemency for his military service irrespective of his good conduct
and reform. Such a harsh unforgiving decision is foreign to our system of
reasonable, merciful justice.
I therefore strongly protest the decision in this case and hereby request
that you poll the entire membership of the Presidential Clemency Board on
this question.
In the event that you find that this case has been finally resolved by the
decision of yesterday, I request that my protest be made part of the record
which is forwarded to the President in this case.
Sanator,
FORD i LIBRARY 070830
8/11
General Walt has decided
it will not be necessary
for case attomay to present
panel. cases before the Special "UP"
I have so notified the
team leaders
Neil Broder will, however,
be setting in on the panel
dispositions counsel. as acting general
Jim Pool
FORD & 07V839 LIBRARY
8/11
Seuator Goodell-
The total number of late applications
is
167.
My 372 (or whatever) figure was
wrong because it included those who'd
applied late but who were also inelizible
for the program anyway (or at least
our part of it) and have been contten
accordingly.
The 167 will be pent a "sorry, to
late letter which Lany had put
approved for your figrature.
6mN
FORD & LIBRARY 07V835
8/12
Secector Goodell-
Before he left Lamy asked that
for review by you and him with the
the two communitation cases be pulled
auticipation that they would probably be
reheard by the full board.
here directly to you with the
for his absense I'm sending
that you either:
1
hold for LMB
2
pay to go-ahead and refer
to
a) Paul
b) fuel Board
in which care if you'll
return to me T'll fee that The Pool
Toby Sitiger and anybody else who
neede to know fuide gut about it
3
direct form other action
Commutation decision
for 1./23. both caree was made a
GMIS
K
at least I only know of two
AUG. 13, 1975
FOR
: BOB HORN
CED
art
FROM
: NANCY
SUBJECT
: DINNER TRIP OF EITHER AUG. 20 or 25th
PER
: TELEPHONE CONVERSATION BETWEEN NANCY AND
LIBRARY GERALD B. FORD
LT. COMMANDER O'BRIEN TODAY
He left the following information with me for you: (his no. 433-3673)
This afternoon he will deliver to you by messenger:
menus and maps
choice of menu is same for either day
40 guests if we choose buffet
22 guests if we choose sit-down dinner
names and titles must be furnished for all guests
menus must be returned NO LATER THAN MON. AM or better, by Friday, this week.
contact Lt. Beliech in O'Brien's absence, since he hopes to be on leave
starting later today for a few days
15- No REVIEW
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
J-FB - FB
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
August 18, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR CHARLES E. GOODELL
FROM: Toby Singer tgo
RE: Early cases on hold
The attached cases seem to have already been reviewed. Should I
go ahead and have the cases marked "FB" docketed for the Full
Board and release the others? There are other early cases which
have not yet been reviewed. They will go through the post-audit
process and I will send our recommendations to you.
LIBRARY FORD "y
GERALD
PCB# Atty
Decision
Board Date
Reason for Recomideration
/010-BSH-C Kodae
3mos A/S
2/6
stance hald
066 mk
u
V029-EKA-C Lohf
24mos. A/S
2/6
4
10107-BDI-m. fittle
12mo.A/s
12/12
12/12
@108-GRD-m- Channey
18mm A/S
V109-BSW-m Chenry
8 mm D/S
2/6
V.127.10mA:m Broder
6 ms A/S
12/12
V142- SDE-m Kodre
3 1000 A/s
2/6 released
65-BGL-m Broder
3,000 Als
1/9
V166-BCX-M Hickman
7 mos A/s
1/9
V178-CJE-m Broder
8 mos A/S
12/12
179-CCD-m Heitz
31000. Als
1/9
9180-CCA-M Robinson.
3 mm Als
2/4
3 mo Als
2/4
V190-DLB-M strans
sterrick
10 ins A/S
12/12
maye dissents
202-FFR-m Channy
9 mos. A/S
2/6
V213 - HMD - M Nickona
7mms. A/S
12/12
FB215 - H-HBDJ-M Poole
Pardon with benefits ***
1/9
P320-JRX-M Dancbek-
3 mos 3mooAls A/S
2/6
strauss hold
*** see upgrode takes
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
GERALD
August 20, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
CHARLES E. GOODELL
RAK
FROM:
ROBERT A. KNISELY
SUBJECT:
TRANSITION DISCUSSION PAPER
I. Decision Maker
Problem: An authorized person or board is necessary to make decisions
after 15 September 1975.
