Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "18558977",
    "label": "Memoranda - Internal (3)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/18558977"
}

{
    "id": "18558977",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/18558977",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Memoranda - Internal (3)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/18558977",
    "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": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0193/648291/18558977.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0193/648291/18558977.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0193/648291/18558977.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/18558977",
    "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"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0193/648291/18558977.pdf",
    "mediaId": "4f4c6f5e97f9443a",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 7, folder \"Memoranda - Internal (3)\" of the\nCharles E. Goodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Charles Goodell donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box 7 of the Charles E. Goodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nat\nPRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20500\nAugust 1, 1975\nMEMORANDUM\nGERALD\nTO\n: All Hands\nFROM : Lawrence M. Baskir mB\nAt the Full Board meeting on the morning of July 31, 1975, several\nboard members brought to my attention areas of uncertainty in the\npreparation of cases. Please conform your preparation and\npresentation of cases to the following:\n1. Mitigating factor #3 is marked for drug addiction, but not\nfor drug use.\n2. \"VCM\" in the list of decorations means \"Vietnam Campain Medal\",\nand not \"Vietnam Commendation Medal.\" It is neither an award\nfor valor nor a unit citation (Mit. #14 & 15).\n3. Vietnamese decorations:\nA. The Vietnam Cross of Gallantry (with palm) is a personal\ndecoration, awarded by the Vietnamese government and\napproved by the U.S. Government. This medal is not\nlisted on the Awards Chart since it is a Vietnamese medal,\nalthough it may be awarded to an American serviceman (Mit. #15).\nB. The Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation (which\nhas a palm and a metal border) is also awarded by the\nVietnamese government, but it is not a personal decoration.\nIt is (obviously) a unit citation (Mit #14).\n4. Creditable time for a former serviceman does not include\nperiods spent attending weekly or monthly meetings of an active\nduty reserve unit. It does include any periods of active\nduty for training (ACDUTRA) such as the initial training\nperiod, the two week summer camp, or any period of active duty\nof two weeks or longer which occurred during the reserve\nobligation (Mit. #6).\n5. Unexecuted discharges from Special Court Martial:\nA. If an applicant was awarded a suspended (unexecuted)\npunitive discharge by Special Courtmartial, subsequently\nwent AWOL, and then the suspended discharge was imposed,\nthere was no \"Other adult conviction\" and Aggravating\nFactor #1 is inapplicable. Aggravating Factor #7, violation\nof probation or parole, is applicable, however. The question\nof apprehension or voluntary submission is determined only\nby the last AWOL. If the unexecuted discharge was for\nan AWOL offense, then that period of abserce should be\ncounted towards the length of AWOL (Agg #9).\npage 2\nB. If an applicant was awarded a suspended punitive discharge\nby Special Courtmartial, but for a subsequent AWOL he was\ngiven an Undesirable Discharge, then Aggravating Factor\n#1 is applicable, along with Aggravating Factor #7. The\nlast AWOL again determines submission or apprehension; if\nthe unexecuted discharge was for an AWOL offense, that\nperiod of absence should not be counted towards the\nlength of AWOL (Agg #9), but towards multiple AWOLs (Agg. #8)\nPRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20500\nAugust 1, 1975\nMEMORANDUM\nGERALD\nTO:\nAll Team Leaders and Asst. Team Leaders\nFROM:\nChuck Hilbert\nAssistant General Counsel\nGU\nSUBJECT:\nReconsideration of cases by Board resulting from new\nrelevant information submitted by applicant\nMy team is now receiving all PCB correspondence from applicants. Most of\nthe correspondence is in reference to case summaries. The correspondence is\nreviewed to determine whether it is in any possible way relevant to the\ndecision reached by the Board. Relevance is taken to mean any information which\nmight have affected the marking of an \"Ag\" or \"Mit\" factor, or which might have\naltered the term of alternative service assessed an applicant. If you have\nreceived a communication from an applicant which might be relevant and his\ncase has been decided by the Board, the case must be stopped before the\nBoard's decision goes to the White House. Please bring all such corres-\npondence, as soon as possible, to Communications and Appeals, 2033 M St.,\n7th Floor, see Gil Weidenfeld. We have a procedure to stop those cases that\nmay need to be re-presented. If you are uncertain if the correspondence\nyou have is relevant bring it to us for a determination.\nCase writers on all teams will be contacted if relevant correspondence is\nreceived for one of their cases.\nPRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20500\nTO:\nLARRY BASKIR\nCOLONEL WILLIAM C. MCN DICKMAN\nFROM:\nDATE:\nAUGUST 4, 1975\nSUBJECT:\nMinority Report to Director Pepitone\non Alternate Service\nGERALD\nAttached please find a copy of the Minority Report signed by:\nGeneral Lewis W. Walt\nJames P. Dougovito\nDr. Ralph Adams\nColonel Harry Riggs\nWould you please include it in the General Board Report when you\nsend that along to Selective Service.\nAlso, I would appreciate receiving a copy of your report as soon\nas you complete it.\nThanks.\nPRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20500\nAugust 4, 1975\nis\nFORD\nMemorandum to: Lawrence M. Baskir\nFrom: Bill Strauss\nGERALD\nSubject: Conversations with PCB Applicants\nFrom July 31 through August 3, I traveled through Southwestern\nOhio, Southern Indiana, and Northern Kentucky, trying to find\npersons whose cases had already been decided by the PCB and\nannounced by the President. This part of the country accounted\nfor 20 of the first 372 cases announced. All 20 were military\ncases, about equally divided between immediate pardons and\npardons conditioned upon alternative service.\nAs we both expected, it was difficult to locate them. Out of\nthe 20, I was only able to meet with 7. The following is the\nbreakdown:\n7 - person-to-person meetings with applicants\n2 - person-to-person meetings with applicants'\nspouses or girl friends\n3 - telephone contact with applicants' families,\nwith future telephone contact with the\napplicants themselves now possible\n2 - no contact, but confirmation from neighbors\nthat the address was correct\n4 - applicants had moved, leaving no forwarding\naddress\n2 - applicant had given the PCB a non-existent\naddress\nSome summary statistics are of interest. 