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
4520462
label
Clemency Program - Report and Recommendations
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4520462
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Clemency Program - Report and Recommendations
citationUrl
collections
Philip W. Buchen Files
Philip Buchen's General Subject Files
subjects
President (1974-1977 : Ford). Presidential Clemency Board. (09/16/1974 - 09/15/1975)
Amnesty
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4520462
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-01
month
12
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-08-01
month
8
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
796cc06a36b62c3e
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 6, folder "Clemency Program - Report and
Recommendations" of the Philip Buchen Files 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. Gerald R. Ford 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 6 of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 26, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
CHARLES E. GOODELL
FROM:
PHILIP W. BUCHEN P.W.B.
SUBJECT:
Your memorandum of August 15
As I read your memorandum, you interpret Section 9 of
Executive Order 11803 differently from the way I think
it must be interpreted. Section 9 calls for "final
recommendations to the President" by a specified date
which you now indicate will be no later than September 15.
The only recommendations called for by the Order are those
specified in Section 3. The Board's recommendations shall
be "as to whether executive clemency should be granted or
denied in any case [and] if clemency is recommended
the form that such clemency should take. " Thus, according
to the Order, once the Board makes its recommendations
as to granting or denial of clemency in each case which
has come before it, its work will have been completed.
You, on the other hand, appear to read the Order as
requiring recommendations of how the President should
deal in the future with broad problems which you may have
detected as a result of the activities of the Board. This
is an interpretation which I do not believe is supported
in any way by the language of the Order or the President's
intent, and I believe you should confine the remaining
activities of the Board to completing review of the cases
before you in accordance with Section 3 of the Order. By
following this appropriate course, we avoid any question
about preparing either a further report to the President
for him to release or a confidential memorandum to him.
CC: Donald Rumsfeld
FORD & LIBRARY
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 15, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Therles PHILIP BUCHEN <. Goodell
FROM:
CHARLES E. GOODELL
SUBJECT:
Presidential Clemency Board's Final
Recommendations
Under section 9 of Executive Order 11803 ("Establishing a
Clemency Board "), the Presidential Clemency Board is
charged to "submit its final recommendations to the
President not later than December 31, 1976". Since the
Board contemplates a completion of its caseload by
September 15, we are preparing a final report to the
President to be submitted by that date.
That report will describe to the President what kinds of
people applied to the Board and what kinds of problems
generated their offense, the procedure by which the Board
reached its recommendations on clemency applications, some
broad problems which we have learned about as we see patterns
emerging from the cases, and some recommendations as to what
the President might do to remedy those broad problems.
It is the President's prerogative, not the Board's, to re-
lease or to elect not to release all or part of the Board's
final recommendations to him. On that assumption, I envision
submitting those recommendations in a two-part package:
(1) A final report written in a form appropriate for
public release, in contemplation of its release
by the White House very shortly after submission
to the President. The Board itself will submit the
report to the President, and will not publicly
release anything. Although the existence of a
report will obviously be known to the press, the
President will retain the option of releasing it or
not.
(2) An options memorandum forwarding the Board's
recommendations for action by the President. This
ERALD FORD LIBRARY
memorandum will not be released to the public.
- 2 -
To avoid confusion about who will publicly release what
materials at what time, we should establish procedural ground
rules well before the Board's recommendations are formulated.
Please let me know whether you concur on the procedure which
I propose, and, if not, what alternatives you proffer.
cc.: DONALD RUMSFELD
FORD it GERALD LIBRARY
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 15, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Therles PHILIP BUCHEN ? Fordell
FROM:
CHARLES E. GOODELL
SUBJECT:
Presidential Clemency Board's Final
Recommendations
Under section 9 of Executive Order 11803 ("Establishing a
Clemency Board "), the Presidential Clemency Board is
charged to "submit its final recommendations to the
President not later than December 31, 1976". Since the
Board contemplates a completion of its caseload by
September 15, we are preparing a final report to the
President to be submitted by that date.
That report will describe to the President what kinds of
people applied to the Board and what kinds of problems
generated their offense, the procedure by which the Board
reached its recommendations on clemency applications, some
broad problems which we have learned about as we see patterns
emerging from the cases, and some recommendations as to what
the President might do to remedy those broad problems,
It is the President's prerogative, not the Board's, to re-
lease or to elect not to release all or part of the Board's
final recommendations to him. On that assumption, I envision
submitting those recommendations in a two-part package:
(1) A final report written in a form appropriate for
public release, in contemplation of its release
by the White House very shortly after submission
FORD & 07V839 LIBRARY
to the President. The Board itself will submit the
report to the President, and will not publicly
release anything. Although the existence of a
report will obviously be known to the press, the
President will retain the option of releasing it or
not.
(2) An options memorandum forwarding the Board's
recommendations for action by the President. This
memorandum will not be released to the public.
- 2 -
To avoid confusion about who will publicly release what
materials at what time, we should establish procedural ground
rules well before the Board's recommendations are formulated.
Please let me know whether you concur on the procedure which
I propose, and, if not, what alternatives you proffer.
cc.: DONALD RUMSFELD
FORD in LIBRARY GERALD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 15, 1975
ADMINISTRATIVELY
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM TO:
PHIL BUCHEN
FROM:
RUSS ROURKE
R
Phil, General Walt hand delivered the attached memo to me.
It describes alleged Clemency Board "discrepancies." 11
I am under the impression that Jay French has already received
a verbal report on this matter.
Enclosure
FORD : GERALD LIBRARY
THE FOLLOWING 15 A LIST OF
MATES is THE
CY THE PREVIDENTIAL
COMENCY DREGRAM 25 OF THIS
LATE:
/
IN A NUMBER OF INSTANCES iT
HAVE BeeN DETERMINED THAT CASES
AFTER HAVING ONCE Better secises
AND Supposency Disposes OF BY
HE FULL BOARDORA PANEL HAVE AGAIN
BEEN DOCKETED AND PRESENTED 75 A/-
PANEL or THE FULL BOARD.
2.
CASES BRING PRESENTED to THE
FULL BOARD, WHICH HAD BEEN
FLAGGED FITHER By THE Computer
FOR VARiOUS REASONS, op physicall,
HAD NOT BLEN BENTIFIED 75'
SUCH onl THE DOCKET IN ACCORDANCE
WITH policy ESTABLISHED
3.
AN AUTOMATIC HOLD HAS BEEN
PLACED ON ALL CASES INVOLVING A
"No CLEMENCY Dispositions ANE
CASES INVOLVING APPLICANTS
CURRENTLY INCARCERATED.
CASES INVOLVING OTHER DISPOSITIONS
HAD BEEN SENT to THE WHITE HOUSE
ON A REGULAR
ALL CASES DECNED By Zins
FULL Bonns parce NO 8 May 1975
DATE BOARD ARE BENE
CONSIDERED A5 cares Hawns
accorded PANEL suly
As SUCH SEVERAL cares HCARD
NPIOR TO THIS DATE HAVE BEEN
FLAGGED AND ARE BEING HECD Fore
possible RECONSTIONATION By THE
"FULL BOARD".
(NOTE: Prior Z THE INCREASE it
NUMBER on Bonies MEMBERS ON
8 MAY 1975, THE FULL BOMPO MCI
AS A PANEL.)
IN OTHER WORDS, THESE FAVES
DECIDEO by THE FULL BOARD PRIOR
15 8 MAY 1975 OPE NOT BEING
ACCORDED FULL BOARD RECOGNITION
5
FT THE PRESENT TIME, SOME
384 CASES ARE BEING HELD FOR
VARIOUS REASONS. THESE ARE NOT
AWAITING FUPTHICS
TABLED Cases, OR CASES BE
RCFORD
HELD FOR FULL BOARD presse ITF
BUT CASES ALREADY ACTEO ont
ins prspect To FINAL DISPOSITIONS
3
7.
RE JAL AND OF
SOME
is ARWINISTRATIVE CUSTOMERY
BEARC PERSONNEL To COOPERATE
WITH PREPANCE: OF THE MINORITY
RENENT By WITHHOLDING ESSENTIAL
INFORMATION MATERIAL Is THE
,DREPARATION THEREOF.
LTC, USAFR
(MINORITY REPORT)
he FORD LIBRNET
TOTALLY EMBARGOED
SEPTEMBER 16, 1974
UNTIL 11:30 A.M., EDT
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
EXECUTIVE ORDER
# 11803
ESTABLISHING A CLEMENCY BOARD TO REVIEW CERTAIN
CONVICTIONS OF PERSONS UNDER SECTION 12 OR 6 (j)
OF THE MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT AND CERTAIN
DISCHARGES ISSUED BECAUSE OF, AND CERTAIN CONVIC-
TIONS FOR, VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 85, 86 or 87 OF
THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE AND TO MAKE
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY WITH RESPECT
THERETO
By virtue of the authority vested in me as President
of the United States by Section 2 of Article II of the
Constitution of the United States, and in the interest
of the internal management of the Government, it is
ordered as follows:
Section 1. There is hereby established in the
Executive Office of the President a board of 9 members,
which shall be known as the Presidential Clemency Board.
The members of the Board shall be appointed by the
President, who shall also designate its Chairman.
Sec. 2. The Board, under such regulations as it
may prescribe, shall examine the cases of persons who
apply for Executive clemency prior to January 31, 1975,
and who (i) have been convicted of violating Section 12 or
6(j) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 App.
U.S.C. $462), or of any rule or regulation promulgated
pursuant to that section, for acts committed between
August 4, 1964 and March 28, 1973, inclusive, or (ii) have
received punitive or undesirable discharges as a conse-
quence of violations of Article 85, 86 or 87 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. SS 885, 886,
887) that occurred between August 4, 1964 and March 28,
1973, inclusive, or are serving sentences of confinement
for such violations. The Board will only consider the
cases of Military Selective Service Act violators who
were convicted or unlawfully failing (i) to register or
register on time, (ii) to keep the local board informed
of their current address, (iii) to report for or submit
LIBRARY
to preinduction or induction examination, (iv) to report for
or submit to induction itself, or (v) to report for or
submit to, or complete service under Section 6(j) of
such Act. However, the Board will not consider the
cases of individuals who are precluded from re-entering
the United States under 8 U.S.C. 1182 (a) (22) or other
law.
Sec. 3. The Board shall report to the President its
findings and recommendations as to whether Executive clemency
should be granted or denied in any case. If clemency is recom-
mended, the Board shall also recommend the form that such
more
2
clemency should take, including clemency conditioned upon a
period of alternate service in the national interest. In the
case of an individual discharged from the armed forces with
a punitive or undesirable discharge, the Board may recommend
to the President that a clemency discharge be substituted
for a punitive or undesirable discharge. Determination of
any period of alternate service shall be in accord with the
Proclamation announcing a program for the return
of Vietnam era draft evaders and military deserters.
Sec. 4. The Board shall give priority consideration to
those applicants who are presently confined and have been
convicted only of an offense set forth in section 2 of this
order, and who have no outstanding criminal charges.
Sec. 5. Each member of the Board, except any member
who then receives other compensation from the United States,
may receive compensation for each day he or she is engaged
upon the work of the Board at not to exceed the daily rate
now or hereafter prescribed by law for persons and positions
in GS-18, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 3109), and may also
receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of sub-
sistence, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5703) for persons in
the government service employed intermittently.
Sec. 6. Necessary expenses of the Board may be paid from
the Unanticipated Personnel Needs Fund of the President or from
such other funds as may be available.
Sec. 7. Necessary administrative services and support may
be provided the Board by the General Services Administration
on a reimbursable basis.
Sec. 8. All departments and agencies in the Executive
branch are authorized and directed to cooperate with the
Board in its work, and to furnish the Board all appropriate
information and assistance, to the extent permitted by law.
Sec. 9. The Board shall submit its final recommendations
to the President not later than December 31, 1976, at which
time it shall cease to exist.
GERALD R. FORD
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE,
September 16, 1974.
I
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Clemency Board
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 29, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
DONALD RUMSFELD
FROM:
PHILIP W. BUCHEN
P.W.B.
In a memorandum dated August 15 (see Tab A), Chairman Goodell
notified me of the Clemency Board's intention to submit a final report
to the President. In support of this intention, Chairman Goodell cited
language in section 9 of Executive Order 11083, which charged the Board
to "submit its final recommendations to the President". In my reply
memorandum dated August 26 (see Tab B), I pointed out that the Executive
Order did not require the Board to submit a final report, but rather final
recommendations concerning Executive clemency. Chairman Goodell
replied to my memo by telephone on August 28 citing the Federal Advisory
Committee Act as a new authority for the submission of a final report to
the President.
I have reviewed the Federal Advisory Committee Act (see Tab C), and
Chairman Goodell is correct that an annual report is mandatory under certain
circumstances which are applicable in the case of the Clemenay Board.
FORD
LIBRAR,
-2-
The Act requires that the report set forth:
"a summary of its /the Board's/ activities and such related
matters as would be informative to the public consistent with
the policy of section 552(b) of Title 5 /the Freedom of Information
Act/." (5 U.S.C. App. I § 10(d)).
This authority to issue a report raises several concerns which are discussed
below.
If the Board submits a public report to the President, the Federal Advisory
Committee Act requires that
Within one year after a Presidential advisory committee
has submitted a public report to the President, the President
or his delegate shall make a report to the Congress stating
either his proposals for action or his reasons for inaction,
with respect to the recommendations contained in the report.
(5 U.S.C. App. I $ 6 (b))
Informally, Lunderstand that one of the Board's recommendations may be
that the President alter appropriate regulations to permit medical benefits
for wounded Vietnam veterans who are ineligible for such benefits because
they have been discharged from the armed forces with dishonorable or
bad conduct discharges ordered by Special or General Courts-martial.
I do not know how many or the nature of other recommendations which
the Board might make in its report. However, the President (or his
delegate) would have to explain to the Congress, no later than September 15,
1976, what action has been taken, or give reasons for inaction.
LIBRARY
-3-
Further, I have been informed that approximately four groups intend
to prepare minority reports to the report from Chairman Goodell. These
minority reports are being prepared by more conservative and more
liberal members of the Board, and these reports will contain recommendations.
Of course, they will be made public, although it is unclear whether the
President would have to report to the Congress or minority recommendations.
In his August 15 memorandum, Chairman Goodell indicated that in addition
to a final report, the Board would also submit an options memorandum to
the President containing other recommendations for the President's action.
I believe such an options memorandum might be interpreted as avoiding
the Federal Advisory Committee Act's requirement that the final report
be made public. It is possible that a requester under the Freedom of
Information Act could be successful in Federal Court in obtaining
disclosure of the options memo on such grounds. If such a court order
were obtained, the President would be called upon to report his actions
to Congress on these recommendations within one year.
RECOMMENDATION
It is my opinion, with which the acting OMB General Counsel concurs,
that the Presidential Clemency Board must issue a final public report
briefly summarizing the Board's activities. OMB has set aside $5,000 to
publish such a report and that amount is adequate.
are
LIBRART
- -4-
However, the law does not require that the report contain final recommendations
on other related matters of public interest, and I would advise against the
Board making such recommendations in a public report or an options memo.