Discussion: Without doubt, there will be decisions to be made on
individual cases after 15 September 1975. At minimum, there will be
appeals, reconsideration cases, and unworkable cases. There may also
be a small number of "worked unworkables," those cases that were held
to be unworkable, but were completed by the action attorneys prior to
15 September 1975, but too late for a panel-meeting. In my meeting
with Bruce Fein, Mark Wolf, and the Pardon Attorney (the DoJ meeting),
they suggested that the Pardon Attorney be empowered personally to decide
cases, much as he now decides who is to receive a Pardon. While I ad-
mitted that our substantive guidelines would permit the Pardon Attorney
to make decisions congruent with those of the present Board, I reserved
judgment on whether it would be appropriate for the Pardon Attorney to
assume the functions of the President's Board. I noted that the present
Board's charter does not expire until 31 December 1976, and that about
10 of the members of the present Board reside in the Washington area.
The present Board, or some part of it, or others acting in its name
could easily continue past the 15 September 1975 Deadline. According
to Russ Deane, a waiver executed by the Board members would suffice to
allow a pro bono Board (as against Title 31 prohibiting voluntary service),
and since there will be very few decision days required, this might assure
continuity while not gainsaying the 15 September 1975 deadline. ("Of
course, we finished on 15 September 1975; the Board members are just clean-
ing us some appealed cases, etc., and they are doing it for nothing.")
On the other hand, the present Board members or others could be hired as
consultants to the Department of Justice, and paid for their time.
Action Needed: A decision as to who will decide residual Board matters,
and under what terms.
- 2 -
II. Standards to be Applied
Problem: To obviate equal protection arguments, the same substantive
standards should be applied to all cases whether decided before or after
15 September 1975.
Discussion: This appears to be no problem. In the DoJ meeting, all
the DoJ attendees were ecstatic about the Clemency Law Reporter, our es-
tablished precedents, and the whole nine yards. They welcome all of the
above with open arms.
Action Needed: Obtain firm, written commitment to the use of PCB
standards by succeeding agency.
III. Procedures
Problem: The Board has developed and accepted a set of procedures
which attempt to guarantee a measure of due process to its applicants. To
the degree possible, any follow-on agency should attempt to guarantee the
same measure of due process, even if the procedures vary.
Discussion: Although DoJ would probably agree to a continuation of
the preparation of case summaries, written notification of applicants,
detailed record-keeping, and SO forth, the Pardon Attorney stated that he
was not convinced of the necessity of oral presentation, in a formal setting,
of each case to the decision-maker. Also, personal appearances are not used
in straight pardon cases. It is not clear which of our procedures are neces-
sary to the due process we are attempting to guarantee our applicants.
Action needed: I have asked Mike Remington of Bill Strauss' team to
prepare a list of the procedures used by the PCB which in his opinion con-
tribute significantly to the rights of our applicants. After discussion
among the senior staff, a list of procedures essential to our process should
be drawn up, and agreement obtained from DoJ that these will be continued.
IV. Staff
Problem: By 15 September 1975, the Board and the Action Attorneys will
have "gone about as far as they can go," but the administrative tasks of pre-
paration of Presidential packets, notification of applicants, return of re-
cords, and close-out, will not be completed. Staff must be retained to perform
these functions.
Discussion: If the Board continues making decisions up to and including
15 September 1975, there will obviously be tasks remaining to be done affecting
those last decisions. In all probability, the work of returning records, etc.,
will not be completed either. The National Archives will not decide to ac-
cept their part of our records until weeks after they are offered, which cannot
be until we have completed all but a fraction of our work. While the current
staff will be working to the best of its ability to complete all major tasks,
- 3 -
if you are to prepare for the worst case, we will need OMB's concurrence
to retain some detailed employees beyond 15 September 1975. The DoJ has
at present 17 professionals and 12 clerical folks on our staff; presumably
these people cease being on detail and begin a reassignment as of 16
September 1975, and do not "count against" our totals. While I hope that
this will not be the case, as many as 20 additional people may be necessary
for from 4 to 6 weeks after the 15 September 1975 deadline. It is impossible
to preduct how many, or indeed if, additional detailees will be needed at
this time. Over the next week, the DoJ people now on board will be moved to
positions from which they can supervise or continue our functions if necessary.
