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
1506011
label
Memoranda - Internal (4)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1506011
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Memoranda - Internal (4)
citationUrl
collections
Charles E. Goodell Papers
Presidential Clemency Board Subject Files
subjects
President (1974-1977 : Ford). Presidential Clemency Board. 9/16/1974-9/15/1975
Amnesty
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1506011
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-09-30
month
9
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-09-01
month
9
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
424fbfe8c27299fe
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 8, folder "Memoranda - Internal (4)" of the
Charles E. Goodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Charles Goodell donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 8 of the Charles E. Goodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
September 1st, 1975
MEMORANDUM
To
:
Mr. Robert Carter, Board Member, PCB
GERALA FORD LIBRARY
Mrs. Aida O'Connor, Board Member, PCB
From
:
John Brander, Staff Attorney, PCB
CATEGORY IVs AND PROJECT 100,000
Many applicants who have applied to the Presidential
Clemency Board for clemency are those the Military term
Category IV men. Category IVs are those whose Armed Forces
Qualification Test ( AFQT ) score is between 10 and 30.
Prior to the Vietnam War those in this category were usually
rejected for military service. The practice was to accept
only those in Category IV whose scores were between 15 and
30 and who had passed supplemental aptitude examinations.
Such men who are in this category were considered below average
in mental ability. The escalation of the war in 1966, the
concomitant manpower need and the expansion of the Army
necessitated a dramatic change in this practice. This change
of practice was not one which was authorized by Congress. Nor
was it one actively lobbied for by the Military or the
Department of Defense. Rather it was a change that came
about by administrative fiat of the then Secretary of
Defense, Robert McNamara. This change quickly became known
as Project 100,000. The project has since been phased out.
But not the utilization of Category IV men into the services.
Today's Volunteer Army draws upon the same sectors of
the population that Project 100,000 drew upon i the number
of such men accepted depending upon the number needed and the
number in the other categories applying. It is for this
broader reason that Project 100,000 should be looked at one
more time before it becomes relegated to the dust of the
history book. The work of the Board has been taken up with
a disproportionate number of cases of applicants in the
Category IV range who should never have been in the Military
in the first place or who should have been given discharges
under Honorable conditions when it became evident that they
were not suitable for military service.
The work of the Board is negligable if administrative
and military attitudes towards those in Category IV remain
unchanged. No doubt there is a place for Category IVs in the
Armed Services. It is not the purpose of this paper to discuss
what that place should be. Rather it is the purpose of this
paper to raise two questions, namely :
( i )
How should such men be discharged in future ?
(ii)
What, if anything, should be done for the
many thousands of Category IVs who did not
know of the Clemency Program or who were
ineligible because their offenses were not
AWOL or AWOL related ?
Category IV men had two special problems which other
men in the Military did not have to contend with to quite the
same degree.
The first problem was that Category IV men were
treated and trained no differently from men in other categories.
It is to the credit of the Military that Category IV men were
not assigned to what might have become known as "moron squads".
Having "moron squads" would certainly have created a pandora
box of special problems of another sort. Being treated and
trained as other Category men meant that they had to produce
to the same extent. To conform to the same standards. To
work regular 8 to 5 type shifts. Their immediate superiors
did not know they were Category IV men and thus not mentally
and/or physically on the same level as men in the other
categories. As a result Category IV men were subjected to
a proportionally greater amount of harassment than those in
other categories had to put up with. It is well known that
Category IV men have a lower threshhold of tolerance to
certain forms of harassment than those in other categories
possess. Especially when the form of harassment refers to
their intelligence / stupidity.
The second special problem that was peculiar to these
men was one that was the product of the war itself. This
problem had to do with the rumors of torture and mass killings
taking place in Vietnam by the Viet Cong and the North Vietmanese.
The years 1967, 1968 and 1969 were years of rumor. The brighter
and more sophisticated could discount these rumors as farfetched
and improbable. But the rumors got to those who were gullible
and they were often believed hook, line and sinker.
Life in boot camp for many Category IVs was miserable.
Both problems taken together resulted in a higher rate of
AWOL offenses prior to being sent to Vietnam than would otherwise
have occurred. Boredom and combat stress in Vietnam itself
increased the susceptibility of men in this Category to take
drugs, drink and get into financial debt. A large part of the
demoralization of the Military in Vietnam may be ascribed to
the effects of boredom and stress on those in the Category IV
range. On their return to Stateside, Category IV men found the
/
military discipline which had been lax in Vietnam tightened
up unbearably. A large number of these men, having an
inability to cope with family problems at the best of
times, simply could not cope with family problems on the
one hand and the disciplined routine of a stateside military
base. Many of these men thus took to their feet and went
home.
During the Vietnam War an unduly large proportion of
General and Undesirable Discharges were of those in Category
IV. Those who were given Undesirable Discharges left the
service as failures. With a deeply hurt image of themselves
which often was not justified. The word "undesirable" has
a bad connotation which the word "unsuitable" does not have.
It may be true that many of these men were unsuitable for
military service, but the stigma of their discharge as it
follows them into civilian life is probably not one those
in the Military would have intended. Often such men when
offered an Undesirable Discharge in Lieu of Court-Martial
accepted the offer even though they might have had a good
defense to any charge being brought against them or that, if
found guilty, would not have been sentenced to a Bad Conduct
or Dishonorable Discharge. Most of these men though they
signed a waiver form did not make a knowing and intelligent
waiver of whatever rights they may have had.
In the Appendix to this paper will be found a brief
history of Project 100,000, originally written by James Fallon
of the Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, and
modified by myself. The Project 100,000 came about in response
to the War needs of 1966. At that time the Selective Service
system was faced with two alternatives. One was to induct the
college kids who were being exempted. The other was to lower
mental and physical standards and induct those in the Category
IV range. Politically at the time it was easier to select the
second alternative. Especially as the war was beginning to be
unpopular with those in the colleges. Recruitments in the other
services were falling off, too, so that the opposition by the
different armed services to lowering mental and physical standards
became less vocal in those years. Body counts were maintained
through the peak of the war years despite opposition to the war
from liberals and the left at home. Because the college kids
got out of the war so easily, clemency, if justified for no
other reason, might be justified to those in Category IV who
though unsuitable for military service, did to the extent that
they were able to give whatever service they could. The fact
that many of these Category IV did make it in the Military and
were separated under Honorable conditions may be an added
justification for granting clemency to those who didn't.
Conclusion
The next war, if one takes place, may be more unpopular
than the Vietnam War. It may be more derisive than any war
in our history has been. To believe anything else is to be
oblivious to the events taking place in the rest of the world
at this moment. The present ambivalence in public opinion
concerning these events is indicative of the extent this
nation has been wounded by the recent war. No one knows
when the next war will break out. Or who we will be supporting
and who we will be fighting. But one thing is obvious. The
more national unity we as a people possess, the less problems
the Military will have to contend with in successfully waging
that war. The preservation of the nation is probably the
single important thing for its citizens. Only by national
unity in wartime can the traditions of a people be preserved.
Building national unity in peacetime offers the best safeguard
to successfully preserving the nation itself in times of
war. The final report of the Board and the reception it
receives by the President, the Congress, the Miltiary, the
Press and the people will be one of many small factors that
can accelerate or retard what should be our number one priority
of the Seventies : the acheiving of a viable national unity.
What faction in the Board ultimately prevails and gets the
ear of the President is immaterial if the result of the work of
the Board is a healing of the national wounds of the last decade
and the forging of a national unity that can withstand the
stress and strain of our next military involvement.
I have tried to examine something of the Category IV
question that might be of help to you. It is usual in
memoranda of this sort to suggest recommendations. I should
refrain from doing so in this instance as the conclusions
you have drawn for yourselves are more informed than my own.
All I have wanted to do is to give you some impressions of my
own for your consideration. They are impressions gained from
having worked as an attorney on a hundred cases, having been
here for five months and spoken to a large number of other
attorneys, having read on the subject and having to overcome
a number of my own prejudices. You, too, have spent countless
hours over thousands of these cases. This has provided all the
members of the Board a common background from which you can
draw your own conclusions. It is this common background more
than anything else that offers the best chance feasible
recommendations on the Category IV issue can be made to the
President, feasible recommendations he can implement and the
American people welcome and accept.
APPENDIX
History of the Project 100,000 Program
(i) Background
Mental standards were reduced in the Second World War
when manpower needs increased in 1943 and 1944. The Military
in those years anticipated a long land war in Japan and having
reached the metaphorical "bottom of the barrel" began recruiting
convicted convicts and those rejected on physical and mental
grounds. When the war was over only a small percentage of
low mental category men became career soldiers. Two views
prevailed at that time concerning the effectiveness of these
low category men. Holders of the first view thought it was
a good thing that they were accepted. Such men took orders
well and made good "cannon fodder". Holders of the other view
felt that these men were a disaster to the services. Holders
of this view tended to be in the technical arms where aptitude
and proficiency were traits as important as attitude and
conduct.
The problem of low category enlistment did not become
a major issue until the early Sixties. Shortly before his death
in 1963 President Kennedy established the Task Force on Manpower
Conservation under the direction of Professor Daniel Moynihan.