I know of no reason why Chairman Goodell and other members of the Board
could not discuss recommendations which the Board considered during its
tenure with the President or his staff after the Board has issued a report
and has been legally terminated on September 15.
Your advice would be appreciated on how best to avoid these problem
areas.
cc: Jack Marsh
POUD
LISEARY
TAB
A
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 15, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Therles PHILIP BUCHEN <. Goodell
FROM:
CHARLES E. GOODELL
SUBJECT:
Presidential Clemency Board's Final
Recommendations
Under section 9 of Executive Order 11803 ("Establishing a
Clemency Board "), the Presidential Clemency Board is
charged to "submit its final recommendations to the
President not later than December 31, 1976". Since the
Board contemplates a completion of its caseload by
September 15, we are preparing a final report to the
President to be submitted by that date.
That report will describe to the President what kinds of
people applied to the Board and what kinds of problems
generated their offense, the procedure by which the Board
reached its recommendations on clemency applications, some
broad problems which we have learned about as we see patterns
emerging from the cases, and some recommendations as to what
the President might do to remedy those broad problems.
It is the President's prerogative, not the Board's, to re-
lease or to elect not to release all or part of the Board's
final recommendations to him. On that assumption, I envision
submitting those recommendations in a two-part package:
(1) A final report written in a form appropriate for
public release, in contemplation of its release
by the White House very shortly after submission
to the President. The Board itself will submit the
report to the President, and will not publicly
release anything. Although the existence of a
report will obviously be known to the press, the
President will retain the option of releasing it or
not.
(2) An options memorandum forwarding the Board's
recommendations for action by the President. This
memorandum will not be released to the public.
LIBRARY GERALD B FORM
- 2 -
To avoid confusion about who will publicly release what
materials at what time, we should establish procedural ground
rules well before the Board's recommendations are formulated.
Please let me know whether you concur on the procedure which
I propose, and, if not, what alternatives you proffer.
cc.: DONALD RUMSFELD
LIBRARY GENALD = SHOP
TAB
B
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 26, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
CHARLES E. GOODELL
FROM:
PHILIP W. BUCHEN P.W.B.
SUBJECT:
Your memorandum of August 15
As I read your memorandum, you interpret Section 9 of
Executive Order 11803 differently from the way I think
it must be interpreted. Section 9 calls for "final
recommendations to the President" by a specified date
which you now indicate will be no later than September 15.
The only recommendations called for by the Order are those
specified in Section 3. The Board's recommendations shall
be "as to whether executive clemency should be granted or
denied in any case [and] if clemency is recommended
the form that such clemency should take." Thus, according
to the Order, once the Board makes its recommendations
as to granting or denial of clemency in each case which
has come before it, its work will have been completed.
You, on the other hand, appear to read the Order as
requiring recommendations of how the President should
deal in the future with broad problems which you may have
detected as a result of the activities of the Board. This
is an interpretation which I do not believe is supported
in any way by the language of the Order or the President's
intent, and I believe you should confine the remaining
activities of the Board to completing review of the cases
before you in accordance with Section 3 of the Order. By
following this appropriate course, we avoid any question
about preparing either a further report to the President
for him to release or a confidential memorandum to him.
CC: Donald Rumsfeld
is
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
FORD LIE
817
each enrolled employee
there shall be contrib-
tio as the contributions
APPENDIX I
under subsection (b)
nistrative costs and the
FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT
Pub.L. 92-463, Oct. 6, 1972, 86 Stat. 770.
to
(f)]
Sec:-
Sec.
this section for health
1. Short title.
9. Establishment and purpose of ad-
appropriations which
2. Findings-and purpose.
visory committees; publication in
3. Definitions.
Federal Register; charter: filing,
4. Applicability; restrictions.
contents, copy.
of biweekly rates
5. Responsibilities of Congressional
10. Advisory committee procedures;
committees; review; guidelines.
meetings; notice, publication in
for employees and an-
6. Responsibilities of the President; re-
Federal Register: regulations;
for this purpose may
port to Congress; annual report to
minutes; certification; annual re-
Congress; exclusion.
port; Federal officer or employee,
to the nearest cent.
7. Responsibilities of the Director, Of-
attendance.
70, 84 Stat. 869; Pub.L.
fice of Management and Budget;
11.
Availability of transcripts; "agency
Committee Management Secretariat,
proceeding".
establishment; review; recom-
12.
Fiscal and administrative provisions;
mendations to President and Con-
recordkeeping; audit; agency sup-
contribution, beginning on of
gress; agency cooperation; per-
port services.
of the first pay period
formance guidelines; uniform pay
13.
Responsibilities of Library of Con-
an amount equal to 40 per- to
guidelines; travel expenses; ex-
adjustment, with respect
gress; reports and background
pense recommendations.
self and family enrollments,
papers; depository.
8. Responsibilities of agency heads:
for the highest level of ben-
14. Termination of advisory committees;
Advisory Committee Management
renewal; continuation.
by the service benefit plan,
Control Officer, designation.
15. Effective date.
Ity nization plans. and the two
benefit plan, the two em-
medical plans for prior
§ 1. Short title
ve a contribution, in addition
or ent of subsec. (c) of this sec-
This Act may be cited as the "Federal Advisory Committee Act".
the enrollment is for self and
if the enrollment is for self
§ 2. Findings and purpose
Date of 1974 Amendment.
of Pub.L. 93-246 provided
(a) The Congress finds that there are numerous committees, boards,
first section of this Act
commissions, councils, and similar groups which have been established to
pubsecs. (a)-(c) and (g) of
shail take effect on the first
advise officers and agencies in the executive branch of the Federal Gov-
first applicable pay period
ernment and that they are frequently a useful and beneficial means of
on or after January 1,
furnishing expert advice, ideas, and diverse opinions to the Federal Gov-
of Pub.L. 93-246 provided
ernment.
determination of the average
charges and the adjust-
(b) The Congress further finds and declares that—
Decement contributions for
(1) the need for many existing advisory committees has not been
pution ISDA of title 5. United
- seconded by the first sec-
adequately reviewed;
Art amending subsecs. (a)-
of this ametion]. shall take
(2) new advisory committees should be established only when
Bow by of the first appli-
they are determined to be essential and their number should be kept
which begins on or aft-
ass failering the date of
to the minimum necessary;
/ 1M [Jan. 31, 1974]."
(3) advisory committees should be terminated when they are no
- 1970 Amendment. Sec-
PAL " 415 provided that:
longer carrying out the purposes for which they were established;
TRead made by subsection (a)
(4) standards and uniform procedures should govern the estab-
to malanc. (8) of this sec-
/ effective at the begin-
lishment, operation, administration, and duration of advisory com-
lime applicable pay period
mittees;
/ after December 31,
(5) the Congress and the public should be kept informed with re-
Nistory. For legislative his-
Purpose of Pub.L. 91-418, see
spect to the number, purpose, membership, activities, and cost of ad-
Ma Cong. and Adm.News. p.
visory committees; and
from, Puble 93-246, 1974 U.S.
and Adm.,News, p. -
(6) the function of advisory committees should be advisory only,
and that all matters under their consideration should be determined,
in accordance with law, by the official, agency, or officer involved.
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 11686
FORD
Ex.Ord.No.11686, Oct. 7, 1972, 37 F.R. agement, was superseded by Ex.Ord.No.
21421, set out as a note under this sec-
11769, Feb. 21, 1974, 39 F.R. 7125, set out
tion, which related to committee man- as a note under this section.
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 11769
Feb. 21, 1974, 39 F.R. 7125
COMMITTEE MANAGEMENT
By virtue of the authority vested in me Constitution and statutes of the United
as President of the United States by the States, including the Federal Advisory
4 U.S.C.A.-2
1974 P.P.
17
TITLE 5-APPENDIX I
Committee Act, 5 U.S.C.App. I (1972
Sec. 3. The Director of the Office of
(b) In
Supp.) (hereinafter referred to as the
Management and Budget shall:
"act") [this Appendix]. and 3 U.S.C. 301,
(1) perform, or designate, from time to
lishment
[section 301 of Title 3, The President],
time, other officers of the Federal Gov-
ate and 0
it is ordered as follows:
ernment to perform, without the approv-
Section 1. The heads of all executive
al, ratification, or other action of the
determina
departments and agencies shall take ap-
President, the functions vested in the
may be,
propriate action to assure their ability to
President by the act:
comply with the provisions of the act.
(2) prescribe administrative guidelines
being or
Sec. 2. The Administrator of General
and management controls for advisory
committee
Services shall prepare for the considera-
committees covered by the act.
tion of the President the annual report
Sec. 4. Executive Order No. 11686 of
ing adviso
to the Congress required by section 6(c)
October 7, 1972 is hereby superseded.
(1)
of the act [Section 6(c) of this Appen-
RICHARD NIXON
dix].
(2)
balan
§ 3. Definitions.
to be
For the purpose of this Act-
(3)
(1) The term "Director" means the Director of the Office of Man-
recom
agement and Budget.
ately
(2) The term "advisory committee" means any committee, board,
terest,
commission, council, conference, panel, task force, or other similar
depend
group, or any subcommittee or other subgroup thereof (hereafter in
(4)
this paragraph referred to as "committee"), which is-
ations,
(A) established by statute or reorganization plan, or
the adv
(B) established or utilized by the President, or
terials,
(C) established or utilized by one or more agencies,
provisi
in the interest of obtaining advice or recommendations for the Presi-
(5)
dent or one or more agencies or officers of the Federal Government,
mittee
except that such term excludes (i) the Advisory Commission on In-
ployed
tergovernmental Relations, (ii) the Commission on Government Pro-
funds a
curement, and (iii) any committee which is composed wholly of full-
(c) To th
time officers or employees of the Federal Government.
section (b)
(3) The term "agency" has the same meaning as in section 551
heads, or ot}
(1) of Title 5.
(4) The term "Presidential advisory committee" means an ad-
visory committee which advises the President.
§ 6. Resp
report to Con
(a) The P
§ 4. Applicability; restrictions
ing action, W.
(a) The provisions of this Act or of any rule, order, or regulation
made to him
promulgated under this Act shall apply to each advisory committee except
(b) Within
to the extent that any Act of Congress establishing any such advisory
mitted a publi
committee specifically provides otherwise.
make a repor
(b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to apply to any advisory
his reasons fc
committee established or utilized by--
in the public I
(1) the Central Intelligence Agency; or
(c) The Pr
(2) the Federal Reserve System.
(after the yea
(c) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to apply to any local civic
the Congress (
group whose primary function is that of rendering a public service with
advisory comm
respect to a Federal program, or any State or local committee, council,
report shall con
board, commission, or similar group established to advise or make recom-
authority for i
mendations to State or local officials or agencies.
report, its funo
ment of wheth
§ 5. Responsibilities of Congressional committees; review; guide-
ings, the name
lines
estimated annu
maintain such
(a) In the exercise of its legislative review function, each standing
visory committe
committee of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall make a
committees esta
continuing review of the activities of each advisory committee under its
which the Presi
jurisdiction to determine whether such advisory committee should be
therefor. The
abolished or merged with any other advisory committee, whether the re-
which, in his ju
sponsibilities of such advisory committee should be revised, and whether
ty, and he shall
such advisory committee performs a necessary function not already being
is excluded.
performed. Each such standing committee shall take appropriate action
to obtain the enactment of legislation necessary to carry out the purpose
§ 7. Respons
of this subsection.
Budget; Comm
18
FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT
of the Office of
(b) In considering legislation establishing, or authorizing the estab-
ate, shall: from time to
lishment of any advisory committee, each standing committee of the Sen-
the Federal Gov-
ate and of the House of Representatives shall determine, and report such
thout the approv-
determination to the Senate or to the House of Representatives, as the case
er action of the
is vested in the
may be, whether the functions of the proposed advisory committee are
being or could be performed by one or more agencies or by an advisory
trative guidelines
ols for advisory
committee already in existence, or by enlarging the mandate of an exist-
he act.
ing advisory committee. Any such legislation shall-
of
(1) contain a clearly defined purpose for the advisory committee;
(2) require the membership of the advisory committee to be fairly
balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions
to be performed by the advisory committee;
(3) contain appropriate provisions to assure that the advice and
Office of Man-
recommendations of the advisory committee will not be inappropri-
ately influenced by the appointing authority or by any special in-
mmittee, board,
terest, but will instead be the result of the advisory committee's in-
ir other similar
dependent judgment;
of (hereafter in
(4) contain provisions dealing with authorization of appropri-
ations, the date for submission of reports- (if any), the duration of
the advisory committee, and the publication of reports and other ma-
lan, or
terials, to the extent that the standing committee determines the
1
provisions of section 10 of this Act to be inadequate; and
as gencies, for the Presi-
(5) contain provisions which will assure that the advisory com-
tal Government,
mittee will have adequate staff (either supplied by an agency or em-
mission on In-
ployed by it), will be provided adequate quarters, and will have
overnment Pro-
funds available to meet its other necessary expenses.
d wholly of full-
(c) To the extent they are applicable, the guidelines set out in sub-
t.
section (b) of this section shall be followed by the President, agency
in section 551
heads, or other Federal officials in creating an advisory committee.
means an ad-
§ 6. Responsibilities of the President; report to Congress; annual
report to Congress; exclusion
(a) The President may delegate responsibility for evaluating and tak-
ing action, where appropriate, with respect to all public recommendations
r, or regulation
made to him by Presidential advisory committees.
committee except
(b) Within one year after a Presidential advisory committee has sub-
y such advisory
mitted a public report to the President, the President or his delegate shall
make a report to the Congress stating either his proposals for action or
his reasons for inaction, with respect to the recommendations contained
to any advisory
in the public report.
(c) The President shall, not later than March 31 of each calendar year
(after the year in which this Act is enacted), make an annual report to
the Congress on the activities, status, and changes in the composition of
to any local civic
advisory committees in existence during the preceding calendar year. The
iblic service with
report shall contain the name of every advisory committee, the date of and
mmittee, council,
authority for its creation, its termination date or the date it is to make a
D or make recom-
report, its functions, a reference to the reports it has submitted, a state-
ment of whether it is an ad hoc or continuing body, the dates of its meet-
ings, the names and occupations of its current members, and the total
review; guide-
estimated annual cost to the United States to fund, service, supply, and
maintain such committee. Such report shall include a list of those ad-
n, each standing
visory committees abolished by the President, and in the case of advisory
Ives shall make a
committees established by statute, a list of those advisory committees
mittee under its
which the President recommends be abolished together with his reasons
mittee should be
therefor. The President shall exclude from this report any information
whether the re-
which, in his judgment, should be withheld for reasons of national secure
Ised, and whether
ty, and he shall include in such report a statement that such information
not already being
is excluded.
ppropriate action
LIBRA
y out the purpose
§ 7. Responsibilities of the Director, Office of Management and
Budget; Committee Management Secretariat, establishment; review
19
TITLE 5-APPENDIX I
recommendations to President and Congress; agency cooperation; per-
agency, whi
formance guidelines; uniform pay guidelines; travel expenses; expense
section 7 an
recommendations
mation on t
(a) The Director shall establish and maintain within the Office of
mittee within
Management and Budget a Committee Management Secretariat, which
(b) The }
shall be responsible for all matters relating to advisory committees.
designate an
(b) The Director shall, immediately after October 6, 1972, institute a
(1) e
comprehensive review of the activities and responsibilities of each ad-
cedures,
visory committee to determine—
that age
(1) whether such committee is carrying out its purpose;
(2) a
(2) whether, consistent with the provisions of applicable statutes,
of any S
the responsibilities assigned to it should be revised;
(3) whether it should be merged with other advisory commit-
(3) c.