10/20 lived in cities\n(Dayton, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, and Lexington), with the rest\nliving in small towns or on farms. 18/18 are living in either\ntotal or near poverty; 8/9 have had problems getting or holding\njobs. 3/9 have been in trouble with the law since their clemency\napplication; 11/18 have moved at least once since their clemency\napplication (i.e., since September or October).\nIn general, they were either of a disadvantaged background or\ndownwardly mobile. They were barely articulate, with a limited\neducational background. Their one strong point was their close\nfamily tie -- with wives, parents, and others. In most cases,\nI could easily see how family problems could lead them to go AWOL.\n-- 2 --\nAlmost everyone with whom I spoke considered the military to have\nbeen fair before they (or their husbands, etc.) returned from\ntheir AWOL offenses. Two noteworthy exceptions: One applicant\nwent AWOL partly because of racism at an Army base, and another\n(who opposed the Vietnam War) went AWOL partly because the Army\nbroke an alleged promise not to send him to combat. All but\none were bitter about the military's treatment of their offense;\nin part, their bitterness was a reflection of their disdain for\nthose who escaped confinement altogether because of the clemency\nprogram.\nThe major motivation for applying for clemency was about equally\nsplit between regaining at least some veterans benefits and\nrestoring one's good name. Almost all found out about the\nclemency program either during confinement at Ft. Leavenworth\nor shortly after confinement, through correspondence from\ncounselors or attorneys at Ft. Leavenworth. Two applied out\nof the blue, not knowing whether or not they were eligible,\nbut thinking they had nothing to lose by trying.\nNo one knew anything of the PCB's policies and procedures. They\ndid not know how the PCB was considering their case, nor did they\nrealize that they could get a Clemency Discharge and/or a pardon\nby applying. Only one recalled having received his case summary,\nbut everyone did in fact recognize it when I showed it to him.\nOnly one (the same one) had a careful recollection of all corres-\npondence between the PCB and himself. By curious coincidence,\nthat same individual was the only one who had any third party\nassistance during his application process (the manager of the\nsmall company which employs him). The unanimous feeling about\nour case summaries (which I had them re-read carefully) was\nthat they were complete, accurate, and fair. The few errors\nidentified by them were trivial.\nBoard delay did seem to be a problem. Some thought their case\nhad been forgotten. One tried to reach his action attorney but\nwas not called back. Almost all were surprised when they first\nreceived word of their case disposition. Of greater consequence\nis the fact that at least three (out of nine) felt that they\nneeded their disposition several months earlier to help them\napply for jobs denied them because of their bad discharges. The\nmost unfortunate of the three cases involved a sporadically\nemployed applicant who, just one week before we cabled the news\nof his unconditional pardon to him, apparently committed an\narmed robbery offense for which he is now in jail awaiting trial.\nHis grandmother received our cable but could not read it. County\njail officials would not let her show it to him. His trial is\nscheduled for this week, and had I not told him, neither he nor\nhis sentencing judge would have known that he had been pardoned\nfor his military offenses.\n-- 3 --\nI contacted four persons (or families of persons) assigned to\nalternative service employment. One had found a job and, with\nSelective Service's permission, had moved out-of-state to begin\nworking. Two had contacted Selective Service and had begun\nlooking. The parents of the fourth were not sure what he had\ndone. It may be coincidence, but 5/6 of those who had left no\nforwarding address or had given a wrong address were assigned\nalternative service -- versus only 5/14 of those who had main-\ntained clearer local ties. Given the problem of forwarding mail,\nfinding alternative service work, and staying on those jobs once\nfound, I would be surprised if more than 3 or 4 of the 10 indi-\nviduals assigned alternative service ever will complete it and\nearn their pardons. One small note of encouragement: 5/7 of\nthose contacted who had unconditional pardons said they would\nhave tried to do alternative service if that had been required\nof them.\nMost were pleased with their grants of clemency, once I explained\nwhat they meant. They all considered it an improvement over what\nthey had and clearly worth the little effort they had put into\ngetting it. However, only a few were confident that it would\nmake more than a little bit of difference to them. The people\nwho seemed the most pleased were the applicants' families and\nfriends, so perhaps shyness or left-over bitterness was the\nreason for their pessimism. Everyone was interested in pursuing\nappeals with the VA and DRB when I explained to them that they\nstill had that option -- and that their pardon and clemency dis-\ncharge might improve their chances in subsequent appeals. Only\none had realized that he could do this before our conversation.\nOne curious note: The majority of the applicants had a strong\nnegative feeling about draft resisters. They felt it was unfair\nfor draft resisters to avoid going to jail when they had spent\ntime in jail themselves -- and they considered failing to give\nthe Army a try a much worse offense than leaving it after giving\nit a \"fair try.\" Generally, they thought it was all right to\ninclude draft resisters who had spent time in jail, or those who\nhad not -- assuming the latter did alternative service. Therefore,\nmost were against uncoinditional amnesty. Their opinion about the\nwar was about 2 - 1 against it, but their opposition was less\nethical than political. Many did not see why they should fight\nin a \"politician's war\" that meant nothing to them.\nMy major conclusion from the conversations is that the applicants\nneeded to have someone to describe the program's benefits to them.\nFew understood that they had received a pardon and a new discharge.\nMost were confused about what they should say on employment appli-\ncation forms. No one knew what a pardon did for them, so they\nperceived it as no more than a Presidential gesture. Only one\nknew about his right to appeal for benefits or for a further\nupgrade of his discharge. It was clear that they were much more\npleased with what they received after our talks. It is equally\n-- 4\nclear that they would not have known what to do with their grants\nof clemency without some counseling. ,Their telegrams and letters\nwould have remained buried in shoeboxes, perhaps.