The mission of this task force was to study the one third of
the male population that failed to qualify for the Selective
Service. A report was submitted to President Johnson in early
January 1964. Within a week of its submission President
Johnson directed the Selective Service System and the Department
of Labor to establish a "voluntary rehabilitation" program
for draft rejects. Due to a number of resons such as ineffective
advertising, and budgetary needs of other "War on Poverty"
programs, this program died in early 1964.
On August 13th, 1964, nine days after the Tonkin Gulf
resolution, the Department of Defense announced that it would
take a total of 11,000 volunteers who had been previously
rejected. This was done by order of the White House to
ameliorate the expected severity of the draft. However, with
the active opposition of Representative Mendel Rivers, Congress
refused to fund the required $ 16 million to administer this
program.
The Department of Defense was opposed
to the "lowering of standards".
Secretary of Defense McNamara decided to alter the existing
practices of accepting only those with scores of 30 and above on
the AFQT. The Military was legally free to accept anyone above
10, so that beginning in November 1965 about 30, 000 men were
brought into the service over the next eleven months.
(ii) Project 100,000
In August, 1966, a few days after the first massive draft
call ( 46,000 for October, 1966 ) was announced, Secretary
McNamara announced "Project 100,000". The new program would
involve 40,000 "New Standards" men in the first year, and
100,000 men in each subsequent year, and would include both
draftees and enlistees. The Secretary promised "
(W) can
salvage tens of thousands of these men, each year, first to
productive military careers and later for productive roles in
society. 11. While the Secretary spoke of 1500 different skills that
could be developed by military training, the results of the program
indicated that about 80% of those in the project were engaged in
five types of duty :
a. Cook ;
b. Infantryman ;
C. Supplyman ;
d. Clerk ;
e. Mechanical/equipment repair.
While 14% of those in the Military received combat roles, about
37 % of those in the project were sent into combat.
The Category IV men had a reading level of a sixth grader
and averaged 10.6 years of schooling. At the outset of the program
there was no funding for any special training. This factor
coupled with the Department of Defense's good faith desire
not to treat these men separately or "stigmatize" them, caused
those in the project to be assigned for training and duty
assignment along with all other personnel. Although there
were confidential reports kept in their military personnel
recrods for feedback to the Department of Defense, the
immediate superiors of these men did not know that they were
Category IVs.
In the first three years of the program, 246, 000 men
were accepted. 225, 000 were admitted under reduced mental
standards. The other 20,000 were admitted under reduced
physical standards.
In early 1967 the Navy set-up a remedial reading and
training program. The Air Force did so at the end of 1967.
The Army did so in the spring of 1968. The Marine Corps
decided not to do so as it was problematic what lasting
benefit it would be to the Category IV to have a program
lasting only six weeks.
Category IVs were recycled in basic training and
advanced individual training more than those in other
categories. About 3 % of those in other categories were
recycled. As many as 10 % of those in the upper part of
Category IV ( AFQT scores between 16 and 30 ) and 25 % of
those in the lower part were recycled. Those in Project
100,000 had more than twice the Court-Martial conviction
rate that those in other categories had and more than one
and a half times the non judicial punishment rate.
Studies have shown that unsuitability, basic
training attrition rates, and reenlistment ineligibility
are directly correlated with AFQT scores, while there is
an inverse relationship between promotion rates and AFQT
scores.
It should be noted that the unit commander could
award at his discretion a General Discharge for unsuitability
or an Undesirable Discharge for unfitness. Since men in
Project 100,000 would fit into a potential unsuitable category,
arguments have been made that it would be appropriate to
reclassify these men with General Discharges for unsuitability.
Dictated by Gretchen over phone 9/2
GERALD FORD
This form letter was sent to all applicants who had submitted
telephone applications before the deadline or letters, post
cards, etc. (The letter Gretchen read was dated 5/17)
Gretchen thinks a letter like this could have gone out after 6/1.
"Dear
A review of our records shows that we have not yet received
your completed application for consideration by the Presidential
Clemency Board. As a result of your telephone inquiry (or
letter, post card, etc), we sent you an application kit con-
taining information about the Presidential Clemency Board,
rules concerning those who qualify, and an application for
you to fill in and return to us.
If, for some reason, you may not have received the original
kit, we are sending you another to complete. If we do not
hear from you by June 1, 1975, we will not be able to process
your case and you will not be eligible for clemency under
the President's program.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Goodell
Chairman"
FORD
Dictated by Gretchen over phone 9/2
GERALD
This form letter was sent to all applicants who had submitted
telephone applications before the deadline or letters, post
cards, etc. (The letter Gretchen read was dated 5/17)
Gretchen thinks a letter like this could have gone out after 6/1.
"Dear
A review of our records shows that we have not yet received
your completed application for consideration by the Presidential
Clemency Board. As a result of your telephone inquiry (or
letter, post card, etc), we sent you an application kit con-
taining information about the Presidential Clemency Board,
rules concerning those who qualify, and an application for
you to fill in and return to us.
If, for some reason, you may not have received the original
kit, we are sending you another to complete. If we do not
hear from you by June 1, 1975, we will not be able to process
your case and you will not be eligible for clemency under
the President's program.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Goodell
Chairman"
GERALD P. FORD
1. General Walt called Gretchen in this morning and
chewed her out for some of his mail being opened
last week. He told her it was a Federal offense;
she said that she tried to explain it to him that
while she was away, an assembly line was set up
to open mail and the people just slit all mail
open. He would not accept that as an excuse.
She said that beside her, there was Walt, Dickman,
Benson, and Major Buck present.
(per Gretchen 9/2/75)
Charles E. Goodell,
For your
information.
John Lohff
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
September 5, 1975
GERALD R. FORD
Dear Sir or Madam:
On September 16, 1974, President Gerald R. Ford issued a Proclamation
announcing a "Program for the Return of Vietnam Era Draft Evaders and
Military Deserters, " thereby establishing the Presidential Clemency
Program. This program was created in the hope of furthering our national
commitment to justice and mercy so that, in President Ford's words, we
could "bind the Nation's wounds and heal the scars of divisiveness."
I am writing to you because your organization is one which participants
in the Presidential Clemency Program might be contacting regarding the
effect of a Presidential pardon or a Clemency Discharge.
The Clemency Program was established in order that the thousands of young
Americans who were convicted of violations of the Military Selective
Service Act or of the Uniform Code of Military Justice could have the
chance to contribute a share to the rebuilding of peace among ourselves
and with all nations. The President strongly urges that these Americans
who have earned clemency be allowed the opportunity to return to their
families with a restored standing.
Enclosed is some information which should be helpful in providing those
individuals who come to your organization seeking advice and guidance with
constructive, clear information about what benefits attach automatically
to a Presidential pardon and/or Clemency Discharge. It will also enable
your organization to advise these individuals concerning further remedies
which may be available to them, as they seek to reenter the mainstream of
American life.
- 2 -
I hope that you will disseminate the enclosed information within your
organization and give it the highest possible priority. Those who have
received a pardon from the President need your help and they will profit
from as much attention as can be afforded them.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Gordell
Charles E. Goodell
Chairman
Enclosures:
Meaning of a Pardon
Meaning of a Clemency Discharge
Discharge Review Boards
Exemplary Rehabilitation Certificate
Drug Discharge
Civil Service Commission
Coerced Enlistment
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
September 5, 1975
MEMORANDUM
From:
Lawrence M. Baskir
General Counsel
Subject: Meaning of a Pardon
A pardon is the supreme counstitutional gesture of forgiveness or mercy,
and, once granted, has many wide-reaching effects. The pardon releases
an individual who is incarcerated. In addition, once a person receives
a Presidential pardon, Federal civil rights which have been lost because
of the conviction are restored, i.e., the right to vote, to hold Federal
office and to sit on a Federal jury. The Presidential pardon may also,
since it is generally honored by the States, restore State rights including,
but not limited to, the rights to vote, hold office and obtain licenses
for trades and professions from which convicted felons are otherwise
barred. Also, a pardon indicates to all government agencies and officials
the President's intent that they not consider pardoned offenses in deciding
questions involving the pardon recipient. Finally, a Presidential pardon
is an expression by the Chief Executive of his desire that the stigma
of conviction be removed and that the pardon recipient no longer be dis-
criminated against when seeking employment, housing or other opportunities.
However, while a pardon removes most legal disabilities of an offense, it
does not erase the offense, and a pardon in and of itself will not qualify
an individual for a position of trust. Where the character of the individual
applying for a job, housing or other opportunities is the basis for deter-
mining suitability, the offense which was pardoned can still be considered
in making that determination.
For further information about the meaning of a Pardon, you may contact the
Pardon Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. 20530.
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
September 5, 1975
MEMORANDUM
From: Lawrence M. Baskir, General Counsel
Subject: Meaning of a Clemency Discharge
The Clemency Discharge is a neutral discharge, issued neither under
"honorable conditions" nor under "other than honorable conditions."