Action needed: OMB should be convinced to stand ready to OK and enforce
the extension of a small number of details from non-DoJ agencies for several
weeks to a month after the 15 September 1975 deadline.
V.
Finances
Problem: No money can be expended in the name of the Board after 15
September 1975; none for Board salaries, xerox rental, stationery, no
nothing, as I understand it.
Discussion: While we can stockpile expendables such as xerox paper,
we (or someone) will have continuing expenses through September and part of
October for such things as electricity and rent, which presumably GSA will
continue to cover, xerox rentals which I believe have been covered by our
budget, and so forth. The magnitude of the sums are not clear.
Action needed: Since it is clear that even with a small staff handling
only such time-dependent tasks as appeals, there will be a need for financial
aid, Bob: Horn should be directed to begin immediately scoping out the likely
magnitude of the need, and the likely sources.
VI. Facilities/Equipment
Problem: The Pardon Attorney does not have space in his area for even
the DoJ detailees that will remain with the Board after 15 September 1975.
Therefore, regardless of the size of the carryover staff, some facilities
and equipment will be necessary. In conversations with the Pardon Attorney
on 20 August 1975, he indicated a desire to maintain the facilities at 2033
M Street as long as necessary although only several floors will be needed.
We are expecting to release 1206 New Hampshire Avenue to the GSA COB 15
September 1975.
Action needed: Bob Horn and Bruce Lawhead should enter negotiations
with GSA concerning the retention of 2033 M Street and appropriate equipment
for some weeks beyond 15 September 1975.
- 4 -
VII. Institutional Locus
Problem: Some agency has to assume responsibility for the PCB
residual functions.
Discussion: While it appears almost universal that DoJ should have
the responsibility for the residual PCB functions, the recent letter from
Paul O'Neill to Senator Goodell indicates a possible interest by DoD in
having its unfinished applicants back. It is to my knowledge as yet unde-
cided whether the Pardon Attorney or some other locus within DoJ is most
appropriate; arguments have been made for the Executive or Immediate Office
of the Attorney General, to provide more clout.
Action needed: A decision should be reached that the residual work and
residual functions of the PCB should be attached to a given part of a given
agency. It appears to me that the Pardon Attorney within Justice is the
most appropriate candidate.
VIII. Final Report
Problem: After Board agreement, the Final Report must be revised,
edited, managed through the Government Printing Office (proofreading and a
multitude of tasks) and disseminated. Possibly questions will need answer-
ing from the residual office.
Discussion: The printing cycle could be managed by another agency,
say the GSA, but having someone familiar with the report in charge of last
minute editing and proofing would be most helpful. Dissemination can be
done by someone who reads the report.
Action needed: A decision should be made to retain one member of
Bill Strauss' staff to ride herd on the Final Report until it is put to bed
at GPO.
IX.
Selective Service interfaces
Problem one: Our applicants need help weeding their way through a
hostile and indifferent Selective Service bureaucracy. Our applicants will
not do well with only a written set of instructions and a far away State
Selective Service Office to deal with.
Discussion: A part of substantive due process for a large part of our
applicants would be an ombudsman function overseeing both the performance of
our applicants and of the Selective Service System. This would necessitate
another function for the carryover group, and a long-term one. Since the
Board or its successor decision-maker could reduce a person's alternative
service to time served, and certify to the Pardon Attorney the successful
completion of the period of alternative service, in those cases where the
failure to complete the period of service appears not to be the fault of the
applicant, we should stay in the business of watching SSS.
- 5 -
Action needed: The carryover agency should be strongly encouraged
to maintain as a function and perhaps as a staff unit the monitoring of
SS and its behavior toward our applicants. OMB should be apprised of this
decision.