\nUnless ours is to be an intellectual exercise, a due process\ngavotte in which we give applicants nothing with great style,\nwe should do something about this cognitive problem. I suggest\ndance\nthat we begin discussions with the Veterans Administration about\nhaving local VA officials contact all clemency recipients personally\nafter the program has ended (preferably during autumn of this year)\nbue\nto explain their grants of clemency and their further opportunities\nto appeal for benefits or upgrades. This would involve some work\nfrom our end --- counseling workshops, preparation of materials,\nyou\ngeographical sorting of applicants, etc. Some of this preparatory\nwork might have to be done after September 15.\nkonund\nRECOMMENDATION: That we discuss plans for direct personal\ncontacts with PCB applicants, preferably to be done by\nyou \"Banoth\nthe Veterans Administration.\nYES\nNO\nOTHER not VA\nRECOMMENDATION: That such plans include some carry-over PCB\nstaff to prepare materials, conduct workshops, and\ncoordinate the process.\nYES\nNO\nOTHER\nthe to Bef. not\nvery\na\nit\nPCB\nthis\nregord\nword\nof\n&\nmalite.\nOtherse\nand\n&\nvebibka\nyoul\nthe description\no\nCogntive\nmis\nbest\ntotally\nthe\nBERALE B. FORD LIBRARY\n8/5\nEvelyn-\npill Straws told me\nthat Claudia told hein that\nthe is \"essentially through with\nalien mail.\" l told him that\nnothing had yet feen feut out\n(per Carolyn this morning). Have\nyou Deeu any thing (i.e. stacks\nof letter) for CEG pignature?\npul them asked me who was typesing\nit and I told him I\nhad no idea. .\nGMH\nPRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20500\nAugust 6, 1975\nFORD\nGERALD\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nCHARLES E. GOODELL\nFROM:\nLAWRENCE M. BASKIR\nIMB\nSUBJECT:\nFULL BOARD RECONSIDERATION OF FLAGGED CASES\nSometime soon the Board should begin to hear the cases identified by the\nstaff and accepted by you as needing reconsideration because of an ap-\nparent deviation in results.\nIn case you start the process while I'm in Montreal (as I hope you\nwill), let me give you my thoughts:\n1) The cases should be mixed in with other Board member\nflags from panels. These cases are no different, and\nshouldn't be treated (or regarded) as different.\n2) There should be a short presentation:\n\"This case seems off\n\"Here are factors, baseline, result, and why it seems off\n\"Short review of facts if desired.\"\n3) Presentation should be done by you, at least at first. Then\nwe can have our special barrister team - led by Neil Broder -\ntake over the function.\n4) Since these are deviation cases, no severe case could get\nhigher A/S; no lenient case should get less.\n5) There are some lenient pardon cases. Despite my reputation as\na bleeding heart, and the painful looks on the staff, they\nshould go to the Board as \"too lenient\" for reasons of con-\nsistency, Board dynamics, and justice - an overly lenient\nresult is not fair to other applicants with better facts and\nworse results.\n- 2 -\n6) The lenient cases are in Batch 6 or 7. You should\nsprinkle them liberally in the first clutch of cases\nto the Board.\n7) The list and memos I send to you should be distributed\nto the whole membership. The referral of inconsistent\ncases is not a prerogative only of the Chair. Other\nmembers should have the benefit of this staff review.\n(You could profit by spreading the onus of this function.\nAnd the applicants profit by having others see their\ncases).\n8) In reprise, I think you should start this process now.\nNo case has ever yet been reheard by this process; and\nsome are very old.\nPRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20500\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\nAugust 7, 1975\nMemorandum\nTo:\nChairman Charles Goodell\nFrom:\nStaff Attorney Edward H. Fitch\n5.H.7.\nSubject: Case No. 9553-CSW-M, Vietnam Veteran\nYesterday, August 6, 1975, the Full Board made a preliminary vote of 7 to\n6 that an applicant who had committed a subsequent armed felony would not\nbe eligible for consideration to receive a Presidential Pardon for his\nmilitary service during the war era. Your vote indicated that you person-\nally could recommend a pardon if the gun the applicant used in the subse-\nquent offense was not loaded.\nWhile I believe reasonable men can indeed logically reach such a decision,\nI personally cannot subscribe to the limited arguments the members present\narticulated. Nor can I subscribe to the argument that because the offense\ncommitted by this applicant is so serious, it forever bars the exercise of\nexecutive clemency for his military service irrespective of his good conduct\nand reform. Such a harsh unforgiving decision is foreign to our system of\nreasonable, merciful justice.\nI therefore strongly protest the decision in this case and hereby request\nthat you poll the entire membership of the Presidential Clemency Board on\nthis question.\nIn the event that you find that this case has been finally resolved by the\ndecision of yesterday, I request that my protest be made part of the record\nwhich is forwarded to the President in this case.\nSanator,\nFORD i LIBRARY 070830\n8/11\nGeneral Walt has decided\nit will not be necessary\nfor case attomay to present\npanel. cases before the Special \"UP\"\nI have so notified the\nteam leaders\nNeil Broder will, however,\nbe setting in on the panel\ndispositions counsel. as acting general\nJim Pool\nFORD & 07V839 LIBRARY\n8/11\nSeuator Goodell-\nThe total number of late applications\nis\n167.\nMy 372 (or whatever) figure was\nwrong because it included those who'd\napplied late but who were also inelizible\nfor the program anyway (or at least\nour part of it) and have been contten\naccordingly.\nThe 167 will be pent a \"sorry, to\nlate letter which Lany had put\napproved for your figrature.\n6mN\nFORD & LIBRARY 07V835\n8/12\nSecector Goodell-\nBefore he left Lamy asked that\nfor review by you and him with the\nthe two communitation cases be pulled\nauticipation that they would probably be\nreheard by the full board.\nhere directly to you with the\nfor his absense I'm sending\nthat you either:\n1\nhold for LMB\n2\npay to go-ahead and refer\nto\na) Paul\nb) fuel Board\nin which care if you'll\nreturn to me T'll fee that The Pool\nToby Sitiger and anybody else who\nneede to know fuide gut about it\n3\ndirect form other action\nCommutation decision\nfor 1./23. both caree was made a\nGMIS\nK\nat least I only know of two\nAUG. 13, 1975\nFOR\n: BOB HORN\nCED\nart\nFROM\n: NANCY\nSUBJECT\n: DINNER TRIP OF EITHER AUG. 20 or 25th\nPER\n: TELEPHONE CONVERSATION BETWEEN NANCY AND\nLIBRARY GERALD B. FORD\nLT. COMMANDER O'BRIEN TODAY\nHe left the following information with me for you: (his no. 433-3673)\nThis afternoon he will deliver to you by messenger:\nmenus and maps\nchoice of menu is same for either day\n40 guests if we choose buffet\n22 guests if we choose sit-down dinner\nnames and titles must be furnished for all guests\nmenus must be returned NO LATER THAN MON. AM or better, by Friday, this week.