It is to be considered as ranking between an Undesirable Discharge and
a General Discharge. Such a discharge in and of itself restores no
Veterans Benefits. While there is no change in benefit status per se,
a recipient may apply to the Veterans Administration for benefits. He
may also apply for an upgrade in his original discharge (Undesirable,
Bad Conduct, Dishonorable) to the appropriate Discharge Review Board,
where the Clemency Discharge should greatly improve the recipient's
chances for success, Finally, the Clemency Discharge, like a
Presidential pardon, is an expression by the Chief Executive that the
stigma of a bad record has been removed, and that the bearer of a
Clemency Discharge should no longer be discriminated against in his
future opportunities.
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
September 5, 1975
MEMORANDUM
From:
Lawrence M. Baskir
General Counsel
Subject: Discharge Review Boards
Any individual who received a less than honorable discharge from the
Armed Forces may apply to the Discharge Review Board (DRB) and/or
the Board for Correction of Military Records (BCMR) for a possible
upgrade to a general or honorable discharge. Each branch of service
has its own Discharge Review Board and Board for Correction of Military
Records.
Generally speaking, the veteran should first apply for a recharacteri-
zation of his discharge to the Discharge Review Board. The DRB may
upgrade the type of discharge but may not revoke a discharge nor may
it reinstate the applicant in the service. Also, it may not review a
discharge resulting from the sentence of a General Court-Martial. The
veteran may apply within 15 years of the date of his discharge. This
statutory limitation may not be waived, but any contact with the DRB
during the 15 year period starts the period running anew. Even if the
veteran has already applied to the DRB, he may petition for a rehearing
if material evidence such as a Clemency Discharge and a Pardon, not
available at the time of the first hearing, is now available, or if
he or she is now seeking a personal appearance and has not previously
appeared before the Board.
The Board for Correction of Military Records may correct any error in
the individual's military record. The BCMR may review a discharge after
relief has been denied by the DRB. Further, it may change the reenlist-
ment code on a given discharge, allowing the veteran to reenlist. This
Board can also review discharges awarded by sentence of a General Court-
Martial. The statute of limitation for filing with the BCMR is 3 years,
but this is freely waived in the interest of justice. However, it should
- 2 -
be noted that the BCMR will not review a case within 15 years from the
date of discharge unless the DRB has already heard it. Reconsideration
will be granted by the BCMR only in the case of new evidence.
Army DRB
Army BCMR
Room 1E479
Department of the Army
Department of the Army
Washington, D. C. 20310
Pentagon
(202) 695-4298
Washington, D. C. 20310
(202) 695-4682, 697 - 3166
Air Force BCMR
Room 5C860
Air Force DRB
Pentagon
1300 Wilson Blvd.
Washington, D. C. 20330
Commonwealth Building
(202) 695-2172
Room 920
Arlington, Virginia 22209
Navy BCNR
(202) 694-5249
Department of the Navy
Navy Annex
Navy DRB
Washington, D. C. 20370
Department of the Navy
Navy Annex
Coast Guard BCMR
Washington, D. C. 20370
400 7th St., S. W.
(202) 694-1631
Washington, D. C. 20590
(202) 426-2270
Coast Guard DRB
400 7th St., S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20590
(202) 426-0884
(Note: USMC applicants should apply to the Navy)
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
September 5, 1975
MEMORANDUM
From: Lawrence M. Baskir, General Counsel
Subject: Exemplary Rehabilitation Certificate
An Exemplary Rehabilitation Certificate is available to individuals
who have received General or other than Honorable discharges from
the Armed Forces, but who have long records of good conduct in the
civilian community. This certificate is tangible evidence to show
employers that the recipient has made an effort, despite his bad
discharge, to make a good life for himself. Further, the certificate
entitles the recipient to special job counseling at his State
employment office. Once awarded, a copy is automatically placed in
his military file.
Applications and additional information are available from:
U.S. Department of Labor
Manpower Administration
Washington, D.C.
20210
ATTN: METR
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
September 5, 1975
MEMORANDUM
From: Lawrence M. Baskir, General Counsel
Subject: Discharges for Drug Use
On July 1, 1971, Secretary of Defense Laird established a policy
exempting military members from prosecution or issuance of "other
than honorable discharges" for drug use or possession. On
August 18, 1971 Secretary Laird instructed the Secretary of each
service to review applications, through the Discharge Review Boards,
for recharacterization of those other than honorable discharges
issued solely on the basis of use of drugs or possession of drugs
for personal use in process on or before that date. The Navy and
Marine Corps use August 20, 1971, as the cut-off date.
On April 28, 1972, this policy was extended to punitive discharges
issued as a result of court-martial convictions for the use or
possession of drugs. Discharges resulting from the sale of drugs
or the intent to sell drugs are not covered under this policy. The
Under Secretary of the Army stated "that the term 'solely' should
not be construed to bar the favorable recharacterization of a discharge
where only minor offenses, especially those related to or caused by
drug abuse, may have been a contributing factor in the granting of an
Undesirable or other than Honorable Discharge."
Application should be made to the Discharge Review Board of the
appropriate branch of the service if the above described policy is
applicable to an individual's situation. If the Discharge Review
Boa rd applies this policy, the discharge will be recharacterized as
General under honorable conditions or as Honorable depending on the
merits of the case.
Army DRB
Navy DRB
Room 1E479
Department of the Navy
Department of the Army
Navy Annex
Pentagon
Washington, D.C.
20370
Washington, D.C.
20310
(202) 694-1631
(202) 695-4682/697-3166
Air Force DRB
Coast Guard DRB
1300 Wilson Boulevard
400 7th Street, S.W.
Commonwealth Building, Room 920
Washington, D.C. 20590
Arlington, Virginia 22209
(202) 426-0884
(202) 694-5249
(Note: USMC applicants should apply to the Navy)
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
September 5, 1975
MEMORANDUM
From: Lawrence M. Baskir, General Counsel
Subject: Civil Service Commission
The present policy of the Civil Service Commission regarding
"rehabilitated offenders" is to consider each applicant's suitability
for federal employment on a case by case basis. Factors considered
by the Commission are (1) nature and seriousness of the crime; (2)
circumstances surrounding the crime; (3) how long ago the crime was
committed; (4) age of the offender at the time of the commission of
the crime; (5) contributing social or environmental conditions; and
(6) absence or presence of rehabilitation. Further information
regarding the rehabilitated offender concept can be found in
"Employment of the Rehabilitated Offender in the Federal Service,"
BRE-29, a publication of the Civil Service Commission. Determinations
regarding suitability are made after an individual has applied for a
job. Assistance in applying for a job can be obtained from a Selective
Placement Specialist at any Federal Job Information Center. As of this
date a final determination has not been made by the Civil Service
Commission regarding eligibility for veteran's preference for holders of
Clemency Discharges.
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
September 5, 1975
MEMORANDUM
From:
Lawrence M. Baskir
General Counsel
Subject: Coerced Enlistment Under Threat of Incarceration
(U.S. V. Catlow, 48 CMR 758 (1974)
Army Regulation 601-210 disqualifies from enlistment persons who are
enlisting as an alternative to jail or court proceedings. In the Catlow
case, the Court of Military Appeals applied this regulation and held
that Catlow's enlistment was illegal. No constructive enlistment was
found to have occurred, even though Catlow had received Army pay and
allowances, because there was never an intention on Catlow's part to
be a soldier. The determination that there was not a constructive
enlistment was based on the fact that Catlow "never served in the United
States Army honorably.' A constructive enlistment cannot occur where
there was never an intention to be a soldier; receipt of pay and allowances
is merely evidence of the intention and not proof conclusive. The other
services have a similar policy regarding coerced enlistments.
If an applicant to the Presidential Clemency Board, who has received a
discharge under other than honorable conditions, or any other former
serviceman or woman, believes that his or her enlistment was coerced in
this manner, he or she may meet the Catlow test. Application should be
made to the military Discharge Review Board of the appropriate branch of
service. Corroborating evidence of the illegal enlistment, such as a
court record or transcript, should accompany the application for review.
Army DRB
Coast Guard DRB
Room 1E479
400 7th St., S. W.
Department of the Army
Washington, D. C. 20590
Pentagon
(202) 426-0884
Washington, D. C. 20310
(202) 695-4682/697-3166
Navy DRB
Department of the Navy
Air Force DRB
Navy Annex
1300 Wilson Blvd.
Washington, D. C. 20370
Commonwealth Building
(202) 694-1631
Room 920
(Note: USMC Applicants should
Arlington, Virginia 22209
apply to the Navy)
(202) 694-5249
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
Thursday, 11Sep75
To: All hands, past and present
From: Bob Knisely Rail
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Subject: A visit to the Rose Garden
According to Rick Tropp, all members of the PCB staff, past and present,
are invited to meet with the President in the Rose Garden at the
White House next Monday, 15Sep75, at about 5:40 pm.
That's the good news.
The bad news is, understandably, that the Secret Service has tightened
the security arrangements around the President. In order to gain entrance
to the Rose Garden, you must provide to the Secret Service the following
information:
1. Name
2. Present address
3. Social Security Number
4. Place of Birth
5. Date of Birth
We have been told that this information must reach the Secret Service
by NO LATER THAN COB TONIGHT, Thursday, 11Sep75. We are asking for
an extension until tomorrow noon, but no one should count on it.