Problem two: At present when Selective Service notifies the Clemency
Board of the successful completion of a period of alternative service, the
Board notifies the Pardon Attorney who prepares the pardon for the Attorney
General's signature. In the absence of the Clemency Board, some amendment
to either our regulations or the Executive Order is necessary to avoid a
nullity.
Discussion: Consonant with the discussion of the difficulties antici-
pated with Selective Service outlined in Problem One, Selective Service, it
is clear to me that Selective Service should not be set up as the agency
to have an unreviewable certification power over our applicants. I would
prefer that the Pardon Attorney wear two hats, certifying to himself those
certified by Selective Service and any others he finds meritorious. Other
options are doubtless available.
Action needed: Both a decision as to the locus of an intermediate
approver of successful completion of alternative service by our applicants,
and the requisite changes to the legal record. Bob Horn might be dispatched
to research and write this up.
X.
Upgraded Discharges
Problem: To date, the President has not signed off on the Board's
recommendation as to upgraded discharges.
Action needed.
XI.
Post Deadline Applications
Problem: We have a box filled with several hundred applications,
presumably valid, which were not received by the 31 March 1975 deadline.
Discussion: While this appears to be a file or discard problem, in
discussions with Bruce Fein in Justice he pointed out that DoJ was going
to send a paper to the White House with recommendations as to the future of
the amnesty/clemency issue in this Administration. Clearly if this is true,
the box of post-deadline applications should be preserved.
Action needed: Senator Goodell or Rick Tropp should find out about
the larger, amnesty/clemency paper from DoJ, join the fun, and we will
hold the box of applications for the carryover agency.
- 6 -
XII.
Unworkable Cases
Problem: On 15 September 1975, there will be valid applications
in hand, for which case summaries have not been prepared due to insufficient
information. These cases will have received extensive, individual attention
by that time.
Discussion: A staff of perhaps 50 attorneys in 1206 New Hampshire
Avenue are presently attempting to develop case summaries on the so-called
"hard cases". To the degree that they are able to do so, under the direction
of Paul Krause and John Foote, the summaries will be ready for presentation
to the Board on 08 or 09 September 1975. This will allow time for referrals
to the full Board later in the week. If we assume that not all cases will
be developed into a presentable status, and presume likewise that all these
residual cases will be seen by at least one Board member prior to 15 Sep-
tember 1975, what is to be done with them after 15 September 1975? Accord-
ing to the Pardon Attorney, he has neither the staff resources nor the
inclination to treat them as other than perfectable applications, until
such time as the applicants further contact the government.
Action needed: The Board may wish to take a position with respect to
the unworkable, hard cases. This might include an urging to the DoJ and a
recommendation to the White House and OMB that he continue active searches
for more information concerning the applicants. Certainly, the Board will
wish that the carryover agency retain in their files the names and all
pertinent information concerning the individuals that has been developed,
so that if they are in subsequent contact with the government concerning
their applications, the fact of their having met the application deadline of
31 March 75, and their continuing eligibility will be on record.
XIII. Dissemination of information concerning benefits received under the
Program
Problem: Bill Strauss discovered on his tour of Dayton and environs
that our typical clemency recipient is not oriented toward receiving informa-
tion via the written word. See his memo concerning that trim. How do we get
the word to the clemency recipients that they received a clemency discharge
and a pardon, and what those items are worth?
Discussion: I have directed John Lohff to take his reduced staff,
meet with Bill Strauss and Mike Remington, and begin work on a set of
materials which can be sent to all the "first line" agencies that deal with
our kind of people, so that when a clemency recipient appears at the door
of such an agency, someone will have in hand information to answer questions
concerning the value and use of the clemency documents. This list will include
VA offices, Welfare offices, and the like. Between now and 15 September 1975,
John Lohff's team will attempt to write and get cleared the appropriate sub-
stantive material, identify the appropriate offices and their national entities,
if any (of the United Way, and so forth) and get the material out.
Action needed: If on 15 September 1975, we discover that there is more
work to be done about disseminating information to "contact agencies" about
- 7 -
the value of the clemency papers, we should insist that the carryover
agency assume that function until it is done.