\ncontact Lt. Beliech in O'Brien's absence, since he hopes to be on leave\nstarting later today for a few days\n15- No REVIEW\nPRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD\nJ-FB - FB\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20500\nAugust 18, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR CHARLES E. GOODELL\nFROM: Toby Singer tgo\nRE: Early cases on hold\nThe attached cases seem to have already been reviewed. Should I\ngo ahead and have the cases marked \"FB\" docketed for the Full\nBoard and release the others? There are other early cases which\nhave not yet been reviewed. They will go through the post-audit\nprocess and I will send our recommendations to you.\nLIBRARY FORD \"y\nGERALD\nPCB# Atty\nDecision\nBoard Date\nReason for Recomideration\n/010-BSH-C Kodae\n3mos A/S\n2/6\nstance hald\n066 mk\nu\nV029-EKA-C Lohf\n24mos. A/S\n2/6\n4\n10107-BDI-m. fittle\n12mo.A/s\n12/12\n12/12\n@108-GRD-m- Channey\n18mm A/S\nV109-BSW-m Chenry\n8 mm D/S\n2/6\nV.127.10mA:m Broder\n6 ms A/S\n12/12\nV142- SDE-m Kodre\n3 1000 A/s\n2/6 released\n65-BGL-m Broder\n3,000 Als\n1/9\nV166-BCX-M Hickman\n7 mos A/s\n1/9\nV178-CJE-m Broder\n8 mos A/S\n12/12\n179-CCD-m Heitz\n31000. Als\n1/9\n9180-CCA-M Robinson.\n3 mm Als\n2/4\n3 mo Als\n2/4\nV190-DLB-M strans\nsterrick\n10 ins A/S\n12/12\nmaye dissents\n202-FFR-m Channy\n9 mos. A/S\n2/6\nV213 - HMD - M Nickona\n7mms. A/S\n12/12\nFB215 - H-HBDJ-M Poole\nPardon with benefits ***\n1/9\nP320-JRX-M Dancbek-\n3 mos 3mooAls A/S\n2/6\nstrauss hold\n*** see upgrode takes\nPRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20500\nGERALD\nAugust 20, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nCHARLES E. GOODELL\nRAK\nFROM:\nROBERT A. KNISELY\nSUBJECT:\nTRANSITION DISCUSSION PAPER\nI. Decision Maker\nProblem: An authorized person or board is necessary to make decisions\nafter 15 September 1975.\nDiscussion: Without doubt, there will be decisions to be made on\nindividual cases after 15 September 1975. At minimum, there will be\nappeals, reconsideration cases, and unworkable cases. There may also\nbe a small number of \"worked unworkables,\" those cases that were held\nto be unworkable, but were completed by the action attorneys prior to\n15 September 1975, but too late for a panel-meeting. In my meeting\nwith Bruce Fein, Mark Wolf, and the Pardon Attorney (the DoJ meeting),\nthey suggested that the Pardon Attorney be empowered personally to decide\ncases, much as he now decides who is to receive a Pardon. While I ad-\nmitted that our substantive guidelines would permit the Pardon Attorney\nto make decisions congruent with those of the present Board, I reserved\njudgment on whether it would be appropriate for the Pardon Attorney to\nassume the functions of the President's Board. I noted that the present\nBoard's charter does not expire until 31 December 1976, and that about\n10 of the members of the present Board reside in the Washington area.\nThe present Board, or some part of it, or others acting in its name\ncould easily continue past the 15 September 1975 Deadline. According\nto Russ Deane, a waiver executed by the Board members would suffice to\nallow a pro bono Board (as against Title 31 prohibiting voluntary service),\nand since there will be very few decision days required, this might assure\ncontinuity while not gainsaying the 15 September 1975 deadline. (\"Of\ncourse, we finished on 15 September 1975; the Board members are just clean-\ning us some appealed cases, etc., and they are doing it for nothing.\")\nOn the other hand, the present Board members or others could be hired as\nconsultants to the Department of Justice, and paid for their time.\nAction Needed: A decision as to who will decide residual Board matters,\nand under what terms.\n- 2 -\nII. Standards to be Applied\nProblem: To obviate equal protection arguments, the same substantive\nstandards should be applied to all cases whether decided before or after\n15 September 1975.\nDiscussion: This appears to be no problem. In the DoJ meeting, all\nthe DoJ attendees were ecstatic about the Clemency Law Reporter, our es-\ntablished precedents, and the whole nine yards. They welcome all of the\nabove with open arms.\nAction Needed: Obtain firm, written commitment to the use of PCB\nstandards by succeeding agency.\nIII. Procedures\nProblem: The Board has developed and accepted a set of procedures\nwhich attempt to guarantee a measure of due process to its applicants. To\nthe degree possible, any follow-on agency should attempt to guarantee the\nsame measure of due process, even if the procedures vary.\nDiscussion: Although DoJ would probably agree to a continuation of\nthe preparation of case summaries, written notification of applicants,\ndetailed record-keeping, and SO forth, the Pardon Attorney stated that he\nwas not convinced of the necessity of oral presentation, in a formal setting,\nof each case to the decision-maker. Also, personal appearances are not used\nin straight pardon cases. It is not clear which of our procedures are neces-\nsary to the due process we are attempting to guarantee our applicants.\nAction needed: I have asked Mike Remington of Bill Strauss' team to\nprepare a list of the procedures used by the PCB which in his opinion con-\ntribute significantly to the rights of our applicants. After discussion\namong the senior staff, a list of procedures essential to our process should\nbe drawn up, and agreement obtained from DoJ that these will be continued.\nIV. Staff\nProblem: By 15 September 1975, the Board and the Action Attorneys will\nhave \"gone about as far as they can go,\" but the administrative tasks of pre-\nparation of Presidential packets, notification of applicants, return of re-\ncords, and close-out, will not be completed. Staff must be retained to perform\nthese functions.\nDiscussion: If the Board continues making decisions up to and including\n15 September 1975, there will obviously be tasks remaining to be done affecting\nthose last decisions. In all probability, the work of returning records, etc.,\nwill not be completed either. The National Archives will not decide to ac-\ncept their part of our records until weeks after they are offered, which cannot\nbe until we have completed all but a fraction of our work. While the current\nstaff will be working to the best of its ability to complete all major tasks,\n- 3 -\nif you are to prepare for the worst case, we will need OMB's concurrence\nto retain some detailed employees beyond 15 September 1975. The DoJ has\nat present 17 professionals and 12 clerical folks on our staff; presumably\nthese people cease being on detail and begin a reassignment as of 16\nSeptember 1975, and do not \"count against\" our totals. While I hope that\nthis will not be the case, as many as 20 additional people may be necessary\nfor from 4 to 6 weeks after the 15 September 1975 deadline. It is impossible\nto preduct how many, or indeed if, additional detailees will be needed at\nthis time. Over the next week, the DoJ people now on board will be moved to\npositions from which they can supervise or continue our functions if necessary.