552 of T
tees; or
(4) whether is should be abolished.
The Director may from time to time request such information as he
§ 9. Esta
deems necessary to carry out his functions under this subsection. Upon
in Federal R
the completion of the Director's review he shall make recommendations to
the President and to either the agency head or the Congress with respect
(a) No ad
to action he believes should be taken. Thereafter, the Director shall carry
ment is-
out a similar review annually. Agency heads shall cooperate with the Di-
(1) sp
rector in making the reviews required by this subsection.
(2) de
(c) The Director shall prescribe administrative guidelines and man-
agency ir
agement controls applicable to advisory committees, and, to the maximum
tice publi
extent feasible, provide advice, assistance, and guidance to advisory com-
connectio
mittees to improve their performance. In carrying out his fúnctions un-
by law.
der this subsection, the Director shall consider the recommendations of
(b) Unless
each agency head with respect to means of improving the performance of
directive, advi
advisory committees whose duties are related to such agency.
tions. Detern
(d) (1) The Director, after study and consultation with the Civil
with respect
Service Commission, shall establish. guidelines with respect to uniform
makes recomn
fair rates of pay for comparable services of members, staffs, and con-
ficer of the Fe
sultants of advisory committees in a manner which gives appropriate
(c) No adv:
recognition to the responsibilities and qualifications required and other
visory commit
relevant factors. Such regulations shall provide that—
case of Presid
(A) no member of any advisory committee or of the staff of any
agency to who
advisory committee shall receive compensation at a rate in excess
committees of
of the rate specified for GS-18 of the General Schedule under sec-
islative jurisdi
tion 5332 of Title 5; and
lowing inform:
(B) such members, while engaged in the performance of their du-
(A) the
ties away from their homes or regular places of business, may be al-
lowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as
(B) the
authorized by section 5703 of Title 5, for persons employed inter-
(C) the
mittently in the Government service.
its purpos
(2) Nothing in this subsection shall prevent-
(D) the
(A) an individual who (without regard to his service with an ad-
(E) the
visory committee) is a full-time employee of the United States, or
for the CO)
(B) an individual who immediately before his service with an
advisory committee was such an employee,
(F) a
from receiving compensation at the rate at which he otherwise would be
sponsible,
compensated (or was compensated) as a full-time employee of the United
of the autl
States.
(G) the
(e) The Director shall include in budget recommendations a summary
years for S
of the amounts he deems necessary for the expenses of advisory com-
mittees, including the expenses for publication of reports where,appro-
(H) the
priate.
(I) the
the date of
§ 8. Responsibilities of agency heads; Advisory Committee Manage-
(J) the
ment Control Officer, designation
(a) Each agency head shall establish uniform administrative guidelines
A copy of any S
gress.
and management controls for advisory committees established by that
20
FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT
agency, which shall be consistent with directives of the Director under
ération; per-
section 7 and section 10. Each agency shall maintain systematic infor-
ses; expense
mation on the nature, functions, and operations of each advisory com-
mittee within its jurisdiction.
the Office of
(b) The head of each agency which has an advisory committee shall
tariat, which
designate an Advisory Committee Management Officer who shall-
hittees.
2, institute a
(1) exercise control and supervision over the establishment, pro-
of each ad-
cedures, and accomplishments of advisory committees established by
that agency;
ose;
(2) assemble and maintain the reports, records, and other papers
able statutes,
of any such committee during its existence; and
(3) carry out, on behalf of that agency, the provisions of section
sory commit-
552 of Title 5, with respect to such reports, records, and other papers.
mation as he
§ 9. Establishment and purpose of advisory committees; publication
section. Upon
in Federal Register; charter: filing, contents, copy
mendations to
(a) No advisory committee shall be established unless such establish-
8 with respect
ment is-
for shall carry
e with the Di-
(1) specifically authorized by statute or by the President; or
(2) determined as a matter of formal record, by the head of the
nes and man-
agency involved after consultation with the Director, with timely no-
the maximum
tice published in the Federal Register, to be in the public interest in
advisory com-
connection with the performance of duties imposed on that agency
functions un-
by law.
mendations of
(b) Unless otherwise specifically provided by statute or Presidential
performance of
directive, advisory committees shall be utilized solely for advisory func-
icy.
tions. Determinations of action to be taken and policy to be expressed
with the Civil
with respect to matters upon which an advisory committee reports or
ect to uniform
makes recommendations shall be made solely by the President or an of-
taffs, and con-
ficer of the Federal Government.
es appropriate
(c) No advisory committee shall meet or take any action until an ad-
dred and other
visory committee charter has been filed with (1) the Director, in the
case of Presidential advisory committees, or (2) with the head of the
he staff of any
agency to whom any advisory committee reports and with the standing
rate in excess
committees of the Senate and of the House of Representatives having leg-
duie under sec-
islative jurisdiction of such agency. Such charter shall contain the fol-
lowing information:
ace of their du-
(A) the committee's official designation;
ess, may be al-
)
(B) the committee's objectives and the scope of its activity;
subsistence, as
employed inter-
(C) the period of time necessary for the committee to carry out
its purposes;
(D) the agency or official to whom the committee reports;
vice with an ad-
(E) the agency responsible for providing the necessary support
ted States, or
for the committee;
service with an
(F) a description of the duties for which the committee is re-
sponsible, and, if such duties are not solely advisory, a specification
orwise would be
of the authority for such functions;
Be of the United
(G) the estimated annual operating costs in dollars and man-
dons a summary
years for such committee;
( advisory com-
(H) the estimated number and frequency of committee meetings;
ts where appro-
(I) the committee's termination date, if less than two years from
the date of the committee's establishment; and
is
FORD
nmittee Manage-
(J) the date the charter is filed.
A copy of any such charter shall also be furnished to the Library of Con-
rative guidelines
gress.
ablished by that
LIBRARY
21
TITLE 5-APPENDIX I
FEDE
§ 10. Advisory committee procedures; meetings; notice, publica-
370 f.Supp. 177.
provided. Nader V. D
tion in Federal Register; regulations; minutes; certification; annual
report; Federal officer or employee, attendance
siders called on becaus
Women in the Services
Where Defense Advi
(a) (1) Each advisory committee meeting shall be open to the public.
national security, timely notice of each such meeting shall be published
tra-agency" affairs an
did not involve "intei
within agency, meeting
to offer views and CO1
(2) Except when the President determines otherwise for reasons of
in the Federal Register, and the Director shall prescribe regulations to
quired to be open. G
provide for other types of public notice to insure that all interested per-
D.C.D.C.1973, 366 F.Sup
sons are notified of such meeting prior thereto.
4. Public participation
meeting of Defense
While plaintiffs wel
(3) Interested persons shall be permitted to attend, appear before, or
on Women in the Ser a
file statements with any advisory committee, subject to such reasonable
right as to be open to
rules or regulations as the Director may prescribe.
committee. Gates
of public partici pul
(b) Subject to section 552 of Title 5, the records, reports, transcripts,
C.1973, 366 F.Supp. 797. V.
minutes, appendixes, working papers, drafts, studies, agenda, or other
5. Exchange of inform
documents which were made available to or prepared for or by each ad-
change of information
purposes of tl
visory committee shall be available for public inspection and copying at
§ 11. Availabili
a single location in the offices of the advisory committee or the agency
to which the advisory committee reports until the advisory committee
(a) Except wher
ceases to exist.
prior to the effective
shall make availabl
(c) Detailed minutes of each meeting of each advisory committee shall
of transcripts of ag.
be kept and shall contain a record of the persons present, a complete and
accurate description of matters discussed and conclusions reached, and
(b) As used in ti
copies of all reports received, issued, or approved by the advisory com-
as defined in section
mittee. The accuracy of all minutes shall be certified to by the chairman
References In In In Text.
of the advisory committee.
to
up
(d) Subsections (a) (1) and (a) (3) of this section shall not apply to
§ 12. Fiscal an
any advisory committee meeting which the President, or the head of the
agency to which the advisory committee reports, determines is concerned
agency support serv
with matters listed in section 552 (b) of Title 5. Any such determina-
(a) Each agency
tion shall be in writing and shall contain the reasons for such determina-
tion of any-funds W
tion. If such a determination is made, the advisory committee shall is-
and the nature and
sue a report at least annually setting forth a summary of its activities and
ministration, or suc
such related matters as would be informative to the public consistent with
maintain financial
the policy of section 552 (b) of Title 5.
mittees. The Comp
thorized representat
(e) There shall be designated an officer or employee of the Federal
examination, to any
Government to chair or attend each meeting of each advisory committee.
(b) Each agency
The officer or employee so designated is authorized, whenever he deter-
for each advisory C
mines it to be in the public interest, to adjourn any such meeting. No ad-
establishing authori
visory committee shall conduct any meeting in the absence of that officer
mittee reports to m.
or employee.
sible for support se
(f) Advisory committees shall not hold any meetings except at the call
advisory committees
of, or with the advance approval of, a designated officer or employee of
ices Administration.
the Federal Government, and in the case of advisory committees (other
than Presidential advisory committees), with an agenda approved by such
§ 13. Responsib
officer or employee.
ground papers; dep
Subject to section
Notes of Decisions
ing with the Librar
made by every advi
Burden of proof 6
ings of advisory committees serving cost
papers prepared by
Construction with other laws 1
of living council. Nader V. Dunlop, D.C.
D.C.1973, 370 F.Supp. 177.
tablish a depository
Exchange of information 5
Injunction 7
2. Purpose
able to public inspec
Meetings within section 3
Subsection (d) of this section, provid-
Public participation 4
ing that a meeting may be closed when
Purpose 2
it is determined by agency head that
§ 14. Terminatic
such meeting will involve matters listed
(a) (1) Each adv
in section 552 of this title, was not in-
tended to include all deliberative conver
tive date of this Act
1. Construction with other laws
Subsection (d) of this section, provid-
sations of committee meetings. Nader
two-year period follo
ing that a meeting may be closed when
Dunlop, D.C.D.C.1973, 370 Supp. 177.
(A) in the Ca
it is determined by agency head that
3. Meetings within section
such meeting will involve matters listed
ident or an offi
At a minimum a relatively detailed
in Freedom of Information Act, section
analysis of bases for closing various post
mittee is renew
552 of this title, did not apply so as to
tions of meetings of advisory committees
permit exclusion of public from all meet-
tion prior to the
serving cost of living council must be
22
FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT
provided. Nader V. Dunlop, D.C.D.C.1973,
visory committee "part of" its govern-
publica-
370 F.Supp. 177.
ment agency. Gates V. Schlesinger D.C.
annual
Where Defense Advisory Committee on
D.C.1973, 366 F.Supp. 797.
Women in the Services was group of out-
6. Burden of proof
siders called on because of their expertise
This section does not contain same ex-
to offer views and comments unavailable
ise public.
press provision as Freedom of Information
within agency, meeting of such committee
Act, section 552 of this title, which places
reasons Dublished of
did not involve "inter-agency" nor "in-
burden of proof on agency to sustain its
tra-agency" affairs and meeting was re-
action, but underlying policy considera-
quired to be open. Gates V. Schlesinger,
tions are identical and burden of proof
Wations to
D.C.D.C.1973, 366 F.Supp. 797.
should be comparable. Nader V. Dunlop,
per-
4. Public participation
D.C.D.C.1973, 370 F.Supp. 177.
While plaintiffs were entitled to have
7. Injunction
meeting of Defense Advisory Committee
Exemption relating to interagency or
on Women in the Services conducted 80
agency memorandum or letters did
yeasonable before, or
as to be open to public, there was no
not apply so as to permit meeting of De-
right of public participation in advisory
fense Advisory Committee on Women in
committee. Gates V. Schlesinger, D.C.D.
the Services to be closed, and court
C.1973, 366 F.Supp. 797.
would issue preliminary injunction re-
masseripts,
5. Exchange of information
quiring such meeting to be open to the
or other
For purposes of this Appendix, ex-
public. Gates V. Schlesinger, D.C.D.C.
change of information does not make ad-
1973, 366 F.Supp. 797.
n each ad-
copying at
§ 11. Availability of transcripts; "agency proceeding"
w committee agency
(a) Except where prohibited by contractual agreements entered into
prior to the effective date of this Act, agencies and advisory committees
shall make available to any person, at actual cost of duplication, copies
bemittee shall
of transcripts of agency proceedings or advisory committee meetings.
emplete and
(b) As used in this section "agency proceeding" means any proceeding
musched, and
as defined in section 551 (12) of Title 5.
atrisory com-
References in Text. Effective date of ninety days following enactment of Pub.
De chairman
this Act, referred to in subsec. (a), as L. 92-463 on Oct. 6, 1972, see section 15 of
meaning effective upon expiration of Pub.L. 92-463.
not apply to
§ 12. Fiscal and administrative provisions; recordkeeping; audit;
head of the
agency support services
concerned
(a) Each agency shall keep records as will fully disclose the disposi-
determina-
tion of anyfunds which may be at the disposal of its advisory committees
determina-
and the nature and extent of their activities. The General Services Ad-
shall is-
ministration, or such other agency as the President may designate, shall
setivities and
maintain financial records with respect to Presidential advisory com-
Consistent with
mittees. The Comptroller General of the United States, or any of his au-
thorized representatives, shall have access, for the purpose of audit and
the Federal
examination, to any such records.
committee.
(b) Each agency shall be responsible for providing support services
he deter-
for each advisory committee established by or reporting to it unless the
senting. No ad-
establishing authority provides otherwise. Where any such advisory com-
that officer
mittee reports to more than one agency, only one agency shall be respon-
sible for support services at any one time. In the case of Presidential
advisory committees, such services may be provided by the General Serv-
at the call
ices Administration.
employee of
(other
§ 13. Responsibilities of Library of Congress; reports and back-
curred by such
ground papers; depository
Subject to section 552 of Title 5, the Director shall provide for the fil-
ing with the Library of Congress of at least eight copies of each report
made by every advisory committee and, where appropriate, background
papers prepared by consultants. The Librarian of Congress shall es-
serving cost
tablish a depository for such reports and papers where they shall be avail-
L Dunlop, D.C.
able to public inspection and use.
extion, provid-
§ 14. Termination of advisory committees; renewal; continuation
in closed when
my head that
(a) (1) Each advisory committee which is in existence on the effec-
matters listed
tive date of this Act shall terminate not later than the expiration of the
was not in-
stive conver-
two-year period following such effective date unless-
was Nader v.