If you wish to attend, please write the above information on a piece of
paper, typewritten if at all possible, and bring it to Mary Harbachewski
CARRIE
in my office on the ninth floor Please try to have many names on each
sheet of paper, and all that Supervisors should coordinate this effort
MOTTION
where possible. ONE NAME PER SHEET, PEEASE.
IF YOU HAVE A WAY TO CONTACT FORMER STAFF MEMBERS OF THE PCB, AND GET
FROM THEM THE NEEDED INFORMATION, PLEASE DO SO IMMEDIATELY. We have no
way of calling them all by the end of the day.
We will check the names against the various rosters that we have, and
get the list to the: Secret Service as best we can.
We never promised you the Rose Garden
(El
Personal
for LMB
FORD LIBRARY in
DRAFT
September 11, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
GENERAL LEWIS W. WALT
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
FROM:
CHARLES E. GOODELL
SUBJECT:
FOLLOW-UP ON YESTERDAY'S MEETING
I am pleased that the Board had a chance to discuss some of the
issues which have concerned you in recent days. I believe it is
best that we continue to raise these concerns openly, especially in the
closing days when the work schedule is so hectic and we are all so tired
the
by/pace we have been setting.
hope you 1 am particularly insistent that
I am par ticularly concerned that you unclustered my position on
keeping you and all Board members aware of any information you desire.
are kept Jully
When the matter first came up, I gave clear and explicit instructions to
the General Counsel to respond as fully and promptly as practical to The
requests and has
you anyone else. He informs me that he so instructed the staff.
I regret that you may have had some initial delays in getting
information. But I gather that the difficulties no longer exist, and
that for some time the staff has been cooperating promptly and fully dthat
you have been getting what you desire.
I hope that if you encounter any future difficulties, you will
make certain the General Counsel is aware of them, and that you will
come to me immediately if he does not respond satisfactorily.
Mr. Baskir has told me that he expressed his regret in not answering
one
your memo in writing. He discussed the matter orally with me of your
staff assistants, and believed that the issue was resolved. I gather that
have now gotten
you in fact, did get what you wished. Mr. Baskir tells me that most of
your requests have been oral, and have not been directed to him, but to
- 2 -
other staff members. If you will keep him informed in writing of your
needs, he can then insure that they are satisfied.
In lesterday's meeting, you said you had information about
questionable staff operations. My information, as I told you, is ap-
parently not as complete as yours. I would appreciate your bringing to
my attention the details of your information so I can investigate and
take any necessary steps. In particula, I would like a copy of the letter
to Ft. Leavenworth you mentioned, and the list of 252 double-panel sub-
missions. I would also like your list of cases which the staff has re-
ferred to the full Board thout my knowledge, and the cases which
involve late applications.
Let me add a brief personal note. My respect for your life-time
service to the country and for your loyalty and dedication to the
President is of the highest. There is no other Board member who has been
more conscientious, hor who has worked harder or with more dedication than
you. Indeed, few can match the industry you have contributed to this
important task. I hope that in these last days, we can preserve the
harmony and spirit of cooperation that the Board has had for these long
and hard 12 months. It would indeed be a tragedy if the pressures of the
closing hours were to jeopardize the success we have had. It would be
a tragedy if the President suffered any embarrassment now, after having
and difficult
handled so well this most sensitive political, moral, and security issue.
September 12, 1975
MEMBRANDUM FOR
: General Lewis W. Walt
FROM
: Robert J. Horn
Executive Secretary
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
SUBJECT
: Preliminary Report on
Duplicate Decisions
This is a follow up to our conversation during the Board
meeting today. As I informed you, preliminary reports of
cases involving duplicate decisions taken from Colonel
Benson's log in the file room indicate the following:
Of the 140 cases surveyed so far, 26 were actual
duplicate presentations, all of which have been dis-
covered prior to their presentation to the President.
70 were full Board referrals.
11 involved clerical errors-that is, incorrect entries
by clerical personnel.
33 were tabled cases.
As soon as our survey is completed, we will prepare a finalm-
port to you. I understand that you will be out of the country
for awhile and expect that there will be a final report on your
desk when you return. I also expect that I won't be here at
that time so if you need to got in touch with no my home number
is 337-8193.
As soon as you have our report, you will have an opportunity to
compare our list with yours. Hopefully that process will allow
us to put to rest the misunderstandings concerning duplicate de-
cisions.
In our previous discussion, you also raised other issues concern-
ing Clemency Board operations which disturbed you. I also believe
when we have an opportunity to discuss these matters with you and
your staff they too can be resolved.
As you are aware, I have the greatest respect and warm personal
feeling towards you and I hope that the Clemency Board's activi-
ties can therefore end harmoniously. I have enjoyed working with
you and would like very much to stay in touch.
CC4 Sen. yoodell
hm Backin
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
14 September 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR: Senator Charles Goodell
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
FROM:
General Lewis W. Walt
SUBJECT:
Reception With The President on 16 September 1975
I regret that I will be unable to attend this reception for the Board
members and Senior staff. However, I would appreciate it very much if
you would include my two Senior Staff Assistants, Col. O. G. Benson and
Col. William C. Dickman.
Lumo Walt
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
15 September 1975
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Chairman Charles Goodell
FROM:
General Walt
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
Mr. Dougovito
SUBJECT: Upgrade Cases, Recommendation
Concerning
To date there have been 25 cases tentatively recommended for upgrade.
There are still over 200 cases which have not been considered and due
to the Board's termination date of 15 September 1975, they cannot be
considered. It was the consenses of the Full Board and the strong
position of the Department of Defense that all the upgrade cases should
be considered at one time. We also believe that each case must have a
careful final check to make sure that all facts presented in the brief
are accurate and that the applicant is not now in trouble with the law.
We, therefore, are definitely opposed to approving only the 25 cases
which have been tentatively acted on by the Upgrade Panel.
We recommend that the upgrade program of the Clemency Board be abandoned
and that the 25 tentatively above cases and the 207 cases not yet acted
on by the Upgrade Panel be turned over to the Review Boards of the De-
fense Department for special consideration. We are still firm in our
belief that there are many deserving applicants in this group who should
be given the veteran's benefits.
Lewis W. Walt
James P. Dougovito
Board Member
Board Member
Senator -
Attached we the
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
and.7 (which continues).
results of our decision
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
/ waluctions have marked where detail
15 September 1975 double
MEMORANDUM
decisions are involved.
To:
Larry Baskir
Through: Gretchen Handw 9mtt Iger
From:
Greg Barnes
Subject: Status of Resolution of Multiple Decisions Revealed by the
Benson/Mosny Log
Thus far, investigation has shown that "multiple decisions" revealed
by the Benson/Mosny Log have either been cases which were legitimately
re-heard or are merely clerical errors. This log has very sketchy
entries compared to other PCB sources, such as the final decision
sheets, The Master Log, or The Docket Log. Entries are made in the
Benson/Mosny Log by case number only: the initials and civilian or
military designations which follow the case number in other PCB
sources are absent from the Benson/Mosny Log. Decisions are recorded
only by date - the nature of the decision (pardon, A/S, etc.) is
omitted. The absence of initials and decisions removes two safeguards
of associating the right decision with the right case number that the
other PCB logs have. Thus, although all PCB logs transcribe their
results from the final decision sheets, it can be seen that the
Benson/Mosny Log is more prone to clerical error than the other logs.
Also, the Benson/Mosny log is not, according to Paul Mosny, subject to
the corrective feedback that the other logs undergo. Compared to the
docket log and the master log, the Benson/Mosny Log is a source of low
probative value for PCB decisions.
The following statistics reflect explanation for the multiple entries
next to a case number in the Benson/Mosny Log. This investigation is
time consuming and is not yet complete; however, the trend is clearly
shown that these multiple entries cannot be explained in terms of panel
snopping by PCB attorneys. Attached is a list of the first 28 cases on
the duplicate decision sheet. This serves to illustrate the different
kinds of problems and solutions posed by the multiple entries.
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
FULL BOARD REFERRALS
75
TABLED
29
SAME RESULT/PARDON
15
(presents no problem because both decisions identical)
SAME RESULT/ALTERNATE SERVICE
15
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
14
REASON FOR SECOND PRESENTATION UNKNOWN
(Referred to Larry Baskir for policy decision by clean-up) - 4
SECOND REFERRAL DETERMINED TO BE IN ERROR BY GENERAL COUNSEL- 1
CLERICAL ERROR
27
(In either Benson/Mosny Log or a PCB source)
RE-HEARD AFTER PRESIDENT SIGNED PARDON
3
(no A/S - no apparent reason for re-hearing)
TOTAL
183
TO BE RESOLVED
87
The following list of cases serves only to explain the existence of two entries
for a single case number in the Benson/Mosny log. Where this investigation has
revealed possible double dispositions, these problem cases have been noted and
will be dealt with through the "clean-up" procedures established by Mike Bern-
stein.
Where the reason for the duplicate entry has not yet been established, the
PCB sources thus far utilized in the search will be noted along with the
data found therein. The following abbreviations will be used in this
status report: DS - final decision sheets prepared by the scribes; ML -
Master Log; DOC - Docket Log prepared by Charlene Geraci; FB - full board.