\nAction needed: OMB should be convinced to stand ready to OK and enforce\nthe extension of a small number of details from non-DoJ agencies for several\nweeks to a month after the 15 September 1975 deadline.\nV.\nFinances\nProblem: No money can be expended in the name of the Board after 15\nSeptember 1975; none for Board salaries, xerox rental, stationery, no\nnothing, as I understand it.\nDiscussion: While we can stockpile expendables such as xerox paper,\nwe (or someone) will have continuing expenses through September and part of\nOctober for such things as electricity and rent, which presumably GSA will\ncontinue to cover, xerox rentals which I believe have been covered by our\nbudget, and so forth. The magnitude of the sums are not clear.\nAction needed: Since it is clear that even with a small staff handling\nonly such time-dependent tasks as appeals, there will be a need for financial\naid, Bob: Horn should be directed to begin immediately scoping out the likely\nmagnitude of the need, and the likely sources.\nVI. Facilities/Equipment\nProblem: The Pardon Attorney does not have space in his area for even\nthe DoJ detailees that will remain with the Board after 15 September 1975.\nTherefore, regardless of the size of the carryover staff, some facilities\nand equipment will be necessary. In conversations with the Pardon Attorney\non 20 August 1975, he indicated a desire to maintain the facilities at 2033\nM Street as long as necessary although only several floors will be needed.\nWe are expecting to release 1206 New Hampshire Avenue to the GSA COB 15\nSeptember 1975.\nAction needed: Bob Horn and Bruce Lawhead should enter negotiations\nwith GSA concerning the retention of 2033 M Street and appropriate equipment\nfor some weeks beyond 15 September 1975.\n- 4 -\nVII. Institutional Locus\nProblem: Some agency has to assume responsibility for the PCB\nresidual functions.\nDiscussion: While it appears almost universal that DoJ should have\nthe responsibility for the residual PCB functions, the recent letter from\nPaul O'Neill to Senator Goodell indicates a possible interest by DoD in\nhaving its unfinished applicants back. It is to my knowledge as yet unde-\ncided whether the Pardon Attorney or some other locus within DoJ is most\nappropriate; arguments have been made for the Executive or Immediate Office\nof the Attorney General, to provide more clout.\nAction needed: A decision should be reached that the residual work and\nresidual functions of the PCB should be attached to a given part of a given\nagency. It appears to me that the Pardon Attorney within Justice is the\nmost appropriate candidate.\nVIII. Final Report\nProblem: After Board agreement, the Final Report must be revised,\nedited, managed through the Government Printing Office (proofreading and a\nmultitude of tasks) and disseminated. Possibly questions will need answer-\ning from the residual office.\nDiscussion: The printing cycle could be managed by another agency,\nsay the GSA, but having someone familiar with the report in charge of last\nminute editing and proofing would be most helpful. Dissemination can be\ndone by someone who reads the report.\nAction needed: A decision should be made to retain one member of\nBill Strauss' staff to ride herd on the Final Report until it is put to bed\nat GPO.\nIX.\nSelective Service interfaces\nProblem one: Our applicants need help weeding their way through a\nhostile and indifferent Selective Service bureaucracy. Our applicants will\nnot do well with only a written set of instructions and a far away State\nSelective Service Office to deal with.\nDiscussion: A part of substantive due process for a large part of our\napplicants would be an ombudsman function overseeing both the performance of\nour applicants and of the Selective Service System. This would necessitate\nanother function for the carryover group, and a long-term one. Since the\nBoard or its successor decision-maker could reduce a person's alternative\nservice to time served, and certify to the Pardon Attorney the successful\ncompletion of the period of alternative service, in those cases where the\nfailure to complete the period of service appears not to be the fault of the\napplicant, we should stay in the business of watching SSS.\n- 5 -\nAction needed: The carryover agency should be strongly encouraged\nto maintain as a function and perhaps as a staff unit the monitoring of\nSS and its behavior toward our applicants. OMB should be apprised of this\ndecision.\nProblem two: At present when Selective Service notifies the Clemency\nBoard of the successful completion of a period of alternative service, the\nBoard notifies the Pardon Attorney who prepares the pardon for the Attorney\nGeneral's signature. In the absence of the Clemency Board, some amendment\nto either our regulations or the Executive Order is necessary to avoid a\nnullity.\nDiscussion: Consonant with the discussion of the difficulties antici-\npated with Selective Service outlined in Problem One, Selective Service, it\nis clear to me that Selective Service should not be set up as the agency\nto have an unreviewable certification power over our applicants. I would\nprefer that the Pardon Attorney wear two hats, certifying to himself those\ncertified by Selective Service and any others he finds meritorious. Other\noptions are doubtless available.\nAction needed: Both a decision as to the locus of an intermediate\napprover of successful completion of alternative service by our applicants,\nand the requisite changes to the legal record. Bob Horn might be dispatched\nto research and write this up.\nX.\nUpgraded Discharges\nProblem: To date, the President has not signed off on the Board's\nrecommendation as to upgraded discharges.\nAction needed.\nXI.\nPost Deadline Applications\nProblem: We have a box filled with several hundred applications,\npresumably valid, which were not received by the 31 March 1975 deadline.\nDiscussion: While this appears to be a file or discard problem, in\ndiscussions with Bruce Fein in Justice he pointed out that DoJ was going\nto send a paper to the White House with recommendations as to the future of\nthe amnesty/clemency issue in this Administration. Clearly if this is true,\nthe box of post-deadline applications should be preserved.\nAction needed: Senator Goodell or Rick Tropp should find out about\nthe larger, amnesty/clemency paper from DoJ, join the fun, and we will\nhold the box of applications for the carryover agency.\n- 6 -\nXII.\nUnworkable Cases\nProblem: On 15 September 1975, there will be valid applications\nin hand, for which case summaries have not been prepared due to insufficient\ninformation. These cases will have received extensive, individual attention\nby that time.