Supp. 177.
(A) in the case of an advisory committee established by the Pres-
ident or an officer of the Federal Government, such advisory com-
mately detailed
mittee is renewed by the President or that officer by appropriate ac-
various por-
tion prior to the expiration of such two-year period; or
committees
revacil must be
23
TITLE 5-APPENDIX I
(B) in the case of an advisory committee established by an Act of
Congress, its duration is otherwise provided for by law.
(2) Each advisory committee established after such effective date shall
terminate not later than the expiration of the two-year period beginning
on the date of its establishment unless-------------------
(A) in the case of an advisory committee established by the
President or an officer of the Federal Government such advisory
committee is renewed by the President or such officer by appropri-
ate action prior to the end of such period; or
(B) in the case of an advisory committee established by an Act of
Congress, its duration is otherwise provided for by law.
(b) (1) Upon the renewal of any advisory committee, such advisory
To
committee shall file a charter in accordance with section 9 (c).
pow
Com
(2) Any advisory committee established by an Act of Congress shall
of t.
file a charter in accordance with such section upon the expiration of each
gene
successive two-year period following the date of enactment of the Act es-
tablishing such advisory committee.
(3) No advisory committee required under this subsection to file a
charter shall take any action (other than preparation and filing of such
charter) prior to the date on which such charter is filed.
Prep
(c) Any advisory committee which is renewed by the President or any
officer of the Federal Government may be continued only for successive
two-year periods by appropriate action taken by the President or such of-
ficer prior to the date on which such advisory committee would other-
wise terminate.
References in Text. Effective date of ninety days following enactment of Pub.
this Act, referred to in subsec. (a) (1), as L. 92-463 on Oct. 6, 1972, see section 15 of
meaning effective upon expiration of Pub.L. 92-463.
Sec
§ 15. Effective date
Section
Interi
Except as provided in section 7 (b), this Act shall become effective upon
5315
the expiration of ninety days following October 6, 1972.
upon
tary o
In (
of enf
lowing
thereof
regulat
and ca
with re
LIBRARY GERALD ? FORD
ards, a
Stat. 1
(b) the
Title 4
amende
(37 Sta
(e) the
tions 17
August
42]; (§
[section
ment Ac
July 15,
sion [see
Title I, §
24
4 U.S.
Wednesday 9/17/75
11:15 Col. Benson will be delivering a memo to you in about
half an hour.
attached
[ have givena a copy
to gay.
He said he and Col. Dickman would be available to
assist the White House staff in processing these cases
before they are passed on to the President -- they can
help in the review of the White House. The
information
they have available would be extremely helpful to assure
certain things don't slip. They would be available to
work over here and believe they could/very be valuable.
They have been doing almost nothing.
They have
copies of the Board's decisions, etc., which would be
helpful.
Gen. Walt also suggested this.
FORD is LIBRARY 070839
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
September 12, 1975
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
In accordance with your Executive Order, the Presidential Clemency
Board is terminated on September 15, 1975. We, a minority of the Board,
are enclosing a brief summary of our evaluation of the Clemency Board
Program.
We were honored to be members of your Clemency Board and we deeply
regret that we were not able to keep the Board on more of a "middle
of the road" course. As a result, we are deeply concerned that if you
approve some of the recommendations of the majority of the Board, both
the Presidential Pardon and the Clemency Discharge will be degraded in
the eyes of the American public.
Respectfully,
Farner James Board Member P. P.Dougourto Dougovito
Lewis We Walt
General USMC (Ret)
Board Member
Dr. Ralph Adams
Hamprigg Board Member
Harry Riggs
Board Member
FORD & LIBRARY QERALD
A
SUMMARY EVALUATION
OF
THE PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD'S OPERATIONS
Submitted by
A Minority of the Board
September 15, 1975
INDEX
SECTION I
Purpose
1
SECTION II
Composition of the Board
1
SECTION III
Staffing
2
SECTION IV
Applicants
3
SECTION V
Board Functions
5
SECTION VI
Changes in Board Policy
6
SECTION VII
Credibility of Board's Decisions
8
SECTION VIII
Conclusion
FORD & 078829 LIBRARY
9
SECTION I
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to reflect the views of a minority of the
members of the PCB concerning the composition, staffing, policies and
credibility of the operations and decisions of the PCB.
We have reviewed the first draft of the final report of the PCB, including
subsequent revised sections of that draft, and it contains numerous mis-
leading statements, is non-factual in many areas, and contains whole
chapters that are entirely irrelevant to the duties and functions of the
Board. The proposed report can best be characterized as a report written
by the staff, and reflecting their very biased pro-amnesty views, views
which are often directly contrary to the views of many Board members and,
perhaps, the majority of the American public. This Staff-Management-
authored report is not in keeping with the mission and the objectives of
the Board as set forth in the President's Executive Order and Proclamation.
We, as the concerned minority, desire to disassociate ourselves from the
Board Report.
SECTION II
COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD
The original nine-member Board appointed by the President represented a
fair balance among liberal, middle-of-the-road and conservative views.
This group in its early meetings established and adopted policies and
guidelines by which decisions of the Board would be determined in accord-
ance with the President's Executive Order and Proclamation. However, many
of these policies were changed when the membership of the Board was
increased to eighteen members in May 1975. By his own admission, the
Chairman had a fairly free hand in picking the new Board members and he
included two members from his staff. The new Board members were not given
an orientation on Board policies and guidelines. This led to much con-
fusion. Initially, it was difficult for the new Board members to make
sound decisions, due to lack of knowledge of Board operation. The Chair-
man gave guidance which, on occasions, seemed not to be strictly in
accordance with previous Board policy and decisions. At this point, the
Board as a whole became a more amnesty-oriented, Goodell-influenced group,
with Goodell, inturn, seemingly under the influence of the General
Counsel and his somewhat biased anti-Vietnam War staff. From this point
on, the Board became, in effect, a captive of the Chairman and the Staff,
and policy decisions were made by the Chairman and the General Counsel
which influenced Board actions and results without the realization of
Board members.
FORD
LIBRARY
- 2 -
An example of the continual effort of the Board's Executive Staff to
distort the President's Program was a written proposal by a senior staff
member to "create some doubt in the minds of people" about the meaning
of a Clemency Discharge. In making such a proposal, the Staff member
suggested, in a memorandum, that "one way to generate such ambiguity"
would be to invite Honorably Discharged Veterans to request clemency
discharges "as an expression of their opposition to the Vietnam War."
The idea of using the Presidential Clemency Board as a vehicle to incite
great numbers of Honorably Discharged Veterans to "express their opposition
to the Vietnam War" would be a gross dis-service to the President.
SECTION III
STAFFING
Since the PCB was only a temporary organization, it was determined by the
President, through OMB, that no funds would be made available to hire a
permanent staff, Rather, all administrative and operational personnel
would be detailed "on loan" from other agencies. In the beginning, DOD
offered its facilities and professional trained personnel to prepare the
case summaries, but this offer was rejected by the Board's General
Counsel. We feel that this assistance would have been a real asset to
the Board effort in that the summaries would have been objective and
factual. It was turned down on the grounds that the General Counsel felt
the briefs must be prepared by lawyers. The result was that attorneys were
detailed from other agencies to work with the General Counsel and his
associates in the preparation of applicant cases. Due to the number of
cases to be presented within a very short time period, the legal staff
was augmented by approximately two hundred law students acting as legal
interns during their summer vacation. However, approximately ninety
percent of the cases were military and these young men and women, even
though eager and dedicated, were generally biased against the military
and the Vietnam War and had practically no experience in or with the
military. The work they did in preparing the case summaries was, as a
result, often amateurish, biased, and many times incomplete. In reality,
the young staff attorneys themselves, were of the same influence and were
generally without the benefit of any experience with the Military Forces,
which compounded the problem. Also, these young "case writers" were
instructed by some senior staff members to present the case "in the best
light". Consequently, many of the resulting summaries were an inaccurate
presentation of facts on which the Board members had to make their decisions.
The administrative staff consisted of personnel on loan from other agencies.
It appeared that the majority of those who occupied top level management
positions with the PCB had little or no prior experience in an administrative
FORD
- 3 -
capacity. Over-staffing, lack of organization, lack of personnel disci-
pline and improper utilization of personnel assets was evident throughout.
Management built up the staff to a peak of over six hundred professional
and administrative personnel. This appeared to be considerably more than
was necessary to get the job done if proper organization and supervision
had been practiced. For example, on 1 July, at the peak of the six
hundred plus staff, it was stated by a senior member that OMB believed
that less than half of the secretaries were being used effectively in
the production process. Even with this surplus of secretaries, only one
was assigned to all of the eighteen Board members. Regular working hours
were not established nor observed - employees seemed to come and go at
their convenience. On a week-day mid-afternoon in July (the Board's
busiest month), the Personnel Director made a head-count and over one
hundred sixty employees could not be accounted for.
On two different occasions in March and May, OMB sent in a management
team to survey the operations of the PCB. In both instances, they
recommended that a top-flight administrator be obtained to oversee the
administrative functions of the PCB, and both times, the management of
PCB refused to accept this recommendation of the OMB. These are only a
few examples of the maladministration which, in our opinion, has
jeopardized and plagued the management of the Clemency Board since the
beginning. This resulted in many instances of mismanagement, low morale
and lack of control.
SECTION IV
APPLICANTS
The PCB was established to review the records of individuals within the
following categories:
(1) Those who had been convicted of one or more draft evasion offenses:
failure to register or to register on time, to keep the local board
informed of current address, to report for or submit to pre-induction
examination, to report for or submit to induction itself, to report for
or submit to, or complete service under Section 6(j) of the Military
Selective Service Act,
(2) Those who have received a punitive or undesirable discharge from
service in the armed forces for having violated Article 85, 86 or 87 of
the Uniform Code of Military Justice between August 4, 1964, and March
28, 1973, or are serving sentences of confinement for such violations.
In the first four months of the program, only some eight hundred
individuals made application to the PCB. This appeared to be due primarily
- 4 -
to a lack of proper publicity and understanding of the program. In
January, 1975, the members of the Board initiated a nationwide publicity
program which resulted in several thousand new applications. Further,
the Chairman, without the knowledge of the Board, wrote letters to all
major penal institutions of the United States, advising them that
inmates who met the eligibility criteria should apply. This penitentiary
mail produced over two thousand applications, on which the Board has
taken action and, in the majority of cases, recommended pardons. In
contrast with this is the fact that President Truman's Amnesty Board
refused clemency for all persons having a prior criminal record of one
or more serious offenses, stating "The Board would have failed in its
duty to society and to the memory of the men who fought and died to
protect it, had amnesty been recommended in these cases."
By the end of March, approximately 18,000 applications had been received.
In about ninety percent of the military cases, there was no evidence
of conscientious objection or other objection to the Vietnam War.
Approximately fifty-eight percent of the military cases were involved
in other offenses in addition to AWOL or desertion. The most common
reasons given for going AWOL were family and financial problems. The
vast majority, eighty-four percent, were volunteer enlistees.
The most common offense of the typical violator of the Selective Service
Act was failure to report for or submit to induction. Only forty-five
percent had made any attempt to claim conscientious objection before
being ordered for induction or civilian service. The Selective Service
violator possessed a much higher educational level than that of the
military applicant.
The Rules and Regulations section 101.5(a) provides that the Board
would consider as an initial filing any written communication post-marked
not later than March 31, 1975, and received by the Board, the Department
of Justice, the Department of Defense, the Department of Transportation,
or the Selective Service System. Oral applications made out not later
than March 31, 1975, were considered sufficient if reduced to writing,
and post-marked not later than May 31, 1975. These rules were later
amended on July 14, 1975, over strenuous objections by some Board
members, to read "A 'timely' application was defined as an inquiry made
to a responsible U.S. Government official or agency, in writing or orally,
prior to the deadline for applications, provided that the request for
consideration was received within a reasonable time after the initial
contact. However, in several instances, the Board by a bare majority
vote chose to accept as timely, applications which did not fulfill the
requirements stated above. The Board, again in one highly publicized
case, accepted an unverified phone call, not completed by a written
application, as sufficient to give it jurisdiction. In the same case,
jurisdiction having been accepted, recommendation was made to the White
House, again despite the lack of a formal, written application.
LIBRARY
- 5 -
On June 4, 1975, well after the delimiting date set by the White House,
the PCB Staff was corresponding with the College Coordinator at U.S.
Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, and sending him 75 kits "for use by
potential applicants currently incarcerated" in that institution
extending the time for submission of applications to June 15, 1975,
clearly in violation of the President's order, making May 31, 1975,
the final deadline, when preceded by an oral application made not later
than March 31, 1975.
SECTION V
BOARD FUNCTIONING
During the first five months the PCB functioned as a Full Board with five
members in attendance considered a quorum. However, in March, as the
number of cases to be acted on increased, the Board was divided into
panels of three or more members and each panel acted independently on
cases. Unanimous decisions by the panels were considered final. Split
decisions could be referred to the Full Board by any panel member.
Policy and guidelines were generally determined by the Full Board.
However, in some instances they were determined by the Chairman and his
Executive Staff without referring the matter to or getting the approval
of the Full Board. For example, the "Rules and Regulations of the Clemency
Board" signed by Chairman Goodell on March 18, 1975, and submitted to
the Federal Register were never formally submitted to the Board for
comment or approval. The majority of the Board members did not know of
the existence of such "Rules and Regulations" until they were given a
copy in May 1975. The Board members were handicapped by not being allowed
staff or secretarial assistance. The voluminous case briefs and other
material put out by the staff made it impossible for Board members to
keep track of what was going on without assistance of this type. Requests
for secretarial and staff assistance were made on several occasions by
Board members but they were told that the staff was short-handed. The
eighteen Board members were finally allotted a total of one secretary to
answer the phone, take messages, type correspondence and maintain files
for them.
The administrative functions of the PCB appear to have been accomplished
on a crisis-to-crisis basis rather than by normal and acceptable organi-
zation and planning. For example,
(1) From the beginning, the processing of applications was so bogged
down in complicated procedures that records could not be ordered on a
timely manner which, in turn, resulted in a severe shortage of cases during
the month of May to be assigned to action attorneys, thereby causing
serious delays in the Board's work.
FORD
SANALD
- 6 -
(2) Due to a lack of organization and planning, by February, a backlog
of cases which had been acted on by the Board, began to build up and by
September it had built up to over ten thousand cases still to be submitted
to the President for action.
SECTION VI
CHANGES IN BOARD POLICY AND DEVIATION FROM THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE
EXECUTIVE ORDER AND PRESIDENT'S PROCLAMATION.
The first significant move on the part of the Chairman and his Executive
Staff, in our opinion, was to introduce the word "pardon" into the
Clemency decision on each applicant's case although the word "pardon"
never appeared once in the President's Executive Order or Proclamation.