007 FB reconsidered its 6 March decision on 7 March. Legitimate rehearing.
026 Tabled on 5 Dec 74. The case was redocketed and heard 14 Aug - pardon.
197 Both decisions were 10 months a/s. No problem.
264 8 Feb - No decision, tie vote. Applicant granted a pardon on 7 Jun.
304-BDX-C Heard 8 May panel C, am panel; no decision. Panel C recommended
a pardon for the applicant at the 8 May pm panel. Reheard 7 June where a pardon
was also granted. No reason discovered for the rehearing, but no problem since
a pardon was granted both decisions.
393
Tabled referred to FB 9 May. FB granted a pardon 7 June.
401 Tabled 7 March. Referred to FB by panel B on 8 May. FB recommended a
pardon on 10 May.
423 Referred to FB on 4 April. Pardon recommended on 17 June.
433 Tabled 9 Jan. Pardon recommended on 6 February.
490 Panel B on 7 March referred to FB for possible VA benefits. FB recommended
a pardon on 8 March.
561 Unresolved. DOC shows 4 April - 6 mos.; 8 May - pardon. ML shows 8 May -
pardon.
582 TDX-C UTL 582 on 7 March DS. However, 852 was heard that day. 582 recommended
for a pardon by panel T on 23 July. Probable clerical in transcribing DS onto
BM.
586 Applicant received a pardon both times.
659 Presented twice in one day to the same panel. The panel (s) was unable to
decide on a recommendation in the morning session; the panel members permitted
the second presentation and agreed to recommend 9 mos. This decision has been
previously investigated by Clean-up. Larry Baskir approved the 9 mos. decision
on 22 August.
664 4 April referred to FB. Panel A on 8 May recommended a pardon.
768 UTL on 7 March DS. However, the Board considered cases 876 and 767
on 7 March, which makes a clerical error possible as explanation for the
two entries on 768. 768 recommended for a pardon on 8 May.
772 RMT-M DS for 7 March shows 6 mos. The case was presented on that date
by Capt. Bruce Heitz. The file indicates that new information was received
from the applicant on 21 March. Apparently, on the basis of this new info,
Capt. Heitz presented the case to panel A on 8 May where 9 mos. was recommended.
831 JJX-M Probable clerical error. UTL on 9 May DS. However 832 was decided
on that date. 831 was heard on 19 June and recommended Bor a pardon.
837 Referred to FB by panel B on 7 March. Tabled by FB on 8 March. No
problem.
884 Referred to FB on 8 May by panel C. FB recommended pardon and VA benefits
on 17 June.
957 DCX-C On 6 June panel S recommended the Aplicant do 9 mos. A/S. This
case was presented by attorney Gannon. There were no aggravating factors
and 3, 10, and 11 were in mitigation. "Full Board Referral" written in
large letters on file jacket. There is also a letter in file dated 16 june
indicating that the applicant had commenced A/S in fulfillment of his sen-
tence. It appears that this case was reheard on the basis of this additional
info by the FB on 31 August. FB recommended 3 mos.
963 UTL this case on either of the dates appearing in the BM log. No
corresponding entries in any of the other PCB source material. No problem.
967 Pardon recommended by FB on 3 April. Case reheard by panel D on 22
May where the recommendation was changed to 3 mos. UTL any reference to
967 in other PCB sources. for the 23 August entry in the BM log. No problem.
1022 Recommended for upgrade on 23 May. FB granted the upgrade on 17 June.
1062 Recommended for a pardon by panel W on 22 May. The applicant was
informed that the president had granted his pardon on 5 July. UTL any 13
June decision sheets, including FB DS for that date; however, 1062 was not
on the 13 June FB docket which I did locate. Apparent clerical error.
1074 The 9 May decision sheet states "Question of SOP re: court-ordered
A/S". FB recommwended a pardon on 7 June. The President granted the pardon
on 27 June.
1100 MJR-M Recommended for a pardon 4 April. UTL case 1100 on the 10
July DS. I did find that case 11100 LJX-M was heard 10 July by panel O.
Probable clerical error.
1127 This duplicate disposition resulted from the transpostion of 1172 on
a DS. No multiple presentation involved.
11 September, 1975
TO: Larry Baskir
THROUGH: Gretchen Handwerger
GERALE
FM: Mike Bernstein, Cleanup Detail
RE: Double Decisions
During our investigations of yesterday, I and those working with me on this detail have
discovered a total of seventeen cases in which double decisions were made. A brief
summary of each case appears below.
3387-BWF-M This case was presented to panel U on 4 June and received no clemency with
a referral for jurisdiction. It was referred to you and on 19 June you indicated that
the PCB did have jurisdiction over the case. The case was accordingly redocketed and
presented to panel W on 26 August, where it received 6 mos.
3810-CHW-M This case was given no clemency on 23 May and for reasons unknown was presented
to another panel on 26 August. At that time, it was noted that the case had been
previously heard and it was referred to the Full Board for disposition. I am advising
you of this case because the Full Board referral amounts to a disposition by the panel.
what
3863-BEG-C This case was given no clemency on 27 June and for unknown reasons was presented
again on 26 August. At that time it was noted that the case had been heard previously
and it was referred to the Full Board.
4132-GJH-C This case was heard by panel H on 3 July and given a pardon. Apparently,
it was returned to files with no visible evidence that it had been written or presented.
It was reassigned to another team, where an attorney prepared a new summary and presented
it to panel J on 21 August. It received another pardon.
4170-WDG-C This case, too, was presented to panel H on 3 July and received a pardon.
The attorney in this case (Wince) again apparently returned it to files without any
indication of hits being written or disposed of An attorney from another team then
prepared a new summary and presented it to panel 0 on 22 August, where it received another
pardon.
4177-SDW-M This case initially received no clemency from panel B on 27 June, then further
information concerning the applicant's murder conviction was obtained. The case was
redocketed on this basis and received no clemency from panel W on 26 August.
4451-BBM-M This case received a pardon from panel L on 9 July. For unknown reasons,
a second presentation to panel R was made on the basis of the same summary on 26 August.
Another pardon was the result.
4869-LJK-M Presented initially to panel H on 3 July, the case received 9 mos. The only
summary in file is dated 28 July, so presumably this was reassigned with no indication
of prior presentation. The second attorney presented the case to panel X and received
9 mos. on 26 August.
5776-GMX-M As the attorney involved, I can explain the circumstances of this case. It
was intially presented to panel U on 6 June and received 6 mos. Some time later, about
early August, I held a telephone conversation with the applicant and received additional
information about his reasons for his AWOLs. On this basis, I redocketed the case and
had it presented a second time to panel 0 on 22 August, where it received 3 mos.
6031-BLL-M Originally presented to panel D, this case received 9 mos. on 23 May. After
the presentation, a telephone conversation with the applicant (7/15) yielded additional
information and the case was redocketed. It was presented to panel S on 26 August and
again received 9 mos.
6287-SHH-M Panel H granted a pardon to this case on 13 June. The only summary in file,
however, is dated 18 August so presumably it was returned to files without any evidence
of prior disposition. The second attorney to be assigned the case thereupon prepared
a new summary and presented it to panel X on 26 August, where it received 3 mos. I
believe, in view of lack of any evidence of new information, that the initial decision
should stand.
13055-SVE-M Panel B gave this case 3 mos. on 29 July. For reasons unknown it was
subsequently redocketed and presented to panel $ R on 28 Agust. It again got 3 mos.
It is most probable that this was the result of poor procedures for showing that the
case had been presented.
Attorney:
PCB Case Number (in full):
Disposition of case
Name of applicant (in full; last name first)
LAST
FIRST
MIDDLE
Best address:
(include
zip code)
Other address (if listed):
(include zip code)
Best telephone number (with area code):
Other telephone numbers (if any - with area code):
(identify)
Attorney (if any):
Law Firm name (if any):
Attorney address (if any):
(include zip code)
Attorney telephone number (with area cude).
Branch of Service (If Military)
District Court of Conviction (If Civilian)
Date of Conviction
Is applicant now on parole or probation?
If so, give name and address of supervisor
If a Senator or Congressman is to be informed of disposition of case, give
name and address.
REMARKS (especially if pertinent to contacting applicant ither by phone or mail):
Larry Baskir
Page 2.
Double Decision Memo
11 Sep 75
13840-RRS-M Presented to panel I on 11 June, this case received a pardon. On 2 July
a letter was received from the applicant which indicated the existence of a previously
unsuspected criminal record. Further investigation yielded a background f several
convictions for violent crimes. Presented to panel J on this basis, the case received
no clemency on 15 August.
15054-HBA-M The case was presented initially on 29 July and received no clemency. It
was immediately flagged by the case attorney and, presumably after proper flagging
procedures were followed, it was re-presented to panel on 28 August, where it again
received no clemency
15708-BJA-M This case was initially presented on 16 July and received 6 mos. Following
the presentation, a telphone call from the applicant yielded additional information
and the case was redocketed. It was presented again on 28 August and again received
6 mos.