XIV. Notification of recipients of clemency
Problem: During the next little while, until 15 September 1975,
we have about 18,000 pieces of mail to be sent out. We have two automatic
typewriters and a number of clerical personnel who are needed elsewhere.
Discussion: While I am attempting to get additional information
about workload for the automatic typewriters, it appears perfectly clear
to me that we do not have the resources to get original letters typed for
the clemency recipients, the no clemency cases, the no jurisdiction cases,
the pro and con general correspondence, and any other pockets of resistance
that show up. Many of these, particularly the letters for the clemency re-
cipients, require only the most minimal information to be added to the
standard letter: address, date, and period of alternative service. We
need to get additional assistance in typing those letters, and there is no
reason to delay. The White House Correspondence unit could begin cranking
them out ASAP.
Action needed: Another source should be immediately identified to
begin the auto-typing process for many of our letters. I suggest the White
House Correspondence unit.
Senator-
GERRAL FORD LIBRARY
8/21/75
-
As of Tuesday, 8/19/75 :
Total # cases referred to FB= 596
11 11 11 heard by FB= = 321
11 11 IT remain to be heard
by FB
= 275
34
241
Latter for miles,
8/23
Senator,
FORD & LIBRARY 070839
/.
There are 58 cases available
for today's full board session.
Docket#15=25 cases, Dochet #16-25
cases, plus 8 cases from Dochet #
18. Attomay are available and
prepared.
2.
There are 57 cases available
for tomorrow's full board session.
Dochet # 17 =25 cores, Dochet # 18=
17 cases, plus 15 cases from
Dochet # 14 which were not
considered previously. Attoming
will be available tommoro and
we prepared.
Jun Pool
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
is
FORD
August 25, 1975
GERALD
MEMORANDUM FOR:
CHARLES E. GOODELL
FROM:
LAWRENCE M. BASKIR 1MA
SUBJECT:
#854 - Jurisdiction
There is jurisdiction in this case.
This applicant is living in the Ur. S., but may be excludable by
INS, at least theoretically, since he is an alien and did leave the
service. However, deportation is a decision of INS and is subject to judicial
review. It would be inappropriate for the Presidential Clemency Board to
decide he is a deportable alien since we do not have the competence of these
bodies. Our practice has been to decide cases like this in the absence of
a deportation determination by INS.
Non-resident aliens are recommended only provisionally, and then referred
to
DOI. We cannot do this for resident aliens like this applicant because of
our promise not to penalize them for applying.
Swator Soodell:
at
For your information-
Brohaun
8/26
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
August 26, 1975
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
MEMORANDUM TO: GRETCHEN HANDWERGER
THRU: Him CHARLES : Janes O. GRAHAM D. Hartle
SUBJ: CASES FLAGGED BY GENERAL WALT, "TO BE BROUGHT TO THE SPECIAL
ATTENTION OF THE PRESIDENT"
Per the attached copy of my Memorandum to Charlie, dated 8/19/75,
I have discussed the below two cases with General Walt:
7580-JLX-M
14929-HWX-M
The General recalls two others with Viet Nam AWOLs of four each
and will look through his records for verification; I have
volunteered my services and Joe's if help is needed. General Walt
appeared satisfied that we're doing our best to keep the record
straight and he has been assured that his requests as stated will
be honored.
I asked if it was necessary to pull all cases of No Clemency by
either him or Mr. Dougovito during Full Board sessions, but he
expressed no real concern in this matter. Again, assistance was
offered after the press of scribing and recording this week.
August 19, 1975
MEMORANDUM TO: CHARLES O. GRAHAM
FROM: JANET A. HARTLE
SUBJ: CASES TO BE BROUGHT TO THE SPECIAL ATTENTION OF THE
PRESIDENT
Per General Walt's request the Full Board files have been
searched for cases that he designated to "be brought to the
special attention of the President".
1. 7580-JLX-M Heardf July 2, 1975. Full Pardon
Notation for the President is that
the applicant had five AWOL offenses
while in Viet Nam
2. 14929-HWX-M Heard August 13, 1975. Full Pardon
Notation that the applicant was
convicted of first degree manslaughter.