\nDiscussion: A staff of perhaps 50 attorneys in 1206 New Hampshire\nAvenue are presently attempting to develop case summaries on the so-called\n\"hard cases\". To the degree that they are able to do so, under the direction\nof Paul Krause and John Foote, the summaries will be ready for presentation\nto the Board on 08 or 09 September 1975. This will allow time for referrals\nto the full Board later in the week. If we assume that not all cases will\nbe developed into a presentable status, and presume likewise that all these\nresidual cases will be seen by at least one Board member prior to 15 Sep-\ntember 1975, what is to be done with them after 15 September 1975? Accord-\ning to the Pardon Attorney, he has neither the staff resources nor the\ninclination to treat them as other than perfectable applications, until\nsuch time as the applicants further contact the government.\nAction needed: The Board may wish to take a position with respect to\nthe unworkable, hard cases. This might include an urging to the DoJ and a\nrecommendation to the White House and OMB that he continue active searches\nfor more information concerning the applicants. Certainly, the Board will\nwish that the carryover agency retain in their files the names and all\npertinent information concerning the individuals that has been developed,\nso that if they are in subsequent contact with the government concerning\ntheir applications, the fact of their having met the application deadline of\n31 March 75, and their continuing eligibility will be on record.\nXIII. Dissemination of information concerning benefits received under the\nProgram\nProblem: Bill Strauss discovered on his tour of Dayton and environs\nthat our typical clemency recipient is not oriented toward receiving informa-\ntion via the written word. See his memo concerning that trim. How do we get\nthe word to the clemency recipients that they received a clemency discharge\nand a pardon, and what those items are worth?\nDiscussion: I have directed John Lohff to take his reduced staff,\nmeet with Bill Strauss and Mike Remington, and begin work on a set of\nmaterials which can be sent to all the \"first line\" agencies that deal with\nour kind of people, so that when a clemency recipient appears at the door\nof such an agency, someone will have in hand information to answer questions\nconcerning the value and use of the clemency documents. This list will include\nVA offices, Welfare offices, and the like. Between now and 15 September 1975,\nJohn Lohff's team will attempt to write and get cleared the appropriate sub-\nstantive material, identify the appropriate offices and their national entities,\nif any (of the United Way, and so forth) and get the material out.\nAction needed: If on 15 September 1975, we discover that there is more\nwork to be done about disseminating information to \"contact agencies\" about\n- 7 -\nthe value of the clemency papers, we should insist that the carryover\nagency assume that function until it is done.\nXIV. Notification of recipients of clemency\nProblem: During the next little while, until 15 September 1975,\nwe have about 18,000 pieces of mail to be sent out. We have two automatic\ntypewriters and a number of clerical personnel who are needed elsewhere.\nDiscussion: While I am attempting to get additional information\nabout workload for the automatic typewriters, it appears perfectly clear\nto me that we do not have the resources to get original letters typed for\nthe clemency recipients, the no clemency cases, the no jurisdiction cases,\nthe pro and con general correspondence, and any other pockets of resistance\nthat show up. Many of these, particularly the letters for the clemency re-\ncipients, require only the most minimal information to be added to the\nstandard letter: address, date, and period of alternative service. We\nneed to get additional assistance in typing those letters, and there is no\nreason to delay. The White House Correspondence unit could begin cranking\nthem out ASAP.\nAction needed: Another source should be immediately identified to\nbegin the auto-typing process for many of our letters. I suggest the White\nHouse Correspondence unit.\nSenator-\nGERRAL FORD LIBRARY\n8/21/75\n-\nAs of Tuesday, 8/19/75 :\nTotal # cases referred to FB= 596\n11 11 11 heard by FB= = 321\n11 11 IT remain to be heard\nby FB\n= 275\n34\n241\nLatter for miles,\n8/23\nSenator,\nFORD & LIBRARY 070839\n/.\nThere are 58 cases available\nfor today's full board session.\nDocket#15=25 cases, Dochet #16-25\ncases, plus 8 cases from Dochet #\n18. Attomay are available and\nprepared.\n2.\nThere are 57 cases available\nfor tomorrow's full board session.\nDochet # 17 =25 cores, Dochet # 18=\n17 cases, plus 15 cases from\nDochet # 14 which were not\nconsidered previously. Attoming\nwill be available tommoro and\nwe prepared.\nJun Pool\nPRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20500\nis\nFORD\nAugust 25, 1975\nGERALD\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nCHARLES E. GOODELL\nFROM:\nLAWRENCE M. BASKIR 1MA\nSUBJECT:\n#854 - Jurisdiction\nThere is jurisdiction in this case.\nThis applicant is living in the Ur. S., but may be excludable by\nINS, at least theoretically, since he is an alien and did leave the\nservice. However, deportation is a decision of INS and is subject to judicial\nreview. It would be inappropriate for the Presidential Clemency Board to\ndecide he is a deportable alien since we do not have the competence of these\nbodies. Our practice has been to decide cases like this in the absence of\na deportation determination by INS.\nNon-resident aliens are recommended only provisionally, and then referred\nto\nDOI. We cannot do this for resident aliens like this applicant because of\nour promise not to penalize them for applying.\nSwator Soodell:\nat\nFor your information-\nBrohaun\n8/26\nPRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20500\nAugust 26, 1975\nFORD i LIBRARY GERALD\nMEMORANDUM TO: GRETCHEN HANDWERGER\nTHRU: Him CHARLES : Janes O. GRAHAM D. Hartle\nSUBJ: CASES FLAGGED BY GENERAL WALT, \"TO BE BROUGHT TO THE SPECIAL\nATTENTION OF THE PRESIDENT\"\nPer the attached copy of my Memorandum to Charlie, dated 8/19/75,\nI have discussed the below two cases with General Walt:\n7580-JLX-M\n14929-HWX-M\nThe General recalls two others with Viet Nam AWOLs of four each\nand will look through his records for verification; I have\nvolunteered my services and Joe's if help is needed. General Walt\nappeared satisfied that we're doing our best to keep the record\nstraight and he has been assured that his requests as stated will\nbe honored.\nI asked if it was necessary to pull all cases of No Clemency by\neither him or Mr. Dougovito during Full Board sessions, but he\nexpressed no real concern in this matter. Again, assistance was\noffered after the press of scribing and recording this week.