16784-YSL-M The case received a pardon on 30 July. For unknown reasons it was redocketed an
and later presented on the basis of the same summary. It again received a pardon on
28 August.
16814-JTP-M This case was presented initially on 29 July and received 6 mos. Following
this presentation, a telephone contact with the applicant (8 Aug) gave additional informa-
tion and the case was redocketed. Presented with this additional information on 28 August
the case received a full pardon.
PCB Case Number (in [ull):
Disposition of case
Name of applicant (in full; last name first)
LAST
FIRST
MIDDLE
Best address:
(include
zip code)
Other address (if listed):
(include zip code)
Best telephone number (with area code):
Other telephone numbers (if any - with area code):
(identify)
Attorney (if any):
Law Firm name (if any):
Attorney address (if any):
(include zip code)
Attorney telephone number (with area code).
Branch of Service ( If Military)
District Court of Conviction (If Civilian)
Date of Conviction
Is applicant now on parole or probation?
If so, give name and address of supervisor
If a Senator or Congressman is to be informed of disposition of case, give
name and address.
REMARKS (especially if pertinent to contacting applicant either by phone or mail):
10 Sep 75
TO: Larry Baskir
THROUGH: Gretchen Handwerger
FM: Mike Bernstein, Cleanup Detail
RE: Double Decisions
During the course of our investigations yesterday, I and those working with me on this
detail found twelve cases in which a double decision had been made. A brief summary of
each case appears below.
967-BJR-C This case was presented initially to panel E on 22 May and was given 6 mos.
Following presentation, a conversation was held with the State Director of the Selective
Service System in which he voiced a belief, after a review of the applicant's SSS file,
that he should not have been prosecured in the first place. On the basis of the material
obtained from that conversation, the case was redokketed and was given a pardon by panel
Q on 24 Aug.
1825-BJT-M This case was initially heard by panel G on 23 May and given No Clemency.
Additional information was obtained through conversations with law enforcement officials
regarding the applicant's civil convictions, and the case was redocketed. Presented by
the same attorney with the same summary, it was given 12 mos. by panel Q on 24 August.
3216-KKC-M This case was presented initially by Ms. Kinland of the Klein team on 6 June
and received No Clemency from panel U. Following presentation, telephone conversations
with law enforcement officials elicited further information concerning the nature of the
applicant's civilian offenses and the case was redocketed. Presented by Mr. Gallo to
the Full Board on 8/21, the case received 6 mos.
3266-BJW-M The case was initially given no clemency by panel A on 27 June. Following
this presentation the attorney contacted law enforcement officers for further details
of the applicants civilian offenses. The case was then redocketed and presented to
panel Q on 24 August. It again received No Clemency.
3386-CRB-M It was initially presented by attorney Brackett to panel U on 4 June and
received the notation "No clemency, ref. for jurisdiction" I was present at that panel
and recall that there was some confusion over the jurisdictional issue. General Walt
finally said that he meant the case should have no clemency because we had no jurisdiction.
The case was sent to your office for review and the PCB was found to have jurisdiction
over it. It was then redocketed and, when presented to panel W on 26 August received
6 mos.
3771-PCA-M Initially presented to panel U on 4 June, the case reeeived No Clemency. The
attorney subsequently received additional information from the applicant's parole officer
and redocketed the case (a review of the case by Mr. Strauss' office indicated that this
additional information should be obtained). When presented a second time, the case
received a full pardon from the Full Board on 21 August.
4528-KMX-M The case was initially presented on 22 August and received a pardon from
Panel L. For reasons unknown, it was presented a second time din 26 August and received
another pardon from panel W. The closeness of the presentation dates militates against
any deliberate redocketing attempt and I am constrained to attribtuee the double presenta-
tion to a docketing error.
6728-PDR-M This case was initially presented to panel H on 13 June add received 3 mos.
Subsequent to that presentation, there was a telephone conversation with the applicant
(24 June) in which additional information was obtained. The case was redocketed and
presented to panel S on 26 August, from which it also received 3 mos.
8122-JLX-M Presented to panel X on 24 July by Mr. Quinn, this case received 3 mos. For
reasons that cannot be ascertained, the case was re-presented by Mr. Hesse to panel L
and received another 3-month recommendation on 22 August. The respective attorneys could
not be reached and no new information was found in the case file.
8641-KPS-M This case was given no clemency by panel A when initially heard on 26 June.
A series of telephone conversations with prison officials thereafter elicited additional
information about the nature of the applicant's offenses, and the case was redocketed. It
received 9 mos, when presented to panel T on 26 August.
8713-AJH-M The case received a 9-month recommendation when presented to panel C on the
morning of 26 June. For unknown reasons, fi was redocketed and presented to panel 0
on 9 July, where it received another 9 mos. The file itself is unavailable for examination.
PCB Attorney:
PCB Case Number (in full):
Disposition of case
Name of applicant (in full; last name first)
LAST
FIRST
MIDDLE
Best address:
(include
zip code)
Other address (if listed):
(include zip code)
Best telephone number (with area code):
Other telephone numbers (if any--with area code):
(identify)
Attorney (if any):
Law Firm name (if any):
Attorney address (if any):
(include zip code)
Attorney telephone number (with area code).
Branch of Service (If Military)
District Court of Conviction ( If Civilian)
Date of Conviction
Is applicant now on parole or probation?
If so, give name and address of supervisor
If a Senator or Congressman is to be informed of disposition of case, give
name and address.
REMARKS (especially if pertinent to contacting applicant fither by phone or mail):
Larry Baskir--Double Decisions- 10 September
page 2.
9349-BDL-M This case was presented to panel 0 on 19 August and received a 9-month
recommendation. It was heard again by the same panel on 22 August and given another
9-month reoommendation. The same attorney made each presentation on the basis of the
same summary. The only conceivable explanation for this case's double presentation
in so short a time is a docketing error to get it on twice and an attorney under
such work pressure that he would neither remember the prior presentation of the
case nor annotate the # record at the time of the initial presentation. In any
case, identical dispositions make it unnecessary to go further.
9 Sep 75
TO: Larry Baskir
THROUGH: Gretchen Handwerger
FM: Mike Bernstein, Cleanup Detail
RE: Double Decisions
During the course of our investigations yesterday, I and those working with me on
this detail uncovered a total of four double decision cases. A brief syopsis of
each case appears below.
2114-HDL-M. This case was initially presented by Mr. Salmon of the Klein team on
9 July and received a recommendation of 6 mos. from panel N. Subsequent to that
presentation, additional information was received which, in the opinion of Mr.
Salmon, constituted new and material evidence to be considered by the PCB. The
case was accordingly redocketed and reheard by panel 0 onxxxxxx 22 August and a
pardon was recommended. In view of the fact that the second presentation was made
on the basis of additional information, I recommend that we adopt the later
recommendation.
6926-DCE-M. This case was initially presented on 13 June and received a 7-month
recommendation from panel H. For unknown reasons it was presented again to panel
S on 26 August and again received 7 months. I spoke to the case attorney, Mr.
Edward Fitch of the Broder team, and he was unable to tell why two presentations
had been made. I noted during the course of our interview that Mr. Fitch had
quite a few pending cases and surmised that this case load might have contributed
to an inability to keep track of all presented cases. In any case, the identical
recommendations would appear to make further action unnecessary.
10262-DSB-M The first presentation of this case on 23 July resulted in a pardon
recommendation from panel T. For unknown reasons the case was presented a second
time on 22 August and, based on the same summary, received a recommendation of No
Clemency from panel L. Miss Arsenault made this investigation and, confronted by
such different dispositions from the same summary, made a study of the summary itself.
It seems that, while in AWOL status, the applicant attempted to kill his girlfriend,
who said she was leaving him, and to commit suicide. A military psychiatrist's report
indicated that the applicant had a very violent nature and was prone to fits of rage.
His own father indicated that, since his suicide attempt, the applicant's whole
personality had ghanged (grown more violent). In view of these factors, I feel that
going with the initial recommendation may not be too wise. The personality and past
behavior of the applicant, as described by the military psychiatrist and hhs father,
may cause some future incident which would reflect adversely on the PCB and the
President. If nothing else, I would suggest that the case be heard by the Full Board
or at least the Purple panel if Full Board consideration is not possible.
12493. This case was presented by Mr. Chott of the Klein team to panel B on 29 July
and received 6 mos. It was presented again by Mr. Hart on 21 August to panel J and
received 6 mos. again. Mr. Hart was unaware of the prior presentation and Mr. Chott
was absent at the time of the second presentation. He informed Mr. Hart of the
*******E first presentation as Moon as he learned of the second and they tried,
unsuccessfully, to stop implementation of the second panel recommendation. In view
of the identical dispositions, I see no need for further action.
PCB Attorney:
PCB Case Number (in full):
Disposition of case
Name of applicant (in full; last name first)
LAST
FIRST
MIDDLE
Best address:
(include
zip code)
Other address (if listed):
(include zip code)
Best telephone number (with area code):
Other telephone numbers (if any--with area code):
(identify)
30
$s
0
-1
97..0
10
Attorney (if any):
C
DT
30
To
I
DD
Э
0.00
LTD
IDC
of
Law Firm name (if any):
I
CDD
CT
000
DLUB
No
CUDL
Attorney address (if any):
(include zip code)
FIOD
196
C.C.