LEb
26 Aug 75
TO: Lawrence M. Baskir
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
FV]
FROM: Mike Bernstein
145
SUBJECT: Double Decisions (your memorandum of 25 Aug 75)
In accordance with your memorandum concerning cases 12430 and 4818,
I made a check to ascertain what dispositions had been made for these
cases and why. In addition, I made a check of case 9741 which was
mentioned to me by Mr. Craig in my conversation with him. A memorandum
of that conversation is attached. My findings for each case are set
forth below. If additional information is required, I will be more
than happy to undertake the necessary research.
4818 have been unable to find more than one disposition for this
case. That disposition was a pardon, which was recommended by Panel
ok
F on August 8. I have checked disposition sheets from August 8 through
August 22 with no entry occurring. In addition, neither the Master
Log nor the Docketing log reflect any disposition other than that of
August 8. Examination of the case file, however, does give indication
that a duplicate presentation could have been easily made. The case
file and the military personnel file were separate in the file drawer,
with summaries, although similar in content, typed on a different
typewriter. The summary in the PCB file was annotated "Panel F Pardon--
Miller", and the summary in the personnel file was annotated "Letter
but no file." Nonetheless, I am unable to find more than one disposition
for the case.
9741--This number was given to me by Mr. Craig in the course of my
conversation with him on this date. He indicated that it had been
presented today and he was sure he had heard the same case presented
earlier. I have checked case disposition sheets and established that
this case was presented on August 22 before Panel E, of which Mr. Craig
was a member. A pardon was awarded at that time, as it was in today's
presentation. It is noteworthy that the case was reportedly presented
on August 22 by Mr. Rosenak, although I am informed that he has long
since returned to his agency. I spoke with Mr. Friedman, who presented
the case today, and he indicated that he had made the presentation with-
out a PCB file because he could not lokate it anywhere. He further
reported that no information he could unearth showed that the case had
been disposed of previously, or he would not have made the presentation.
12430--The Master Log reflects only a single disposition--No Clemency-
on July 10. The Docketing Log shows the same disposition, but shows
the notation "D-A" for June 27. I checked the disposition sheet for
June 27 and this indicated that the case had been docketed but was
ot
not presented because bee attorney was not present. I could find no
indication of any other disposition for this case and was unable to
locate the file to ascertain if any other disposition was indicated.
From my review of the Master Log and the Docketing Log, however, I
must conclude that there was only a single recommendation made in this
case.
cc: Gretchen Handwerger
26 Aug 75
Memorandum for file
Conversations with Board members Craig and Adams
In accordance with the Baskir Memorandum of 25 Aug 75, I contacted Mr.
Craig for further information (i.e. Case Number) of the case involving
a mother's overeating disease on which a duplicate decision had been
made. Mr. Craig recalled the incident but indicated that I would have
to obtain the information from Dr. Adams. The case had been heard by
a panel involving Adams, Craig and Vinson and Dr. Adams recalled the
circumstances of the case and the fact that a prior decision had been
issued.
Mr. Craig did however indicate another duplicate decision case,
this was 9741. It was heard today by his panel and he recalled having
heard this case previously. He also recalled 4818, mentioned in the
Memorandum and the fact that it had been heard 8 Aug and last week. He
inquired as to why such rehearings were happening, espècially since
both dispositions were pardons. I offered some possible explanations
for second hearings, including attorney unawareness of prior hearings
and lack of familiarity with docketing procedures (i.e. I cited the
case of one attorney who, after her cases were heard, placed a copy
of the summary, etc. in the Xerox basket of the team secretary).
Following my conversation with Mr. Craig, I contacted Dr. Adams.
He recalled the circumstances of the case and the fact that it was
the applicants brother, not his mother, who was afflicted with the
overeating disease. He did not, however, recall the case number.
M. Bernstein
Cleanup Detail
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
August 25, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
GUY BRANDENBURG
FROM:
LAWRENCE M. BASKIR Jnc
SUBJECT:
DOUBLE DECISIONS
The following two cases, #12430 and #4818, were apparently presented to
two panels. Can you give me reports on each?