\nAugust 19, 1975\nMEMORANDUM TO: CHARLES O. GRAHAM\nFROM: JANET A. HARTLE\nSUBJ: CASES TO BE BROUGHT TO THE SPECIAL ATTENTION OF THE\nPRESIDENT\nPer General Walt's request the Full Board files have been\nsearched for cases that he designated to \"be brought to the\nspecial attention of the President\".\n1. 7580-JLX-M Heardf July 2, 1975. Full Pardon\nNotation for the President is that\nthe applicant had five AWOL offenses\nwhile in Viet Nam\n2. 14929-HWX-M Heard August 13, 1975. Full Pardon\nNotation that the applicant was\nconvicted of first degree manslaughter.\nLEb\n26 Aug 75\nTO: Lawrence M. Baskir\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\nFV]\nFROM: Mike Bernstein\n145\nSUBJECT: Double Decisions (your memorandum of 25 Aug 75)\nIn accordance with your memorandum concerning cases 12430 and 4818,\nI made a check to ascertain what dispositions had been made for these\ncases and why. In addition, I made a check of case 9741 which was\nmentioned to me by Mr. Craig in my conversation with him. A memorandum\nof that conversation is attached. My findings for each case are set\nforth below. If additional information is required, I will be more\nthan happy to undertake the necessary research.\n4818 have been unable to find more than one disposition for this\ncase. That disposition was a pardon, which was recommended by Panel\nok\nF on August 8. I have checked disposition sheets from August 8 through\nAugust 22 with no entry occurring. In addition, neither the Master\nLog nor the Docketing log reflect any disposition other than that of\nAugust 8. Examination of the case file, however, does give indication\nthat a duplicate presentation could have been easily made. The case\nfile and the military personnel file were separate in the file drawer,\nwith summaries, although similar in content, typed on a different\ntypewriter. The summary in the PCB file was annotated \"Panel F Pardon--\nMiller\", and the summary in the personnel file was annotated \"Letter\nbut no file.\" Nonetheless, I am unable to find more than one disposition\nfor the case.\n9741--This number was given to me by Mr. Craig in the course of my\nconversation with him on this date. He indicated that it had been\npresented today and he was sure he had heard the same case presented\nearlier. I have checked case disposition sheets and established that\nthis case was presented on August 22 before Panel E, of which Mr. Craig\nwas a member. A pardon was awarded at that time, as it was in today's\npresentation. It is noteworthy that the case was reportedly presented\non August 22 by Mr. Rosenak, although I am informed that he has long\nsince returned to his agency. I spoke with Mr. Friedman, who presented\nthe case today, and he indicated that he had made the presentation with-\nout a PCB file because he could not lokate it anywhere. He further\nreported that no information he could unearth showed that the case had\nbeen disposed of previously, or he would not have made the presentation.\n12430--The Master Log reflects only a single disposition--No Clemency-\non July 10. The Docketing Log shows the same disposition, but shows\nthe notation \"D-A\" for June 27. I checked the disposition sheet for\nJune 27 and this indicated that the case had been docketed but was\not\nnot presented because bee attorney was not present. I could find no\nindication of any other disposition for this case and was unable to\nlocate the file to ascertain if any other disposition was indicated.\nFrom my review of the Master Log and the Docketing Log, however, I\nmust conclude that there was only a single recommendation made in this\ncase.\ncc: Gretchen Handwerger\n26 Aug 75\nMemorandum for file\nConversations with Board members Craig and Adams\nIn accordance with the Baskir Memorandum of 25 Aug 75, I contacted Mr.\nCraig for further information (i.e. Case Number) of the case involving\na mother's overeating disease on which a duplicate decision had been\nmade. Mr. Craig recalled the incident but indicated that I would have\nto obtain the information from Dr. Adams. The case had been heard by\na panel involving Adams, Craig and Vinson and Dr. Adams recalled the\ncircumstances of the case and the fact that a prior decision had been\nissued.\nMr. Craig did however indicate another duplicate decision case,\nthis was 9741. It was heard today by his panel and he recalled having\nheard this case previously. He also recalled 4818, mentioned in the\nMemorandum and the fact that it had been heard 8 Aug and last week. He\ninquired as to why such rehearings were happening, espècially since\nboth dispositions were pardons. I offered some possible explanations\nfor second hearings, including attorney unawareness of prior hearings\nand lack of familiarity with docketing procedures (i.e. I cited the\ncase of one attorney who, after her cases were heard, placed a copy\nof the summary, etc. in the Xerox basket of the team secretary).\nFollowing my conversation with Mr. Craig, I contacted Dr. Adams.\nHe recalled the circumstances of the case and the fact that it was\nthe applicants brother, not his mother, who was afflicted with the\novereating disease. He did not, however, recall the case number.\nM. Bernstein\nCleanup Detail\nPRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20500\nAugust 25, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nGUY BRANDENBURG\nFROM:\nLAWRENCE M. BASKIR Jnc\nSUBJECT:\nDOUBLE DECISIONS\nThe following two cases, #12430 and #4818, were apparently presented to\ntwo panels. Can you give me reports on each?\nAt the same time as one of these two cases, there was another involving\nan applicant's mother with an over-eating disease. Mr. Craig has this\ncase number, and it also was a double decision. I'd like a report on this\none.\nNATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION\nPresidential Libraries Withdrawal Sheet\nWITHDRAWAL ID 02003\nREASON FOR WITHDRAWAL\nDonor restriction\nTYPE OF MATERIAL\nMemorandum\nCREATOR'S NAME\nStephen O'Brien\nRECEIVER'S NAME\nCharles Goodell\nDESCRIPTION\nre an applicant\nCREATION DATE\n08/28/1975\nCOLLECTION/SERIES/FOLDER ID\n019300057\nCOLLECTION TITLE\nCharles Goodell Papers\nBOX NUMBER\n7\nFOLDER TITLE\nMemoranda - Internal (1)-(3)\nDATE WITHDRAWN\n11/20/1990\nWITHDRAWING ARCHIVIST\nWHM\nPRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD\nCASE SUMMARY\nPCB Attorney: Mark Rosen/Pollack/Owen Case No: 16501-JLF-M\nTelephone: (202) 634-4853\nBranch of Service: Marines\nSummary Completed: 30 July 75\nAge: 29\nTotal Time Served: 1 mo., 28 Days\nPresent Status: Civilian\nPredischarge Confinement\nDate of Application: 30 Jan 75\nDischarge Status: Undesirable\nDischarge in Lieu of Court-Martial\nOffense: AWOL\n11 Aug 69 - 7 Oct 69 (1 mo., 26 days)\nTotal Time: 1 month, 26 days\nTotal Creditable Service: 2 years, 4\nmonths, 10 days including 6 months active\nduty while in reserves\nBACKGROUND\nThis Caucasian applicant was born on 30 May 46 in South Carolina into an\nintact family of three children. The record is in conflict as to whether\nhe completed 1½ or 3 years of high school. At the age of seventeen he en-\nlisted in the Marine Corps Reserves. After several years in the reserves it\nwas discovered that he had sensitive inner ears and some high frequency\nhearing loss. The applicant applied for a medical discharge but on 18 Oct\n67 the Bureau of Medicine determined that the applicant was fit for duty\nand denied his request. After receiving this denial, he continued his ef-\nforts to be assigned to duties which would not expose him to loud noises.