The Chairman and Executive Staff argued that "pardon" and "clemency"
were synonymous terms and they won the argument, by claiming the tacit
approval from the White House, over the strenuous objection of some of
the Board Members. Eventually in the Board decisions and in the letters
going to the applicant after the Board action, the words "clemency" and
"pardon" were no longer used as synonymous terms but were separated
and used in the terms of "a pardon" and a "Clemency Discharge". We quote
from a letter dated July 16, 1975, written to an applicant and signed
by Chairman Goodell, The President has signed a master warrant
granting you a full, free Unconditional Pardon and a Clemency Discharge
to replace your less than honorable discharge. We believe this is quite a
different connotation and meaning than was initially argued by the Chair-
man and Executive Staff last October. Further, a person who has been
convicted of a felony (a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than
one year) may legally purchase a firearm from a licensed firearms
dealer if the person convicted of said felony has received an uncondi-
tional Presidential Pardon. The Presidential Pardon, however, only applies
to Federal offenses.
The unilateral revision of the President's program from a middle-of-the-
road clemency program into an amnesty-oriented program was effected
primarily by expansion of the original nine-member Board into an eighteen-
member Board. Some of the new members did not have the maturity, exper-
ience and broad spectrum of views which characterized the original Board
and which we believe represents the cross section of the general public.
The more liberal eighteen-member board then proceeded, many times
unknowingly and under the influence of the Chairman, to alter previously
adopted rules and regulations by constantly out-voting the more conservative
aligned middle-of-the-road minority.
FORD
- 7 -
In the early months of the Board's deliberations a real effort was made
to maintain the "meaningfulness" and "value" of the Clemency Discharge.
For such offenses as AWOL from combat, refusal to go to combat, multiple
and long AWOLs, civil convictions for felony; the Board would normally
vote "no clemency". However, and in sharp contrast, during the latter
months of the Board's operation and after the more amnesty-oriented
eighteen-member Goodell-influenced Board came into being, clemency was
voted in cases involving multiple AWOLs (8) from the battle field;
multiple refusals to go into combat; multiple (as high as ten AWOLs)
and long (seven years) AWOLs, civilian felony convictions (rape, murder,
manslaughter, grand larceny, armed robbery, aggravated assault). Also,
a man given an Undesirable or even Punitive Discharge for a few days or
even hours of AWOL (which, according to the Board General Counsel's
ruling, qualified him for the Clemency Board Program) was recommended
for a pardon and clemency discharge, by a bare majority vote, even
though the official offense charged might include aggravated assault,
disrespect to officer or NCO, striking an officer or NCO, wrongful
appropriation of personal or government property, etc. This again was a
turnabout from the policy set by the nine-member Board. Another question-
able move, condoned by the Chairman, was to make drug addiction a miti-
gating factor on behalf of the applicant and drug use a possible
qualification for mitigation. The Board, on the other hand, was
instructed not to consider the use of drugs as an aggravating factor
even though such use was unlawful. This change from the nine-member
Board policy again was strenuously objected to by the constantly
"out-voted" minority.
As a result of the policy changes by the eighteen-member Board, the next
move by the Chairman and his Executive Staff was to recycle numerous of
the "tough decision" (No Clemency) cases of the original nine-member
Board and later panels, either to a more amnesty motivated panel or to
the Full Board to gain a more favorable decision on behalf of the
applicant. The above moves on the part of the Chairman and his Executive
Staff, tended to circumvent the spirit of the President's Proclamation
and Executive Order. These moves were accomplished by various means. The
Board members were kept uninformed by:
(1) Denying them clerical help or staff assistants.
(2) Asking the Board to act after the fact in matters having to do
with policy changes.
(3) Denying them access to staff memorandums concerning matters of
interest to the Board, including Board periodic reports.
(4) Keeping the Board on unduly heavy schedule (seven days a week)
and swamping them with applicant cases to be read and presented, (and
represented), making it next to impossible for Board members to monitor
Board results. This whole process seemed to us to be something more than
accidental.
- 8 -
In addition, a three-part post-audit review was established. First, there
was the standard review, which applied to all no-clemency cases and all
cases which were given over 12 months alternative service; second, there
was a review of attorney-flagged cases which the Action Attorney felt
the Board members had decided unfairly; and third, there was computerized
review which, by use of quantitative guidelines weeded out cases which
had the harsher decisions. The post-audit team reviewed cases and made
its recommendation to the General Counsel with an explanation for
recommending reconsideration. Practically no cases were found which were
repanelled for a more harsh decision. The General Counsel then forwarded
the cases to the Chairman, with his recommendation. Further, many cases
were panel-shopped without going through the post-audit procedure and
without the second or subsequent panel or Board being informed of the
previous decision.
SECTION VII
CREDIBILITY OF BOARD'S DECISIONS
The Presidential Clemency Board program announced by the President was
a very good and workable program but, due to improper administration, it
has failed to accomplish the President's goal. Throughout the year of
the Board's existence there seemed to be a determined effort by the
Chairman and his Executive Staff to turn the Presidentially mandated
clemency program into an amnesty-oriented operation.
In reliance upon an Executive Proclamation designed to bind the
Nation's wounds and to heal the seas of deviseness", it appeared the
Chairman and the Staff sought to expand the Board's jurisdiction over
every situation possible. As a result, jurisdiction was taken over
applicants whose discharges were obviously not precipitated in the main
by AWOL/Desertion type offenses. A Pardon and Clemency Discharge were also
granted applicants who had multiple civil felony convictions both during
their military service and after their discharge from the Armed Services
or in the civilian cases, after their conviction for draft resistance.
The end result is that the public will have a distorted perception of the
Clemency Discharge. The Clemency Discharge is likely to be associated
with criminality. It will be degraded and will not achieve the intended
employer acceptability. Through the apparent ill-considered and misguided
recommendations of the majority of the Board, the Clemency Discharge may
be so degraded and discredited that it will no longer be meaningful as
an instrument of Clemency for the deserving recipient.
FORD
- 9 -
SECTION VIII
CONCLUSION
We believe that the original concept and plan as conceived and announced
by the President was a good, sound, workable plan, but the President's
objectives have not been attained because of the misdirection and mal-
administration of the plan. We feel deeply obligated and honor bound to
appraise the President of these facts.
It appears that the Chairman and his Executive Staff have misinterpreted,
circumvented and violated at least the spirit of the Executive Order of
16 September 1974, and Proclamation #4313. This questionable action has
been initiated, it appears, to increase the number of "eligible"
applicants, to liberalize the decisions of the majority of the Board
in order to gain more favorable decision for the applicants, and to set
a liberal precedent relative to Executive pardons closely associated
with felonious crimes. A move which could degrade the true meaning of
a Presidential pardon. The actions, in our opinion, are not only
unethical, but they may also border on illegality, and could greatly
discredit the President's Clemency Program in the eyes of the American
public.
In short, we have lost confidence in the Board results, which under
Chairman Goodell's direction are being recommended to the President.
We feel that the limited capability of the already hard-pressed White
House staff to monitor and screen these recommendations, is inadequate
to insure that the President will approve only recommendations which
meet his high standards. This problem is further aggravated by a backlog
of some ten thousand cases which may soon be dumped on the White House
Staff in a short period of time.
We believe that the recent steps the President has taken to terminate the
Clemency Board activity on September 15, 1975, and to place the Program
under the auspices of the Attorney General more specifically - under
the direction of the Pardon Attorney of the Department of Justice, is a
very sound move. It is our hope that the Pardon Attorney will take a
close and conscientious look at the Clemency Board recommendations, so
as to insure that the value of the Clemency Discharge is restored to its
original respected level, and only those applicants who deserve the
discharge are awarded it.
We, as a minority of the Presidential Clemency Board, do not believe
that:
Any man who has two or more convictions (civilian or military) of serious
crimes on his record, should be given clemency. We do not believe that a
man who deserted his comrades on the battle field in Vietnam or who
refused to go to Vietnam when he was so ordered, should be given
LIBE
clemency.
- 10 -
We believe, as did the Truman Board, that when the majority of the Board
recommends clemency in such cases, it has failed in its duty to society,
and to the memory of those men who fought and died to protect it. We also
feel that it has been negligent in carrying out its responsibility and
has not fulfilled its obligation to protect the integrity of the
Presidency.
:
FORD
LIDRA,
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Cleaning
September 23, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
PHILIP BUCHEN T.W.B.
Attached are originals of the following:
(1). A letter to you signed by General Walt
and three other Clemency Board members
to which is attached their "Summary
Evaluation of the Clemency Board's
Operations," and
(2). A letter hand-delivered by Robert Carter
and John Kauffmann on behalf of them-
selves and the majority of the other
members of the Clemency Board.
The second letter is the reaction of a majority of
the members to the complaints about the Board's
operations by the four Board members. A copy of
the minority summary evaluation was delivered by
the authors to the Veterans of Foreign Wars which
has made the contents public.
Attachments
CC: Don Rumsfeld (w/encls.)
Jack Marsh (w/encls.)
FORD & LIBRAR
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 23, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
PHILIP BUCHEN T.W.B.
Attached are originals of the following:
(1). A letter to you signed by General Walt
and three other Clemency Board members
to which is attached their "Summary
Evaluation of the Clemency Board's
Operations, and
(2). A letter hand-delivered by Robert Carter
and John Kauffmann on behalf of them-
selves and the majority of the other
members of the Clemency Board.
The second letter is the reaction of a majority of
the members to the complaints about the Board's
operations by the four Board members. A copy of
the minority summary evaluation was delivered by
the authors to the Veterans of Foreign Wars which
has made the contents public.
Attachments
CC: Don Rumsfeld (w/encls.)
Jack Marsh (w/encls.)
FORD & LIBRARY 07V830
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
September 12, 1975
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
In accordance with your Executive Order, the Presidential Clemency
Board is terminated on September 15, 1975. We, a minority of the Board,
are enclosing a brief summary of our evaluation of the Clemency Board
Program.
We were honored to be members of your Clemency Board and we deeply
regret that we were not able to keep the Board on more of a "middle
of the road" course. As a result, we are deeply concerned that if you
approve some of the recommendations of the majority of the Board, both
the Presidential Pardon and the Clemency Discharge will be degraded in
the eyes of the American public.
Respectfully,
James James Board Member P. P.Dougourto Dougovito
Lewis We Walt
General USMC (Ret)
Board Member
Dr. Ralph Adams
Haryling Board Member
Harry Riggs
Board Member
CRALD LIBRARY FORD
A
SUMMARY EVALUATION
OF
THE PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD'S OPERATIONS
Submitted by
A Minority of the Board
September 15, 1975
INDEX
SECTION I
Purpose
1
SECTION II
Composition of the Board
1
SECTION III
Staffing
2
SECTION IV
Applicants
3
SECTION V
Board Functions
5
SECTION VI
Changes in Board Policy
6
BRARY
SECTION VII
Credibility of Board's Decisions
8
SECTION VIII
Conclusion
9
SECTION I
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to reflect the views of a minority of the
members of the PCB concerning the composition, staffing, policies and
credibility of the operations and decisions of the PCB.
We have reviewed the first draft of the final report of the PCB, including
subsequent revised sections of that draft, and it contains numerous mis-
leading statements, is non-factual in many areas, and contains whole
chapters that are entirely irrelevant to the duties and functions of the
Board. The proposed report can best be characterized as a report written
by the staff, and reflecting their very biased pro-amnesty views, views
which are often directly contrary to the views of many Board members and,
perhaps, the majority of the American public. This Staff-Management-
authored report is not in keeping with the mission and the objectives of
the Board as set forth in the President's Executive Order and Proclamation.
We, as the concerned minority, desire to disassociate ourselves from the
Board Report.
SECTION II
COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD
The original nine-member Board appointed by the President represented a
fair balance among liberal, middle-of-the-road and conservative views.
This group in its early meetings established and adopted policies and
guidelines by which decisions of the Board would be determined in accord-
ance with the President's Executive Order and Proclamation. However, many
of these policies were changed when the membership of the Board was
increased to eighteen members in May 1975. By his own admission, the
Chairman had a fairly free hand in picking the new Board members and he
included two members from his staff. The new Board members were not given
an orientation on Board policies and guidelines. This led to much con-
fusion. Initially, it was difficult for the new Board members to make
sound decisions, due to lack of knowledge of Board operation. The Chair-
man gave guidance which, on occasions, seemed not to be strictly in
accordance with previous Board policy and decisions. At this point, the
Board as a whole became a more amnesty-oriented, Goodel1-influenced group,
with Goodell, inturn, seemingly under the influence of the General
LIBRARY
Counsel and his somewhat biased anti-Vietnam War staff. From this point
on, the Board became, in effect, a captive of the Chairman and the Staff,
and policy decisions were made by the Chairman and the General Counsel
which influenced Board actions and results without the realization of
Board members.
- 2 -
An example of the continual effort of the Board's Executive Staff to
distort the President's Program was a written proposal by a senior staff
member to "create some doubt in the minds of people" about the meaning
of a Clemency Discharge. In making such a proposal, the Staff member
suggested, in a memorandum, that "one way to generate such ambiguity"
would be to invite Honorably Discharged Veterans to request clemency
discharges "as an expression of their opposition to the Vietnam War."
The idea of using the Presidential Clemency Board as a vehicle to incite
great numbers of Honorably Discharged Veterans to "express their opposition
to the Vietnam War" would be a gross dis-service to the President.
SECTION III
STAFFING
Since the PCB was only a temporary organization, it was determined by the
President, through OMB, that no funds would be made available to hire a
permanent staff, Rather, all administrative and operational personnel
would be detailed "on loan" from other agencies. In the beginning, DOD
offered its facilities and professional trained personnel to prepare the
case summaries, but this offer was rejected by the Board's General
Counsel. We feel that this assistance would have been a real asset to
the Board effort in that the summaries would have been objective and
factual. It was turned down on the grounds that the General Counsel felt
the briefs must be prepared by lawyers. The result was that attorneys were
detailed from other agencies to work with the General Counsel and his
associates in the preparation of applicant cases. Due to the number of
cases to be presented within a very short time period, the legal staff
was augmented by approximately two hundred law students acting as legal
interns during their summer vacation. However, approximately ninety
percent of the cases were military and these young men and women, even
though eager and dedicated, were generally biased against the military
and the Vietnam War and had practically no experience in or with the
military. The work they did in preparing the case summaries was, as a
result, often amateurish, biased, and many times incomplete. In reality,
the young staff attorneys themselves, were of the same influence and were
generally without the benefit of any experience with the Military Forces,
which compounded the problem. Also, these young "case writers" were
instructed by some senior staff members to present the case "in the best
light". Consequently, many of the resulting summaries were an inaccurate
presentation of facts on which the Board members had to make their decisions.
The administrative staff consisted of personnel on loan from other agencies.