At the same time as one of these two cases, there was another involving
an applicant's mother with an over-eating disease. Mr. Craig has this
case number, and it also was a double decision. I'd like a report on this
one.
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
Presidential Libraries Withdrawal Sheet
WITHDRAWAL ID 02003
REASON FOR WITHDRAWAL
Donor restriction
TYPE OF MATERIAL
Memorandum
CREATOR'S NAME
Stephen O'Brien
RECEIVER'S NAME
Charles Goodell
DESCRIPTION
re an applicant
CREATION DATE
08/28/1975
COLLECTION/SERIES/FOLDER ID
019300057
COLLECTION TITLE
Charles Goodell Papers
BOX NUMBER
7
FOLDER TITLE
Memoranda - Internal (1)-(3)
DATE WITHDRAWN
11/20/1990
WITHDRAWING ARCHIVIST
WHM
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
CASE SUMMARY
PCB Attorney: Mark Rosen/Pollack/Owen Case No: 16501-JLF-M
Telephone: (202) 634-4853
Branch of Service: Marines
Summary Completed: 30 July 75
Age: 29
Total Time Served: 1 mo., 28 Days
Present Status: Civilian
Predischarge Confinement
Date of Application: 30 Jan 75
Discharge Status: Undesirable
Discharge in Lieu of Court-Martial
Offense: AWOL
11 Aug 69 - 7 Oct 69 (1 mo., 26 days)
Total Time: 1 month, 26 days
Total Creditable Service: 2 years, 4
months, 10 days including 6 months active
duty while in reserves
BACKGROUND
This Caucasian applicant was born on 30 May 46 in South Carolina into an
intact family of three children. The record is in conflict as to whether
he completed 1½ or 3 years of high school. At the age of seventeen he en-
listed in the Marine Corps Reserves. After several years in the reserves it
was discovered that he had sensitive inner ears and some high frequency
hearing loss. The applicant applied for a medical discharge but on 18 Oct
67 the Bureau of Medicine determined that the applicant was fit for duty
and denied his request. After receiving this denial, he continued his ef-
forts to be assigned to duties which would not expose him to loud noises.
The applicant contends that as a result of his continued efforts for re-
assignment, resentment developed. He says that he lost concern for his
hearing condition and wanted to prove himself to the reserve unit by en-
listing in the regular marines; the applicant did so on 29 Jan 68.
Several months after enlisting the applicant was sent to Vietnam where he
served from 23 May 68 until he was medically evacuated on 23 Jun 68. While
in a stateside hospital recovering from his wounds, the applicant also had
his hearing rechecked. It was determined that his hearing condition re-
quired restricted duty with no exposure to loud noises. The applicant and
the Marine Corps disagree over whether this stipulation was met.
The applicant's AFQT was 60 (group III) and his GCT was 99. Prior to his
AWOL he was rated five times while on active duty, and averaged 4.7 in both
conduct and duty. He attained the rank of Iance corporal.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENSE
The applicant was absent without authority from 11 Aug 69 7 Oct 69. Just
prior to his absenting himself he was beaten up by another marine obstensively
because he had joined a group of demonstrators passing out anti-war leaflets
in the Waikiki beach area of Hawaii. While absent he, along with several
others, sought and was granted sanctuary at the Church of the Crossroads in
Honolulu, Hawaii. During his stay at the church he made several statements
disapproving of United States conduct in Vietnam which were published by
local newspapers. On 28 Aug 69 he, and another, were secreted out of Hawaii to
South Bend, Indiana where he appeared at a convention being held by delegates
of the Episcopal Church at the University of Notre Dame. He again made anti-
war statements which were publicized by local TV and the newspapers. The Staff
Judge Advocate reported that his statements to news media, although anti-war
in nature, were not considered disloyal, and accordingly no charges could be
sustained for such conduct. On 4 Sept 69 he left Indiana and was driven to
Canada where he made some efforts to obtain the necessary documents required to
enroll in a Canadian college and to apply for Canadian citizenship. However,
apparently at the urging of his parents he returned to the United States and
Case No: 16501-JFL-M
Case No: 16501-JFL,M
CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENSE (Con'd)
surrendered himself to military authorities on 7 Oct 69.