D'...
on
90000
S'T
D
D.
of
C
C
CLOS
0,00
0
Attorney telephone number (with area code).
D
D.
I
3
DI
$ 3.50
Mose
0000
Branch of Service (If Military)
30
C
I
note
D..C
)
-
District Court of Conviction (If Civilian)
D.
Date of Conviction
COUIT
Ass.T
is
Is applicant now on parole or probation?
01.00.19
If so, give name and address of supervisor
I
D.
?
()
Do
SIA
DOCUMENT
DIVIDE
DL
003 I
Bird
If a Senator or Congressman is to be informed of disposition of case, give
name and address.
REMARKS (especially if pertinent to contacting applicant either by phone or mail):
8 September, 1975
TO: Larry Baskir
THROUGH: Gretchen Handwerger
FM: Mike Bernstein, Cleanup Detail
RE: Double Decisions
During the past week, there has been greater interest shown by the Bhard in
double decisions, and a series were unearthed. Many were given to you by
telephone conversation with Ms. Handwerger. On Friday, I and those working with
me discovered an additional two dusister cases in which more than one disposition
occurred. Those cases and an explanation are set out below.
14123-TTJ-M The first presentation of this case was made on 15 Aug with a summary
prepared by attorney SACHS on 19 June. The second presentation was made on 26 Aug
with a summary prepared by BOURDINE on 30 July. In each case, a pardon was recommen
I am able to explain this case both by my findings and as the former assistant
team leader of both individuals. Mr. SACHS returned to his agency some time ago,
leaving several cases in various stages of completion. It was his practice to keep
his draft summaries separate from the cases so that he could refer to them easily.
After his return, I reassigned most of his incomplete cases to Mr. GOURDINE, who
proceeded to either complete summaries km or to present those which were completed.
Apparently, the case itself had no indication that it had ever been worked, and for
one reason or another, the completed summary never got associated with it. By
early August, too, many of the Klein team were being detailed elsewhere for varying
periods of time, and it is quite possible that when SACHS' summary was returned, it
was put in for docketing without anyone knowing exactly where the case was. When
it came time to present it, it would have been done with or without the case, and
very probably without the knowledge of Mr. GOURDINE. At: the same time, Mr. GOURDINI
summary would have been prepared and put in for docketing, without anyone seeing the
case in our records as being previously prepared by him. The result was two summari
went to docketing without anyone aware that they were the same case, and two present
tions without anyoime aware that the case had been presented before. The sing
identical dispositions appear to require no further action on our part.
10098-GCX-M This case was initially presented to panel K on 10 July and received
a pardon. The applicant sent in a letter concerning his AWOLS and circumstances
which was not associated with the case file until after the initial presentation.
It was decided, after review of that letter, to re-present the case on the
possibility that the applicant might be upgraded. The case was heard by panel S
on 26 Aug and a straight pardon was again recommended.
PCB FORM 14-02
ASE 30 CATTY? (ATI)
IVERSLY
CUT
CIRCL 0
OTALS
WEEKLY
TOTAL CASES TROMPC
TOTAL CASE
CHENS
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
12 Sep 75
TO: Larry Baskir
THROUGH: Gretchen Handwerger
FM: Mike Bernstein, Cleanup Detail
RE: Double Decisions
During the past 24 hours, the investigations of myself and those working
with me on this detail have disclosed two cases in which a double decision
was made. A summary of each case appears below.
6339-SHY-C This case received No Clemency from panel T on 5 June. It was
then flagged by Mrs. Ford and docketed for the Full Board on 21 August, where
it received a pardon.
6486-TRD-M This case was presented to panel X and received 3 mos. on 22 July.
The attorney was unaware of the prior presentation and had the case redocketed.
It was presented to panel M on 19 August and received 6 mos. Following the
presentation, the attorney became aware of the double presentations and spoke
to his team leader (Kodak) who said he would see Charlie Graham in an effort
to have the second recommendation removed.
In addition to these cases, 3216 KKC-M presents a somewhat strange situation.
It was heard on 5 June and received No Clemency from panel U. For reasons
unknown, it was presented again to the Full Board on 21 August and received
a 6-month recommendation. Although I am unable to ascertain the basis for
the presentation to the Full Board, I believe that we have no choice but to
let the Full Board recommendation stand.
9 Sep 75
TO: Larry Baskir
THROUGH: Gretchen Handwerger
FM: Mike Bernstein, Cleanup Detail
RE: Double Decisions
During the course of our investigations yesterday, I and those working with me on
this detail uncovered a total of four double decision cases. A brief syopsis of
each case appears below.
2114-HDL-M. This case was initially presented by Mr. Salmon of the Klein team on
9 July and received a recommendation of 6 mos. from panel N. Subsequent to that
presentation, additional information was received which, in the opinion of Mr.
Salmon, constituted new and material evidence to be considered by the PCB. The
case was accordingly redocketed and reheard by panel 0 onXXXXXX 22 August and a
pardon was recommended. In view of the fact that the second presentation was made
on the basis of additional information, I recommend that we adopt the later
recommendation.
6926-DCE-M. This case was initially presented on 13 June and received a 7-month
recommendation from panel H. For unknown reasons it was presented again to panel
S on 26 August and again received 7 months. I spoke to the case attorney, Mr.
Edward Fitch of the Broder team, and he was unable to tell why two presentations
had been made. I noted during the course of our interview that Mr. Fitch had
quite a few pending cases and surmised that this case load might have contributed
to an inability to keep track of all presented cases. In any case, the identical
recommendations would appear to make further action unnecessary.
10262-DSB-M The first presentation of this case on 23 July resulted in a pardon
recommendation from panel T. For unknown reasons the case was presented a second
time on 22 August and, based on the same summary, received a recommendation of No
Clemency from panel L. Miss Arsenault made this investigation and, confronted by
such different dispositions from the same summary, made a study of the summary itself.
It seems that, while in AWOL status, the applicant attempted to kill his girlfriend,
who said she was leaving him, and to commit suicide. A military psychiatrist's report
indicated that the applicant had a very violent nature and was prone to fits of rage.
His own father indicated that, since his suicide attempt, the applicant's whole
personality had ghanged (grown more violent). In view of these factors, I feel that
going with the initial recommendation may not be too wise. The personality and past
behavior of the applicant, as described by the military psychiatrist and hhs father,
may cause some future incident which would reflect adversely on the PCB and the
President. If nothing else, I would suggest that the case be heard by the Full Board
or at least the Purple panel if Full Board consideration is not possible.
12493. This case was presented by Mr. Chott of the Klein team to panel B on 29 July
and received 6 mos, It was presented again by Mr. Hart on 21 August to panel J and
received 6 mos. again. Mr. Hart was unaware of the prior presentation and Mr. Chott
was absent at the time of the second presentation. He informed Mr. Hart of the
XEXXEXXE first presentation as xoon as he learned of the second and they tried,
unsuccessfully, to stop implementation of the second panel recommendation. In view
of the identical dispositions, I see no need for further action.
PCB Attorney:
PCB Case Number (in full):
Disposition of case
Name of applicant (in full; last name first)
LAST
FIRST
MIDDLE
Best address:
(include
zip code)
Other address (if listed):
(include zip code)
Best telephone number (with area code):
Other telephone numbers (if any--with area code):
(identify)
)
0
30
SeT
()
10
Rus
Attorney (if any):
C
00
of
I
031
D
0.00
LTD
noc
Foû
Law Firm name (if any):
I
0:00
I
Ci
000
DES
JC
CUCL
Attorney address (if any):
(include zip code)
FILD
196
no
110
D'...
on
93000
C
C
33.00.2016
301
0
Attorney telephone number (with area code).
)
D.
D.
I
.
of
DUDD
Branch of Service (If Military)
30
C
I
no.10
D.I.C
)
-)
District Court of Conviction (If Civilian)
I
Date of Conviction
onfice [9
Is applicant now on parole or probation?
If so, give name and address of supervisor
I
P
2
00
CANADA
To
DOMBLES
DL.
I
If a Senator or Congressman is to be informed of disposition of case, give
name and address.
REMARKS (especially if pertinent to contacting applicant either by phone or mail):
2 September 75
TO: Larry Baskir
THROUGH: ;Gretchen Handwerger
FROM: Mike Bernstein, Cleanup Detail
RE: Duplicate Decision, case No. 3456-HDT-M
During my investigations of problem cases on 29 August, I found that there had been
duplicate dispositions made in case 3456-HDT-M. Mr. Grafel presented this case
initially on 13 June and a pardon was recommended by panel J. It was presented again
by Mr. Grafel with the same case summary on 10 July and received a MM- 9-month
recommendation from panel O. Mr. Grafel has returned to his agency and is therefore
unavailable to furnish information, and members of the Hickman team have checked his
records without finding any explanation for the second presentation. His records
reflect only the intial disposition of 13 June, while the case itself reflects
only the 9-month disposition of 10 July. There was no indication of any new infor-
mation or any other reason to present the case a second time. I must hypothesize
therefore that the second presentation was made in error and without checking his
records to see that the case had previously been heard. Inasmuch as there was no
new information or any other discernable reason for the second presentation, I
recommend that we consider the initial disposition as binding.