It appeared that the majority of those who occupied top level management
positions with the PCB had little or no prior experience in an administrative
- 3 -
capacity. Over-staffing, lack of organization, lack of personnel disci-
pline and improper utilization of personnel assets was evident throughout.
Management built up the staff to a peak of over six hundred professional
and administrative personnel. This appeared to be considerably more than
was necessary to get the job done if proper organization and supervision
had been practiced. For example, on 1 July, at the peak of the six
hundred plus staff, it was stated by a senior member that OMB believed
that less than half of the secretaries were being used effectively in
the production process. Even with this surplus of secretaries, only one
was assigned to all of the eighteen Board members. Regular working hours
were not established nor observed - employees seemed to come and go at
their convenience. On a week-day mid-afternoon in July (the Board's
busiest month), the Personnel Director made a head-count and over one
hundred sixty employees could not be accounted for.
On two different occasions in March and May, OMB sent in a management
team to survey the operations of the PCB. In both instances, they
recommended that a top-flight administrator be obtained to oversee the
administrative functions of the PCB, and both times, the management of
PCB refused to accept this recommendation of the OMB. These are only a
few examples of the maladministration which, in our opinion, has
jeopardized and plagued the management of the Clemency Board since the
beginning. This resulted in many instances of mismanagement, low morale
and lack of control.
SECTION IV
APPLICANTS
The PCB was established to review the records of individuals within the
following categories:
(1) Those who had been convicted of one or more draft evasion offenses:
failure to register or to register on time, to keep the local board
informed of current address, to report for or submit to pre-induction
examination, to report for or submit to induction itself, to report for
or submit to, or complete service under Section 6(j) of the Military
Selective Service Act,
(2) Those who have received a punitive or undesirable discharge from
service in the armed forces for having violated Article 85, 86 or 87 of
the Uniform Code of Military Justice between August 4, 1964, and March
28, 1973, or are serving sentences of confinement for such violations.
In the first four months of the program, only some eight hundred
individuals made application to the PCB. This appeared to be due primarily
- 4 -
to a lack of proper publicity and understanding of the program. In
January, 1975, the members of the Board initiated a nationwide publicity
program which resulted in several thousand new applications. Further,
the Chairman, without the knowledge of the Board, wrote letters to all
major penal institutions of the United States, advising them that
inmates who met the eligibility criteria should apply. This penitentiary
mail produced over two thousand applications, on which the Board has
taken action and, in the majority of cases, recommended pardons. In
contrast with this is the fact that President Truman's Amnesty Board
refused clemency for all persons having a prior criminal record of one
or more serious offenses, stating "The Board would have failed in its
duty to society and to the memory of the men who fought and died to
protect it, had amnesty been recommended in these cases."
By the end of March, approximately 18,000 applications had been received.
In about ninety percent of the military cases, there was no evidence
of conscientious objection or other objection to the Vietnam War.
Approximately fifty-eight percent of the military cases were involved
in other offenses in addition to AWOL or desertion. The most common
reasons given for going AWOL were family and financial problems. The
vast majority, eighty-four percent, were volunteer enlistees.
The most common offense of the typical violator of the Selective Service
Act was failure to report for or submit to induction. Only forty-five
percent had made any attempt to claim conscientious objection before
being ordered for induction or civilian service. The Selective Service
violator possessed a much higher educational level than that of the
military applicant.
The Rules and Regulations section 101.5(a) provides that the Board
would consider as an initial filing any written communication post-marked
not later than March 31, 1975, and received by the Board, the Department
of Justice, the Department of Defense, the Department of Transportation,
or the Selective Service System. Oral applications made out not later
than March 31, 1975, were considered sufficient if reduced to writing,
and post-marked not later than May 31, 1975. These rules were later
amended on July 14, 1975, over strenuous objections by some Board
members, to read "A 'timely' application was defined as an inquiry made
to a responsible U.S. Government official or agency, in writing or orally,
prior to the deadline for applications, provided that the request for
consideration was received within a reasonable time after the initial
contact. However, in several instances, the Board by a bare majority
vote chose to accept as timely, applications which did not fulfill the
requirements stated above. The Board, again in one highly publicized
case, accepted an unverified phone call, not completed by a written
application, as sufficient to give it jurisdiction. In the same case,
jurisdiction having been accepted, recommendation was made to the White
House, again despite the lack of a formal, written application.
LIBRARY
- 5 -
On June 4, 1975, well after the delimiting date set by the White House,
the PCB Staff was corresponding with the College Coordinator at U.S.
Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, and sending him 75 kits "for use by
potential applicants currently incarcerated" in that institution
extending the time for submission of applications to June 15, 1975,
clearly in violation of the President's order, making May 31, 1975,
the final deadline, when preceded by an oral application made not later
than March 31, 1975.
SECTION V
BOARD FUNCTIONING
During the first five months the PCB functioned as a Full Board with five
members in attendance considered a quorum. However, in March, as the
number of cases to be acted on increased, the Board was divided into
panels of three or more members and each panel acted independently on
cases. Unanimous decisions by the panels were considered final. Split
decisions could be referred to the Full Board by any panel member.
Policy and guidelines were generally determined by the Full Board.
However, in some instances they were determined by the Chairman and his
Executive Staff without referring the matter to or getting the approval
of the Full Board. For example, the "Rules and Regulations of the Clemency
Board" signed by Chairman Goodell on March 18, 1975, and submitted to
the Federal Register were never formally submitted to the Board for
comment or approval. The majority of the Board members did not know of
the existence of such "Rules and Regulations" until they were given a
copy in May 1975. The Board members were handicapped by not being allowed
staff or secretarial assistance. The voluminous case briefs and other
material put out by the staff made it impossible for Board members to
keep track of what was going on without assistance of this type. Requests
for secretarial and staff assistance were made on several occasions by
Board members but they were told that the staff was short-handed. The
eighteen Board members were finally allotted a total of one secretary to
answer the phone, take messages, type correspondence and maintain files
for them.
The administrative functions of the PCB appear to have been accomplished
on a crisis-to-crisis basis rather than by normal and acceptable organi-
zation and planning. For example,
(1) From the beginning, the processing of applications was so bogged
down in complicated procedures that records could not be ordered on a
timely manner which, in turn, resulted in a severe shortage of cases duffng
the month of May to be assigned to action attorneys, thereby causing
serious delays in the Board's work.
GERALD
LIBRARY
- 6 -
(2) Due to a lack of organization and planning, by February, a backlog
of cases which had been acted on by the Board, began to build up and by
September it had built up to over ten thousand cases still to be submitted
to the President for action.
SECTION VI
CHANGES IN BOARD POLICY AND DEVIATION FROM THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE
EXECUTIVE ORDER AND PRESIDENT'S PROCLAMATION.
The first significant move on the part of the Chairman and his Executive
Staff, in our opinion, was to introduce the word "pardon" into the
Clemency decision on each applicant's case although the word "pardon"
never appeared once in the President's Executive Order or Proclamation.
The Chairman and Executive Staff argued that "pardon" and "clemency"
were synonymous terms and they won the argument, by claiming the tacit
approval from the White House, over the strenuous objection of some of
the Board Members. Eventually in the Board decisions and in the letters
going to the applicant after the Board action, the words "clemency" and
"pardon" were no longer used as synonymous terms but were separated
and used in the terms of "a pardon" and a "Clemency Discharge". We quote
from a letter dated July 16, 1975, written to an applicant and signed
by Chairman Goodell, The President has signed a master warrant
granting you a full, free Unconditional Pardon and a Clemency Discharge
to replace your less than honorable discharge. We believe this is quite a
different connotation and meaning than was initially argued by the Chair-
man and Executive Staff last October. Further, a person who has been
convicted of a felony (a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than
one year) may legally purchase a firearm from a licensed firearms
dealer if the person convicted of said felony has received an uncondi-
tional Presidential Pardon. The Presidential Pardon, however, only applies
to Federal offenses.
The unilateral revision of the President's program from a middle-of-the-
road clemency program into an amnesty-oriented program was effected
primarily by expansion of the original nine-member Board into an eighteen-
member Board. Some of the new members did not have the maturity, exper-
ience and broad spectrum of views which characterized the original Board
and which we believe represents the cross section of the general public.
The more liberal eighteen-member board then proceeded, many times
unknowingly and under the influence of the Chairman, to alter previously
adopted rules and regulations by constantly out-voting the more conservative
aligned middle-of-the-road minority.
FORD
LIBRA
- 7 -
In the early months of the Board's deliberations a real effort was made
to maintain the "meaningfulness" and "value" of the Clemency Discharge.
For such offenses as AWOL from combat, refusal to go to combat, multiple
and long AWOLs, civil convictions for felony; the Board would normally
vote "no clemency". However, and in sharp contrast, during the latter
months of the Board's operation and after the more amnesty-oriented
eighteen-member Goodel1-influenced Board came into being, clemency was
voted in cases involving multiple AWOLs (8) from the battle field;
multiple refusals to go into combat; multiple (as high as ten AWOLs)
and long (seven years) AWOLs, civilian felony convictions (rape, murder,
manslaughter, grand larceny, armed robbery, aggravated assault). Also,
a man given an Undesirable or even Punitive Discharge for a few days or
even hours of AWOL (which, according to the Board General Counsel's
ruling, qualified him for the Clemency Board Program) was recommended
for a pardon and clemency discharge, by a bare majority vote, even
though the official offense charged might include aggravated assault,
disrespect to officer or NCO, striking an officer or NCO, wrongful
appropriation of personal or government property, etc. This again was a
turnabout from the policy set by the nine-member Board. Another question-
able move, condoned by the Chairman, was to make drug addiction a miti-
gating factor on behalf of the applicant and drug use a possible
qualification for mitigation. The Board, on the other hand, was
instructed not to consider the use of drugs as an aggravating factor
even though such use was unlawful. This change from the nine-member
Board policy again was strenuously objected to by the constantly
"out-voted" minority.
As a result of the policy changes by the eighteen-member Board, the next
move by the Chairman and his Executive Staff was to recycle numerous of
the "tough decision" (No Clemency) cases of the original nine-member
Board and later panels, either to a more amnesty motivated panel or to
the Full Board to gain a more favorable decision on behalf of the
applicant. The above moves on the part of the Chairman and his Executive
Staff, tended to circumvent the spirit of the President's Proclamation
and Executive Order. These moves were accomplished by various means. The
Board members were kept uninformed by:
(1) Denying them clerical help or staff assistants.
(2) Asking the Board to act after the fact in matters having to do
with policy changes.
(3) Denying them access to staff memorandums concerning matters of
interest to the Board, including Board periodic reports.
(4) Keeping the Board on unduly heavy schedule (seven days a week)
and swamping them with applicant cases to be read and presented, (and
represented), making it next to impossible for Board members to monitor
Board results. This whole process seemed to us to be something more than
accidental.
- 8 -
In addition, a three-part post-audit review was established. First, there
was the standard review, which applied to all no-clemency cases and all
cases which were given over 12 months alternative service; second, there
was a review of attorney-flagged cases which the Action Attorney felt
the Board members had decided unfairly; and third, there was computerized
review which, by use of quantitative guidelines weeded out cases which
had the harsher decisions. The post-audit team reviewed cases and made
its recommendation to the General Counsel with an explanation for
recommending reconsideration. Practically no cases were found which were
repanelled for a more harsh decision. The General Counsel then forwarded
the cases to the Chairman, with his recommendation. Further, many cases
were panel-shopped without going through the post-audit procedure and
without the second or subsequent panel or Board being informed of the
previous decision.
SECTION VII
CREDIBILITY OF BOARD'S DECISIONS
The Presidential Clemency Board program announced by the President was
a very good and workable program but, due to improper administration, it
has failed to accomplish the President's goal. Throughout the year of
the Board's existence there seemed to be a determined effort by the
Chairman and his Executive Staff to turn the Presidentially mandated
clemency program into an amnesty-oriented operation.
In reliance upon an Executive Proclamation designed to bind the
Nation's wounds and to heal the seas of deviseness", it appeared the
Chairman and the Staff sought to expand the Board's jurisdiction over
every situation possible. As a result, jurisdiction was taken over
applicants whose discharges were obviously not precipitated in the main
by AWOL/Desertion type offenses. A Pardon and Clemency Discharge were also
granted applicants who had multiple civil felony convictions both during
their military service and after their discharge from the Armed Services
or in the civilian cases, after their conviction for draft resistance.
The end result is that the public will have a distorted perception of the
Clemency Discharge. The Clemency Discharge is likely to be associated
with criminality. It will be degraded and will not achieve the intended
employer acceptability. Through the apparent ill-considered and misguided
recommendations of the majority of the Board, the Clemency Discharge may
be so degraded and discredited that it will no longer be meaningful as
an instrument of Clemency for the deserving recipient.
- 9 -
SECTION VIII
CONCLUSION
We believe that the original concept and plan as conceived and announced
by the President was a good, sound, workable plan, but the President's
objectives have not been attained because of the misdirection and mal-
administration of the plan. We feel deeply obligated and honor bound to
appraise the President of these facts.
It appears that the Chairman and his Executive Staff have misinterpreted,
circumvented and violated at least the spirit of the Executive Order of
16 September 1974, and Proclamation #4313. This questionable action has
been initiated, it appears, to increase the number of "eligible"
applicants, to liberalize the decisions of the majority of the Board
in order to gain more favorable decision for the applicants, and to set
a liberal precedent relative to Executive pardons closely associated
with felonious crimes. A move which could degrade the true meaning of
a Presidential pardon. The actions, in our opinion, are not only
unethical, but they may also border on illegality, and could greatly
discredit the President's Clemency Program in the eyes of the American
public.
In short, we have lost confidence in the Board results, which under
Chairman Goodell's direction are being recommended to the President.
We feel that the limited capability of the already hard-pressed White
House staff to monitor and screen these recommendations, is inadequate
to insure that the President will approve only recommendations which
meet his high standards. This problem is further aggravated by a backlog
of some ten thousand cases which may soon be dumped on the White House
Staff in a short period of time.
We believe that the recent steps the President has taken to terminate the
Clemency Board activity on September 15, 1975, and to place the Program
under the auspices of the Attorney General - more specifically - under
the direction of the Pardon Attorney of the Department of Justice, is a
very sound move. It is our hope that the Pardon Attorney will take a
close and conscientious look at the Clemency Board recommendations, so
as to insure that the value of the Clemency Discharge is restored to its
original respected level, and only those applicants who deserve the
discharge are awarded it.
We, as a minority of the Presidential Clemency Board, do not believe
that:
Any man who has two or more convictions (civilian or military) of serious
crimes on his record, should be given clemency. We do not believe that a
man who deserted his comrades on the battle field in Vietnam or who
refused to go to Vietnam when he was so ordered, should be given
LIBRARY
clemency.
- 10 -
We believe, as did the Truman Board, that when the majority of the Board
recommends clemency in such cases, it has failed in its duty to society,
and to the memory of those men who fought and died to protect it. We also
feel that it has been negligent in carrying out its responsibility and
has not fulfilled its obligation to protect the integrity of the
Presidency.