Upon his return he was placed in confinement. The applicant originally
desired to return to duty so he could receive an honorable discharge. How-
ever, his attitude changed and he was unwilling to remain confined. On 4
Nov 69 he requested an undesirable discharge for the good of the service,
He was discharged on 8 Dec 69.
VIETNAM SERVICE
The applicant served in Vietnam from 23 May 68 until he was medically
evacuated on 23 Jun 63 after suffering shrapnel wounds in his back and a
cracked rib. He participated in "Operation Allen Brook" in Quang Nam Province.
The applicant was awarded the Purple Heart, Vietnamese Service Medal with
1 star, Vietnamese Campaign Medal with device
CHRONOLOGY
30 May 46
Date of Birth
1964 L
Left High School
29
Jan 64
Enlisted in Marine Reserves
29
Jan 68
Re-enlisted for 3 years in Regular Marines
23 May 68 - 22 Jun 68
Vietnam Service
11 Aug 69 - 7 Oct 69
AWOL (1 mo., 26 days) surrendered
9 Oct 69 - 7 Dec 69
Confinement (1 mo., 28 days)
4 Nov 69
Requests UD.
8 Dec 69
Undesirable Discharge
30 Jan 75
PCB Application
AWARDS AND DECORATIONS
Purple Heart Medal
Vietnam Service Medal with 1 star
Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with device
National Defense Service Medal
PRIOR MILITARY OFFENSES
None
SENTENCE HISTORY
N/A
SOURCES
Military Personnel File
Applicant's Letter to Congressman
SUMMARY OF DECISION: EFFECTIVE APRIL 8, 1975
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
Calculation of Baseline for Alternative Service:
Starting Point
24 Months
Less Three Times
Months in Prison
-
Months
Less Alternative Service Performed if Period Satisfactorily Completed
-
Months
Less Time Served on Probation or Parole if Period Satisfactorily
Completed
-
Months
BASELINE
Months
Judge's Sentence to Imprisonment as Reduced by Competent Authority, which
is the Baseline if Less Than the Above Figure
Months
Minimum Baseline
3 Months
Final Baseline for Determining the Period of Alternative Service
U.D.
3
Months
Aggravating Factors:
(1).
Other adult convictions
(2).
False statement by applicant to the Presidential Clemency Board
(3).
Use of force by applicant collaterally to AWOL, desertion, or missing
movement or civilian draft evasion offense
(4).
Desertion during combat
(5).
Evidence that applicant committed offense for obviously manipulative
and selfish reasons
(6).
Prior refusal to fulfill alternative service
(7).
Violation of probation or parole
(8).
Multiple AWOL/UA offenses
(9).
AWOL/UA of extended length MO., 26 DAYS
(10).
Failure to report for overseas assignment
X None of the above
Mitigating Factors:
(1).
Lack of sufficient education or ability to understand obligations or
remedies available under the law
(2).
Personal and immediate family problems
(3).
X
Mental or physical condition
(4).
Employment and other activities of service to the public
(5).
Service-connected disability
(6).
X Extended period of creditable military service 2 YRS, 4 Mo., 10 DAYS
(7).
X
Tours of service in the war zone
(8).
Substantial evidence of personal or procedural unfairness
(9).
Denial of conscientious objector status on procedural, technical,
or improper grounds
(10).
Evidence that an applicant acted for conscientious, not manipulative
or selfish reasons
(11).
x
Voluntary submission to authorities by applicant
(12).
Behavior which reflects mental stress caused by combat
(13).
Volunteering for combat, or extension of sej vice while in combat
(14).
X
Above average military conduct and proficie cy or unit citations
(15).
Personal decorations for valor
(16).
X
Wounds in combat
None of the above
Based on these factors, the Board's decision is that the
month baseline should be
FULL PARDON
Therefore, a pardon will be granted
after performance of
months of alternative service.
16501-JLF-M
O'BRIEN
Case Number
Staff Attorney