- 2 -
Case No.: 11091-HIW-M
Chronology:
11 Sep 53
Date of Birth
Feb 71
Quit school during 10th grade
3 Mar 71
Enlistment
14 May 71 - 8 Jul 71
AWOL
9 Jul 71 - 11 Aug 71
Confinement
15 Jul 71
Request for discharge
11 Aug 71
Undesirable Discharge executed
27 Mar 75
PCB Application
Awards and Decorations:
National Defense Service Medal
Prior Military Offenses: None
Sources:
Military Personnel File
Letter from Applicant
PCB Application
2 September 75
TO: Larry Baskir
THROUGH: Gretchen Handwerger
FM: Mike Bernstein, Cleanup Detail
RE: Double Decisions
During our investigations of this date, I and others on this detail hage found a
total of four cases in which more than one disposition was made after more than
one hearing. A brief discussion of each case appears below.
1448. This case was initially heard on 11 June by panel H which recommended a
pardon and upgrage. It was heard again, on the basis of the same summary and
presented by the same attorney, and a straight pardon was recommended on 16 July.
It was heard by the special upgrade panel (on the basis of the 6/11 disposition)
on 8/12 at which time NO UPGRADE was recommended. The file does not centain any
additional information or any other basis for the second (7/16) presentation. Since
the final outcome (pardon) was identical, I see no need for further investigation,
but surmise that the second presentation may well have been due to a docketing
error or an unfamiliarity with docketing procedures.
6682. This case was apparently heard initially on 20 Jun and awarded 3 months by
panel L. Six days later, the same attorney presented it to panel C and it was awarded
9 months. Contact with the team showed that the attorney preparing the summary was
away on the 20th and another attorney presented it. When he returned, he was
unaware of the prior presentation but saw the notation "3 mos" on the A-M sheet and
was somewhat suspicious. He felt, however, that it was better to present the case
and assumed that any mistake would be caught later on. In view of the fact that
the same case was heard on the basis of the same summary, I believe that we are
justified in using the initial recommendation (3 mos.) as determining.
12294. This case was initially presented on 13 June and received 3 mos. It was
presented again by the same attorney (Parker) using the same summary and received a
pardon on 27 June. I spoke to Mr. Parker and he indicated that his records showed
only the later disposition. He was unable to account for the duplicate presentations
and attri;buted them to a docketing error. In view of the use of the same summary
with no additional information or other basis forthe second presentation, I believe
we should consider ourselfes bound by the first one (3 mos.).
15124. This is a rather interesting case in which additional information worked to
the detriment of the applicant. The case was initially presented by attorney
Liewowitz and received a 6 month recommendation on 16 July. Meanwhile, additional
information was received showing the applicant was incarcerated for murder (his wife
had died after he struck her during an argument) and attempted robbery (he had sought
to leave his employer's premises with a diamond ring). With this additional information
presented on 19 August, a NO CLEMENCY recommendation was made. I believe that the
second presentation was justified by the additional information, and the additional
information justified the no clemency recommendation. I see no basis for disturbing
the last action of the Board and believe that the last action should control.
PCB FORM 14-02
MEEKLY PROGRESS REPORT
CATTY) (ATL) (TEAD CIRCLE ONE
WEEK ENDING
Essigmann NAME
(CASE ID (ATTY) (ATL)
WEEKLY
EEKLY PRODUCTION
CUSULATIVE
CIRCLE ONE
GOAL
UPAFT
TO QC
DRAFT TO Q,C,
nom
QC
COLLENTS
TOTALS
WEEKLY CURREATIVE
TOTAL CASES FROM CC
TOTAL CASES TO.D/D
21 Aug 75
TO: Gretchen Handwerger
FM: Mike Bernstein, Cleanup Detail, 4th Floor
RE: Duplicate dispositions of case 3593-JIM-C
?
Mr. Baskir was advised today as to the dispositions of the above captioned case.
It appears that TWO separate and distinct summaries were prepared ad different times
FB
by Messrs Weiser and Gaudier of the Hickman team. The case was initially presented
to panel S in the basis of the Weiser summary and awarded 3 mos. on 6/5 with no
?
aggravating factors. The case was subsequently reassigned to Mr. Gaudier to rewrite
completely due to the poor quality of the original summary. To the best of Mr.
Guadier's recollection, neither he nor the person reassigning the case were aware
that it had already been presented. Mr. Gaadier prepared a new summary and presented
the case to panel X on 7/24. At that time a pardon was awarded with no aggravating
factors.
Ms. Toby Singer of the Strauss staff had a hold placed on this case on the basis
of the initial recommendation which deviated from Board policy in awarding alternative
service with no aggravating factors. She was unaware of the later presentation and
different outcome.
I have advised Mr. Baskir of these facts by memo of this date and recommended that
we use the later recommendation (ie. pardon). That recommendation is in line with
established Board guidelines and made on the basis of a better summary. In addition,
to take the case to the Full Board at this time would be time consuming and, if the
Board adheres to its own guidelines, should result in the same decision as rendered
on 7/24.
Sen Goodell
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
September 15, 1975
MEMORANDUM
TO
: Board Members & Spouses (friends),
PCB Staff invitees & spouses (friends),
FROM
:
John H. Kauffman
SUBJECT: Party
Please join me for cocktails and dinner.
Where:
"Cliffhurst"
620 Boyle Lane
McLean, Virginia 22101
703-356-0912
Dress:
Informal
When:
Monday, September 15, 1975
Time:
6:00 p.m.
Map attached. Jan
KAUFFMANN
356 - 0912
DIRECTIONS TO CLIFFHURST, McLEAN, VIRGINIA
HIVER
CLIFFHURST
MD.
SEEGERS
RESIDENCE
SMOOTS
and 40 41 your avo
CAPITAL BELTWAY
RESIDENCE
CABIN
JOHN
BRIDGE
EXIT
go they CANTTO HOOPES
14
G. W. MEM.
PKWY.
RESIDENCE to
PAYED
DIRT ROAD
ROBT. GRIMM
DO NOT USE
TO
RESIDENCE
GREAT FALLS
X
**10*
N
OLD 9/10 GEORGETOWN
ROUTE 495
VA. One mile exactly MILE
PIKE
EXIT
13
ROUTE 193
C.E. Goodell
ESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
September 15, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
LAWRENCE M. BASKIR He
GENERAL COUNSEL
FROM:
Leland E. Beck
Special Assistant for Planning
and Policy Analysis
RE:
Rates of Dissent for Board
Members
Attached is a table of Rates of Dissent for Board Members compiled
between March 1, and September 1, 1975. This tabulation covers over
87.5% of all cases heard by the Board, in toto.
In the first column are the dissents by the individual over the number
of pardons which resulted. This includes the rate of dissent to pardon
dispositions. In the second column are the dissents by the individual over
the number of alternative service dispositions which resulted. This
includes the rate of dissent to alternative service dispositions. The third
column includes the number of times disagreement occurred in a panel on
which the individual sat over the number of cases which the individual
heard. The percentage included indicates that actual percentage of time
when the individual was involved in a panel disagreement, but does not
indicate the percentage of time when the individual initiated the disagreement.
The data stands on its own, and I don't think any further analysis is needed.
FORD
&
GERALD
(Dissents/Pardons)
(Dissents/ A/S) %
(Panel Disagreements / Cases Heard) %
Dougovito
(153/716)
21.4%
(11.0/1035)
10.6%
(359/2183)
16.4%
Craig
(41/1190)
3.4
(50/1614)
3.1
(140/3365)
4.2
Walt
(30/1075)
2.8
(82/1469)
5.6
(219/3221)
6.8
Jordan
(1/97)
1.0
(1/103)
1.0
(6/248)
2.4
Kauffmann
(13/1306)
1.0
(4/1855)
.2
(37/3617)
1.0
Adams
(5/981)
.5
(10/1136)
.9
(18/2420)
.7
Everhard
(6/1656)
.4
(22/1890)
1.2
(62/4280)
1.4
O'Connor
(4/1345)
3
(38/1692)
2.2
(117'3580)
3.3
Carter
(4/1168)
.3
(9/1688)
.5
(26/3312)
.8
Maye
(2/1041)
.2
(2/1102)
.2
(17/2526)
.7
Hesburgh
(1/471)
.2
(0/412)
(4/1057)
.4
Ford
(1/924)
.1
(18/1318)
1.4
(72/2752)
2.6
Riggs
(1/1467)
.1
(20/1857)
1.1
(84/3911)
2.7
Puller
(0/1521)
--
(37/1796)
2.1
(104/3870)
2.7
Vinson
(0/1266)
--
(31/1750)
1.8
(87/3645)
2.4
Goodell
(0/385)
--
(1/367)
.2
(12/935)
1.3
Morrow
(0/772)
(0/952)
--
(25/1971)
1.3
Finch
(0/35)
--
(0/73)
--
(0/142)
--