\nThe applicant contends that as a result of his continued efforts for re-\nassignment, resentment developed. He says that he lost concern for his\nhearing condition and wanted to prove himself to the reserve unit by en-\nlisting in the regular marines; the applicant did so on 29 Jan 68.\nSeveral months after enlisting the applicant was sent to Vietnam where he\nserved from 23 May 68 until he was medically evacuated on 23 Jun 68. While\nin a stateside hospital recovering from his wounds, the applicant also had\nhis hearing rechecked. It was determined that his hearing condition re-\nquired restricted duty with no exposure to loud noises. The applicant and\nthe Marine Corps disagree over whether this stipulation was met.\nThe applicant's AFQT was 60 (group III) and his GCT was 99. Prior to his\nAWOL he was rated five times while on active duty, and averaged 4.7 in both\nconduct and duty. He attained the rank of Iance corporal.\nCIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENSE\nThe applicant was absent without authority from 11 Aug 69 7 Oct 69. Just\nprior to his absenting himself he was beaten up by another marine obstensively\nbecause he had joined a group of demonstrators passing out anti-war leaflets\nin the Waikiki beach area of Hawaii. While absent he, along with several\nothers, sought and was granted sanctuary at the Church of the Crossroads in\nHonolulu, Hawaii. During his stay at the church he made several statements\ndisapproving of United States conduct in Vietnam which were published by\nlocal newspapers. On 28 Aug 69 he, and another, were secreted out of Hawaii to\nSouth Bend, Indiana where he appeared at a convention being held by delegates\nof the Episcopal Church at the University of Notre Dame. He again made anti-\nwar statements which were publicized by local TV and the newspapers. The Staff\nJudge Advocate reported that his statements to news media, although anti-war\nin nature, were not considered disloyal, and accordingly no charges could be\nsustained for such conduct. On 4 Sept 69 he left Indiana and was driven to\nCanada where he made some efforts to obtain the necessary documents required to\nenroll in a Canadian college and to apply for Canadian citizenship. However,\napparently at the urging of his parents he returned to the United States and\nCase No: 16501-JFL-M\nCase No: 16501-JFL,M\nCIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENSE (Con'd)\nsurrendered himself to military authorities on 7 Oct 69.\nUpon his return he was placed in confinement. The applicant originally\ndesired to return to duty so he could receive an honorable discharge. How-\never, his attitude changed and he was unwilling to remain confined. On 4\nNov 69 he requested an undesirable discharge for the good of the service,\nHe was discharged on 8 Dec 69.\nVIETNAM SERVICE\nThe applicant served in Vietnam from 23 May 68 until he was medically\nevacuated on 23 Jun 63 after suffering shrapnel wounds in his back and a\ncracked rib. He participated in \"Operation Allen Brook\" in Quang Nam Province.\nThe applicant was awarded the Purple Heart, Vietnamese Service Medal with\n1 star, Vietnamese Campaign Medal with device\nCHRONOLOGY\n30 May 46\nDate of Birth\n1964 L\nLeft High School\n29\nJan 64\nEnlisted in Marine Reserves\n29\nJan 68\nRe-enlisted for 3 years in Regular Marines\n23 May 68 - 22 Jun 68\nVietnam Service\n11 Aug 69 - 7 Oct 69\nAWOL (1 mo., 26 days) surrendered\n9 Oct 69 - 7 Dec 69\nConfinement (1 mo., 28 days)\n4 Nov 69\nRequests UD.\n8 Dec 69\nUndesirable Discharge\n30 Jan 75\nPCB Application\nAWARDS AND DECORATIONS\nPurple Heart Medal\nVietnam Service Medal with 1 star\nRepublic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with device\nNational Defense Service Medal\nPRIOR MILITARY OFFENSES\nNone\nSENTENCE HISTORY\nN/A\nSOURCES\nMilitary Personnel File\nApplicant's Letter to Congressman\nSUMMARY OF DECISION: EFFECTIVE APRIL 8, 1975\nPRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20500\nCalculation of Baseline for Alternative Service:\nStarting Point\n24 Months\nLess Three Times\nMonths in Prison\n-\nMonths\nLess Alternative Service Performed if Period Satisfactorily Completed\n-\nMonths\nLess Time Served on Probation or Parole if Period Satisfactorily\nCompleted\n-\nMonths\nBASELINE\nMonths\nJudge's Sentence to Imprisonment as Reduced by Competent Authority, which\nis the Baseline if Less Than the Above Figure\nMonths\nMinimum Baseline\n3 Months\nFinal Baseline for Determining the Period of Alternative Service\nU.D.\n3\nMonths\nAggravating Factors:\n(1).\nOther adult convictions\n(2).\nFalse statement by applicant to the Presidential Clemency Board\n(3).\nUse of force by applicant collaterally to AWOL, desertion, or missing\nmovement or civilian draft evasion offense\n(4).\nDesertion during combat\n(5).\nEvidence that applicant committed offense for obviously manipulative\nand selfish reasons\n(6).\nPrior refusal to fulfill alternative service\n(7).\nViolation of probation or parole\n(8).\nMultiple AWOL/UA offenses\n(9).\nAWOL/UA of extended length MO., 26 DAYS\n(10).\nFailure to report for overseas assignment\nX None of the above\nMitigating Factors:\n(1).\nLack of sufficient education or ability to understand obligations or\nremedies available under the law\n(2).\nPersonal and immediate family problems\n(3).\nX\nMental or physical condition\n(4).\nEmployment and other activities of service to the public\n(5).\nService-connected disability\n(6).\nX Extended period of creditable military service 2 YRS, 4 Mo., 10 DAYS\n(7).\nX\nTours of service in the war zone\n(8).\nSubstantial evidence of personal or procedural unfairness\n(9).\nDenial of conscientious objector status on procedural, technical,\nor improper grounds\n(10).\nEvidence that an applicant acted for conscientious, not manipulative\nor selfish reasons\n(11).\nx\nVoluntary submission to authorities by applicant\n(12).\nBehavior which reflects mental stress caused by combat\n(13).\nVolunteering for combat, or extension of sej vice while in combat\n(14).\nX\nAbove average military conduct and proficie cy or unit citations\n(15).\nPersonal decorations for valor\n(16).\nX\nWounds in combat\nNone of the above\nBased on these factors, the Board's decision is that the\nmonth baseline should be\nFULL PARDON\nTherefore, a pardon will be granted\nafter performance of\nmonths of alternative service.\n16501-JLF-M\nO'BRIEN\nCase Number\nStaff Attorney"
}