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
September 22, 1975
The President
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
We are concerned that a public airing of the understandable differences
of opinion among the eighteen members of the Board will do unnecessary
damage to the success your program has had in healing the divisions
in our country. We are especially disturbed at the unwarranted attacks
that have been leveled at the Chairman, the Board, and the executive
staff.
On behalf of the undersigned members, we wish to commend you in
your choice of Charles E. Goodell as our Chairman. Overwhelmingly,
the majority of those you appointea support your choice. He was an
extremely competent, dedicated, ethical, and tireless leader.
The Guidelines and procedures established by Chairman Goodell and
The Board assured each applicant a democratic hearing with just and
due process. The Board recommended to you clemency only for the
qualifying military and draft evasion offenses of a given applicant in
accordance with our charter.
Chairman Goodell and the Board carried out the intent of your program
both with healing compassion and within the legal parameters you set.
He, in turn, directed a highly professional and competent staff that
exhibited the highest moral and ethical values and judgment. The Chairman
did an excellent job in mediating extremely opposite views and proved
to be a moderating force. We wish the minority members of the Board
had given to us and the Chairman the opportunity to see their report
before it was released to the public.
We feel the clemency program initiated by a courageous President
has contributed toward healing the wounds of Vietnam. We are honored
to have been asked by you to serve with Chairman Goodell in this
important task.
-2-
Although we did not have the opportunity to obtain the signatures of all
the people listed below, each has been contacted, and all of them
personally subscribe to the contents of this letter.
Sincerely,
Robert S. Carter
John H Kauffmann
Timothy L. Craig
James A. Maye
John Everhard
E. Frederic Morrow
W. Antoinette Ford
Lewis B. Puller
Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh Aida Casanas O'Connor
Vernon E. Jordan
Joan Vinson
Rev. Francis J. Lally
and
LIBRARY
Cyry
to
HYDEMAN, MASON & GOODELL
of
1225 NINETEENTH STREET, N.W.
ARTHUR K. MASON
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
LEE M. HYDEMAN
HAROLD E. MESIROW
JOHN M. BURZIO
Gay
TELEPHONE
202 659-3650
JAMES T. LLOYD
JAMES H. HELLER
CHARLES E. GOODELL
CABLE ADDRESS
HASTEN
OF COUNSEL
October 21, 1975
ALGER B. CHAPMAN
ALEXANDER M. LANKLER
Mr. Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
The White House
Washington, D.C.
Dear Phil:
Enclosed is a copy of my letter to the Director of Selective
Service stating the recommendations of the Presidential Clemency
Board with reference to alternative service. I also enclose
a copy of the Minority Report in which four members disagree
with our recommendations.
I should say that the 14 member majority of the Board felt
very deeply about this issue. Mr. Kauffmann and Mr. Carter feel
so strongly that they requested the opportunity to join me in
meeting with you on the issue. It is our feeling that because
a great number of our applicants must serve only three months
that they fall into a somewhat different category. We do not
wish individuals to quit their jobs and have their families
possibly go on welfare in order to do three months alternative
service.
It is my understanding that you wish to bring this issue
to a head through a meeting with Byron Pepitone, the three PCB
representativesand yourself. I think that is an excellent idea,
particularly since the issue must be resolved quickly if any
decision is to be effective.
With warm regard, I am
Sincerely,
Charlie
CHARLES E. GOODELL
CEG/gk
Enclosures
FORD LIBRARY
August 20, 1975
Dear Mr. Pepitone:
This is in response to your request at our earlier
meeting that the Presidential Clemency Board forward to you
any recommendations we have to deal with the special problem
of short term alternative service. You had indicated that
you had already notified OMB there was no way you could
provide three-month full-time jobs to any large number of
people in the present job market. I understand that you
may have revised your assessment in that regard, but the
Clemency Board has discussed at some length what was the
Board's intention for performance of alternative service.
Obviously, this is a matter within the jurisidiction of the
Selective Service System and the Board offers these suggestions
in the hopes they will be helpful to you.
The Board officially recommends three courses of
action. The first two recommendations are unanimous. The
third recommendation was adopted by the Board with four
dissenting votes. I am attaching hereto the minority report
of the four dissenting members. Our recommendations are
as follows:
First, a PCB referral with a full-time Job
should be encouraged to retain that job and
do part-time alternative service without pay.
Secondly, all PCB referrals should be permitted
the option of performing fewer hours per week
and extending their work over a longer period
of time. For example, three months of alterna-
tive service could be fulfilled by stretching
shorter hours worked per week over six months
or a year.
Thirdly, to fulfill his alternative service
requirement, a PCB referral be given the choice
of working either forty hours per week with pay
or sixteen hours per week without pay. He would
would have this choice regardless of his other
employment or lack thereof.
FORD
LIBRARY
-2-
The majority of the Board strongly believes that
referrals should be given the option of performing either
an average of sixteen hours per week alternative service
without pay or forty hours per week alternative service with
pay. We feel that such a policy is in accord with the wishes
of the President and at the same time assists you in your
difficult task of placing approximately eight thousand indi-
viduals whom we shall refer to you for alternative service.
Permitting part-time alternative service would assure that
jobs are not taken from veterans and others in the competitive
labor market. It would also help to maximize the number of
clemency recipients who could successfully perform alternative
service and, therefore, earn their clemency. By allowing
conditional clemency recipients to keep their present employ-
ment, it would minimize the likelihood of their families
becoming financial burdens to the public.
In coming to this conclusion we consulted with
probation officers who indicated that the courts generally
accept sixteen hours per week as satisfactory alternative
service when alternative service is required as a part of
the court sentence. The majority of the Board believes that
a man who works evenings or Saturdays and Sundays without
pay in charitable activities or for governmental agencies
should be deemed to have satisfied our requirement if he
works sixteen hours per week.
Although it is my personal view that the President
would agree that sixteen hours without pay should be the
equivalent of forty hours per week with pay, I have never
discussed the issue with the President, and I can understand
that you may feel such a policy is in conflict with your
directive from the President. If that is the case, I believe
we should seriously consider presenting this issue to the
President. I would obviously also present the minority views
of our four dissenting members.
Whatever your decision with respect to recommendation
number three, I should emphasize that the Clemency Board
unanimously feels every effort should be made to avoid requiring
that an individual relinquish a job which he presently holds.
For obvious reasons this is particularly true of individuals
required by the Clemency Board to do alternative service of
six months or less.
LIBRARY
-3-
These recommendations to you, in response to your
invitation, are in hopes that they will be helpful in carrying
the clemency program to a successful conclusion. We fully
recognize that the nature of alternative service to be performed
is the responsibility of the Selective Service System. I
would be delighted to discuss our recommendations further
with you at your convenience.
With kind regard, I am
Sincerely,
Charles E. Goodell
Chairman
Mr. Byron V. Pepitone
Director
Selective Service System
1724 F Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20435
FORD
LIBRARY
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
TO:
Byron V. Pepitone
cc: Senator C.E. Goodell
Director
Selective Service System
FROM:
General Lewis W. Walt
Dr. Ralph Adams
Mr. James P. Dougovito
Colonel Harry Riggs
DATE:
August 1, 1975
SUBJECT:
Minority Report of the Presidential Gemency Board
on Alternate Service to be performed by applicants
to the Presidential Clemency Board
The above named Members of the Presidential Clemency Board unanimously
agree that:
A)
A month's alternate service as determined by the PCB, to
be accomplished by the applicant, is based on a minimum
of a forty-hour week. That is to say that; a three month's
alternate service assignment would be for a minimum working
period of four hundred and eighty (480) hours.
B)
The President wants a crisp, unwatered-down, effective
and creditable program of service to the public, accomplished
by the applicant in order to EARN his way back to a normal
position in our society.
c)
The administration of the alternate service program is entirely
the business and responsibility of the Director of Selective
Service.
D)
That a volunteer program for the applicants to perform
volunteer work, without pay, in their Community, could be
an effective way of accommodating those applicants who have
less than twelve months alternate service to perform.
However, there should not be any cut in the number of hours
they would be required to work. They would benefit by being
able to perform the service at a time of convenience to their
schedule so that they still could work at a regular job for
livelihood. They would also benefit in that the volunteer work
could be done in their Community so that travel would not be
a problem. Furthermore, volünteer work in their Community, to
earn their Pardon, would be good public relations for them
and for the Presidents Clemency Program.
Lewis
Family Kyop adims
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 28, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR: PHILIP W. BUCHEN
FROM:
Presidential Clemency Or Board
JAY T. FRENCH
SUBJECT:
You asked for my comments on the attached memorandum to
Charles Goodell from Neil Broder.
The Defense Department has not agreed to upgrade the discharges
of those who were recommended for honorable and general dis-
charges by the Presidential Clemency Board. Captain Boywid
did tell Neil Broder unofficially that if the White House Counsel
referred this list of names to the Secretary and recommended
further upgrading that probably the Secretary would direct such
action. But it was made clear to me that such action would be
predicated on the President's Commander-in-Chief authority
which you would be invoking in the President's behalf.
It is my personal opinion that you should refer the list to Secretary
Schlesinger and recommend the issuance of the upgraded discharges,
if the President agrees. However, I believe we should confirm
ahead of time that the Secretary will take such action.
If you agree, I will contact Bob Andrews in the DOD General
Counsel's office to make appropriate arrangements. He is most
familiar with these matters.
If you disagree, your alternative is simply to refer the list of
names to the Secretary of Defense without comment. The Secretary
will probably refer the names to the appropriate Military Department
Discharge Review Boards for routine handling.
RD
LIBRARY
United States Department of Justice
Office of the Jardon Attorney
Washington, D.C. 20530
October 17, 1975
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Charles E. Goodell
FROM:
H. Neil Broder HNeitBruter
Acting Assistant Pardon Attorney
(Clemency Matters)
SUBJECT:
Transmittal of Presidential Clemency Board
Recommendations for Upgrading of Discharges
and Veterans' Benefits
An agreement has been reached in principle between H. Neil
Broder, Acting Assistant Pardon Attorney (Clemency Matters)
and the Department of Defense through Captain E. T. Boywid,
JAGC, USN, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense,
Manpower and Reserve Affairs (Military Personnel Policy), to
effectuate the select recommendations of the Presidential
Clemency Board to upgrade less than honorable discharges to
honorable discharges with entitlement to full veterans'
benefits. Additionally, the agreement contemplates that
for those cases for which no upgrade recommendation was made,
they will be forwarded with special commendation to the ap-
propriate service Discharge Review Boards. The open question
with respect to this agreement concerns the method of
transmittal.
Captain Boywid suggests, and I concur, that it would be most
appropriate, and in all probability insure a likelihood of
favorable action by the respective military departments, if
the Office of the White House Counsel would issue a letter
recommendation forwarding and commending the Board's select
recommendations to the Defense Department - either to the
Secretary of Defense or directly to the Secretary of the
respective military department. Since an agreement in prin-
ciple has been reached there appears to be no political
liability for the White House to offer this assistance.
REVOLLTION DECNICATION
Charles E. Goodell
- 2 -
October 17, 1975
Indeed, it would be an open and public expression of the
commitment to bind the nation's wounds in a total spirit
of reconciliation. Furthermore, the selected individuals
represent a class of individuals who have served their
country honorably and well both in the combat zone and at
home. As for the remaining applicants who did not receive
recommendations for upgrade, a letter memorandum specially
commending these cases to the appropriate Discharge Review
Boards would be sufficient.
I trust that this memorandum will be satisfactory for your
purposes. Please contact me if further information is
needed.
I sincerely thank you for your assistance.
0"
LIBRACY
pent
HYDEMAN, MASON & GOODELL
1225 NINETEENTH STREET, N.W.
copy
ARTHUR K. MASON
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
LEE M. HYDEMAN
HAROLD E. MESIROW
TELEPHONE
JOHN M. BURZIO
202 659-3650
JAMES T. LLOYD
JAMES H. HELLER
CHARLES E. GOODELL
CABLE ADDRESS
HASTEN
OF COUNSEL
ALGER B. CHAPMAN
ALEXANDER M. LANKLER
October 21, 1975
Mr. Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
The White House
Washington, D.C.
Dear Phil:
Enclosed is a copy of the memorandum I discussed with you
this morning, which I believe is self-explanatory.
With warm regards, I am
Sincerely,
Charlie
CHARLES E. GOODELL
CEG/gk
Enclosure
FORD
United States Department of Justice
Office of the Pardon Attorney
Washington, D.C. 20530
October 17, 1975
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Charles E. Goodell
FROM:
H. Neil Broder
Acting Assistant Pardon Attorney
(Clemency Matters)
SUBJECT:
Transmittal of Presidential Clemency Board
Recommendations for Upgrading of Discharges
and Veterans' Benefits
An agreement has been reached in principle between H. Neil
Broder, Acting Assistant Pardon Attorney (Clemency Matters)
and the Department of Defense through Captain E. T. Boywid,
JAGC, USN, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense,
Manpower and Reserve Affairs (Military Personnel Policy), to
effectuate the select recommendations of the Presidential
Clemency Board to upgrade less than honorable discharges to
honorable discharges with entitlement to full veterans'
benefits. Additionally, the agreement contemplates that
for those cases for which no upgrade recommendation was made,
they will be forwarded with special commendation to the ap-
propriate service Discharge Review Boards. The open question
with respect to this agreement concerns the method of
transmittal.
Captain Boywid suggests, and I concur, that it would be most
appropriate, and in all probability insure a likelihood of
favorable action by the respective military departments, if
the Office of the White House Counsel would issue a letter
recommendation forwarding and commending the Board's select
recommendations to the Defense Department - either to the
Secretary of Defense or directly to the Secretary of the
respective military department. Since an agreement in prin-
ciple has been reached there appears to be no political
liability for the White House to offer this assistance.
FORD
LIBRARY
AMERICAN REVOLUTION WEENTENNING
1776-1976
Charles E. Goodell
- 2 -
October 17, 1975
Indeed, it would be an open and public expression of the
commitment to bind the nation's wounds in a total spirit
of reconciliation. Furthermore, the selected individuals
represent a class of individuals who have served their
country honorably and well both in the combat zone and at
home. As for the remaining applicants who did not receive
recommendations for upgrade, a letter memorandum specially
commending these cases to the appropriate Discharge Review
Boards would be sufficient.
I trust that this memorandum will be satisfactory for your
purposes. Please contact me if further information is
needed.
I sincerely thank you for your assistance.
LIBRARY
Friday 10/31/75
2:45 Charles Goodell would appreciate a call.
659-3650
Wanted you to know it didn't concern clemency.
LIBRARY GERALD FORD
ok
Thursday 10/30/75
5:00 Jay said the thing Goodell wanted to meet with Selective
Service on were three points -- two of which Selective
Service has already implemented -- so he thought that
would abort the meeting.
Jay said he sent you a couple of pieces of paper concerning this.
He will go ahead and set the meeting if you'd like.
LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 28, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR: PHILIP W. BUCHEN
FROM:
JAY T. FRENCH On
SUBJECT:
Presidential Clemency Board
You inquired about the legality of Selective Service implementing
the three suggestions made by Chairman Goodell in his August 20
letter to Byron Pepitone.
Selective Service already has implemented the first two suggestions
and rejected the third one. Selective Service rejected the third
suggestion because it was inequitable, not because it was illegal
under the President's Executive Order and Proclamation.
The Director of Selective Service said that Charlie Goodell doesn't
know these suggestions were adopted.
ORD
LIBRARY
August 20, 1975
Dear Mr. Pepitone:
This is in response to your request at our earlier
meeting that the Presidential Clemency Board forward to you
any recommendations we have to deal with the special problem
of short term alternative service, You had indicated that
you had already notified OMB there was no way you could
provide three-month full-time jobs to any large number of
people in the present job market. I understand that you
may have revised your assessment in that regard, but the
Clemency Board has discussed at some length what was the
Board's intention for performance of alternative service.
Obviously, this is a matter within the jurisidiction of the
Selective Service System and the Board offers these suggestion
in the hopes they will be helpful to you.
The Board officially recommends three courses of
action. The first two recommendations are unanimous. The
third recommendation was adopted by the Board with four
dissenting votes. I am attaching hereto the minority report
of the four dissenting members, Our recommendations are
as follows:
First, a PCB referral with a full-time job
should be encouraged to retain that job and
do part-time alternative service without pay.
Secondly, all PCB referrals should be permitted
the option of performing fewer hours per week
and extending their work over a longer period
of time. For example, three months of alterna-
tive service could be fulfilled by stretching
shorter hours worked per week over six months
or a year.
Thirdly, to fulfill his alternative service
requirement, a PCB referral be given the choice
of working either forty hours per week with pay
or sixteen hours per week without pay's He would
would have this choice regardless of his other
employment or lack thereof.
-2-
The majority of the Board strongly believes that
referrals should be given the option of performing either
an average of sixteen hours per week alternative service
without pay or forty hours per week alternative service with
pay. We feel that such a policy is in accord with the wishes
of the President and at the same time assists you in your
difficult task of placing approximately eight thousand indi-
viduals whom we shall refer to you for alternative service.
Permitting part-time alternative service would assure that
jobs are not taken from veterans and others in the competitive
labor market. It would also help to maximize the number of
clemency recipients who could successfully perform alternative
service and, therefore, earn their clemency. By allowing
conditional clemency recipients to keep their present employ-
ment, it would minimize the likelihood of their families
becoming financial burdens to the public.
In coming to this conclusion we consulted with
probation officers who indicated that the courts generally
accept sixteen hours per week as satisfactory alternative
service when alternative service is required as a part of
the court sentence. The majority of the Board believes that
a man who works evenings or Saturdays and Sundays without
pay in charitable activities or for governmental agencies
should be deemed to have satisfied our requirement if he
works sixteen hours per week
Although it is my personal view that the President
would agree that sixteen hours without pay should be the
equivalent of forty hours per week with pay, I have never
discussed the issue with the President, and I can understand
that you may feel such a policy is in conflict with your
directive from the President, If that is the case, I believe
we should seriously consider presenting this issue to the
President. I would obviously also present the minority views
of our four dissenting members.
Whatever your decision with respect to recommendatio
number three, I should emphasize that the Clenency Board
unanimously feels every effort should be made to avoid requiri
that an individual relinquish a job which he presently holds.
For obvious reasons this is particularly true of individuals
required by the Clemency Board to do alternative service of
six months or less.
FORD
RALD
LIBRARY
-3-
These recommendations to you, in response to your
invitation, are in hopes that they will bo helpful in carrying
the clonency program to a successful conclusion. We fully
recognize that the nature of alternative service to be performed
is the responsibility of the Solective Service System, I
would be delighted to discuss our recommendations further
with you at your convenience.
With kind regard, I am
Sincerely,
Charles E. Goodell
Chairman
Mr. Byron V. Pepitone
Director
Selective Service System
1724 F Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20435
FORD
GERALD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 7, 1975
Dear Charlie:
Thank you for providing me with a copy of your letter to Byron
Pepitone dated August 20 in which you set forth the Clemency
Board's recommendations for handling referrals to Selective
Service who are required to perform short terms of alternate
service.
The Director of Selective Service has assured me that he shares
the Board's concern and interest in these cases. Indeed, after
considering these recommendations, Mr. Pepitone issued instruc-
tions that referrals with three to six months of alternate service
should be permitted to keep their regular employment by working
twenty hours a week at their alternate service jobs. This new
procedure satisfies the first and second recommendations con-
tained in your August 20 letter. Mr. Pepitone did not implement
the Board's third recommendation, that sixteen hours would be
is
FORD
the equivalent of a forty-hour week, because he felt that it created
too great an inequity between persons who are already working at
LIBRARY
full-time alternate service jobs or who have fulfilled their obliga-
tions and those who would be permitted to take advantage of such
a change in the rules.
I appreciate the principal concern underlying the Board's recom-
mendations to insure that large numbers of referrals with short
terms of service find employment. However, to date, only 542
referrals from the Clemency Board have enrolled at Selective
Service and it has been reasonably successful in locating alternate
service jobs. I think we now should give the Director of Selective
November 7, 1975
Page Two
Service an opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of the Board's
recommendations as larger numbers of referrals report for alter-
nate service.
Sincerely,
Thil
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
Charles Goodell, Esquire
Room 601
1225 - 19th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
FORD & LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 7, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
FROM:
JAY PHILIP T. W. FRENCH BUCHEN Day
You requested a report from Selective Service about the status of
the alternate service program in order to assist you in preparing
a letter to Charlie Goodell. Enclosed is that report from Byron
Pepitone (Tab A). To save you time, I took the liberty of drafting
a letter to Charlie which might serve the purpose you intended
(Tab B).
Attachments
FORD
LIBRARY
REVOLUTION
LICENSE SERVICE SYSTEM
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS
AMERICAN
BICENTENNIAL
SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM
1776-1976
1724 F STREET NW.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20435
ADDRESS REPLY TO
THE DIRECTOR OF SELECTIVE SERVICE
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
November 5, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR MR. PHILIP BUCHEN
SUBJECT: Assignment of Clemency Board Enrollees to Alternate Service
Since December 1974, when the first applicants for clemency
were enrolled in alternate service, there has not been any great problem
of assigning Presidential Clemency Board enrollees to alternate service --
principally because they have been so few in number. There were only
24 enrollees in alternate service, from the Presidential Clemency Board,
on June 30, 1975, and there are only 542 today. Over 360 of these have
been enrolled in the last two months.
Several months ago when Chairman Goodell expressed concern
that enrollees from the Presidential Clemency Board might not be provided
the opportunity to complete their assigned alternate service to earn
their Presidential pardon or pardon and clemency discharge, the matter
was thoroughly considered. On July 7, 1975, I met with Mr. Goodell to
discuss this problem. We focused on the potentially large number of
enrollees from the Presidential Clemency Board with only three to six
months of alternate service to perform. Our discussion aired the prob-
lems of providing a means for a high number of enrollees with an obligation
of six months or less to perform their service without jeopardizing their
regular jobs for such a short period of time. Mr. Goodell made several
suggestions, including the use of less than full-time work as satisfactory
performance. I asked Mr. Goodell to make recommendations to me on this
subject, and he agreed to do SO. Mr. Goodell's recommendation arrived
at my office on August 25, 1975.
It has never been our policy to force enrollees to sacrifice
good-paying jobs for alternate service jobs when some other solution to
such a problem existed. Notwithstanding this fact, I have been con-
stantly mindful of the President's feeling, which he expressed early in
the program, that returnees should earn their way back. Our effort has
been to follow the President's desires and apply them to the realistic
situations, on a case-by-case basis as we saw them. We have encouraged
enrollees to keep their jobs and work off their obligation in secondary
jobs since the program began. Many sincere enrollees have done SO.
LIBRARY
INSURE FREEDOM'S FUTURE-AND YOUR OWN-BUY UNITED STATES SAVINGS BONDS
Memorandum for Mr. Buchen
Page Two
November 5, 1975
It was apparent from the time we learned that many of the
Clemency Board enrollees would have short-term obligations that some
special provisions for them to complete their alternate service without
leaving their regular jobs might be necessary. Mr. Goodell's recom-
mendations assisted in the establishment of the modified requirements
for satisfactory alternate service now available to short-term obligors
from the Presidential Clemency Board.
On September 19, 1975 I advised the State Directors of Selective
Service that short-term alternate service could be completed on an
equivalent-time basis, i.e., an enrollee who had a full-time regular
job and was sincere in his desire to perform his alternate service could
complete his alternate service obligation by working on a 20 hours per
week basis on an approvable job either compensated or as a volunteer.
This enabled them to earn their Presidential clemency while keeping
their regular jobs, although it did extend the period they have to serve
for the work to be considered the equivalent of full time.
In my view, this change of instructions regarding the perform-
ance of alternate service should accommodate those enrollees who have
short-term obligations and should satisfy the first two recommendations
of Mr. Goodell's August 20 letter.
I have not adopted Mr. Goodell's third recommendation, i.e.,
a token period of voluntary service of as little as 16 hours per week
equated to 40 hours of paid service. It is my belief, in fairness to
all participants, that an hour of service is the same whether it is vol-
unteer or paid work. To make an exception such as Mr. Goodell recommends
I believe would be unfair to the many enrollees who are now working at
full-time jobs to complete their service or who have already fulfilled
their obligation by working full time. Such liberalization, in my view,
could cause further criticism of the President's program as well as
being unfair to those participating under the present procedures.
I believe that our present instructions, which provide for
certain enrollees to complete their obligations over an extended period
of time while performing alternate service on an equivalent-time basis,
will make it possible for all sincere enrollees with short-term obliga-
tions to earn their return as the President intended without jeopardizing,
their regular jobs, their families' well-being, or the President's program.
Memorandum for Mr. Buchen
Page Three
November 5, 1975
There are more Presidential Clemency Board enrollees who have
already completed their obligation today than were enrolled at the end
of May. Nearly 200 of the remaining Presidential Clemency Board enrol-
lees are at work. Considering that 360 of the total of 542 who have
enrolled have done SO in the last 60 days, I believe the employment
rate is excellent.
A percentage of enrollees do drop out of the program after
enrollment when they realize, after learning more details of the program,
that they will not receive veterans' benefits and other benefits which
they mistakenly thought they would receive at the time of application.
This drop-out rate to date is not disturbing when we consider, from
experience, that less than 45% of those advised of the President's grant
of conditional clemency enroll in the first place.
I believe that the provisions we have made for Presidential
Clemency Board enrollees to perform alternate service will enable all
those who are interested in performing it to do so without jeopardizing
their regular jobs. At the same time, they will be earning their way
back into society as the President intended. Notwithstanding this, we
should be aware that there are those enrollees who are not interested
in performing alternate service, either full time or part time, whether
presently employed or not. There is little which can be done for those
not willing to participate, since this is a decision the individual
enrollee makes.
I hope this provides you with the information you desire. If
you need any additional information, I will be pleased to furnish it.
Syrem Byron Director V. Pepitone V.Siptane
FORD
LIBRARY
fill
HYDEMAN, MASON & GOODELL
1225 NINETEENTH STREET. N.W.
RECERTION SECURITY MAIL
ARTHUR K. MASON
LEE M. HYDEMAN
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
HAROLD E. MESIROW
JOHN M. BURZIO
Frocessed
DEC 22 1975
JAMES T. LLOYD
JAMES H. HELLER
by
CHARLES E. GOODELL
OF COUNSEL
ALGER B. CHAPMAN
ALEXANDER M. LANKLER
MEMORANDUM
TO:
President Gerald R., Ford
Charles E' Foodell
FROM:
Charles E. Goodell
SUBJECT: Final Report of Presidential Clemency Board
DATE:
December 18, 1975
I am pleased to submit to you today the final report
of the Presidential Clemency Board, together with the
formal transmittal from me, as Chairman, on behalf of the
Board. The report contains a short executive summary, eight
descriptive chapters, and appendices. It contains no recom-
mendations. The report was signed by the following fourteen
Board members: Charles E. Goodell, Robert S. Carter, Timothy
Lee Craig, John A. Everhard, W. Antoinette Ford, Father
Theodore M. Hesburgh, Vernon E. Jordan, John Hoy Kauffmann,
Reverend Monsignor Francis J. Lally, James A. Maye, E.
Frederick Morrow, Aida Casanas O'Connor, Lewis B. Puller, Jr.,
and Joan Vinson.
Dr. Ralph Adams, Mr. James P. Dougovito, Mr. Harry
Riggs, and General Lewis W. Walt did not sign this report,
nor did they submit to the Board any dissenting views.
We are embargoing the report until January 6th. On that
date, our current plan is to distribute 3,000 complimentary
copies, and an additional 2,000 copies will be placed on
public sale by the Superintendent of Documents.
I recommend that the report be released with a short
public statement describing the purposes and accomplishments
of your Clemency Program. I believe that this program has
pride. been one in which you and your Administration can take just
I appreciate the assistance which members of your
Executive Office have given in the late stages of preparing
this report.
CC: Paul O'Neill
FORD
Enclosure
GERALD
LIBRARY
HYDEMAN, MASON & GOODELL
1225 NINETEENTH STREET. N.W.
ARTHUR K. MASON
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
LEE M. HYDEMAN
HAROLD E. MESIROW
JOHN M. BURZIO
TELEPHONE
JAMES T. LLOYD
202 659-3650
JAMES H. HELLER
CHARLES E. GOODELL
CABLE ADDRESS
HASTEN
OF COUNSEL
ALGER-B. CHAPMAN
ALEXANDER M. LANKLER
January 6, 1976
The Honorable Gerald R. Ford
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
I am pleased to transmit herewith the Report of the
Presidential Clemency Board, representing the observations
and conclusions of the Board. This submission is made
pursuant to Section 10 (d) of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (5 USC App I) and pursuant to Section 9 of Executive
Order 11803, dated September 16, 1974.
This Report contains an extensive description and analysis
of the Clemency Board's activities during the year of our
existence. We have described our work at length because we
believe that you, the Congress, and the American people deserve
as complete an accounting as possible of how we carried out our
responsibilities under your Clemency Program. Although the
report does not contain any formal recommendations, it chronicles
and describes the issues the Board faced in implementing your
program of earned re-entry for those who failed to comply with
military or Selective Service requirements during the Vietnam
period.
Compassion and forgiveness are part of the highest traditions
of America. Your policy of post-Vietnam reconciliation has
served the important purpose of helping restore unity, while
respecting diversity of opinion. It did so without impairing
respect for law, or the ability of the nation to meet future
crises. Through your program, thousands of young Americans
now have the opportunity to become more useful and productive
citizens.
We believe the country is far stronger as a result of
your Clemency Program, and each of us is grateful for the
opportunity that you gave us to serve in this important effort.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles E. Goodell
Charles E. Goodell
Chairman
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY