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
18558976
label
Memoranda - Internal (2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
18558976
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Memoranda - Internal (2)
citationUrl
collections
Charles E. Goodell Papers
Presidential Clemency Board Subject Files
subjects
President (1974-1977 : Ford). Presidential Clemency Board. 9/16/1974-9/15/1975
Amnesty
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
18558976
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-08-31
month
8
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1974-09-01
month
9
year
1974
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
008defe94ad053c5
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 7, folder "Memoranda - Internal (2)" of the
Charles E. Goodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Charles Goodell donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 7 of the Charles E. Goodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
Lany Baskin
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
June 2, 1975
MEMORANDUM TO:
Associate General Counsels
Assistant General Counsels
FROM:
Rob Quartel Eduarted BuS
SUBJECT:
"Pipeline" Analysis Results
The results of the "Pipeline Survey" in which you, your teams, and
other PCB Staff-members participated last Thursday are summarized in
an overall process-oriented way in the attached Figure 1. Table 2
breaks out the results item-by-item, exactly as reported. The survey
accounted for some 6700 case files. This, plus the number of cases
already disposed of, is (only) 450 or so less than the 9615 case
files that were reported by Col. Benson to have been handed out to
the action attorneys over the last few months. This difference is
relatively small, and, in fact, it surprised the Interagency Task
Force from OMB and some of the people on our own staff.
The number of jurisdictional questions is about 20 higher per team
than the quick walk-through survey of the week before had indicated,
and the xeroxing backlog is one which we had not previously noted.
The 450 (+) case difference may partially be accounted for in that
some cases may have been in transition from Col. Benson to the teams,
or may have been handed out Thursday afternoon after the survey was
taken. Since we did not count his files, the figures could not show up.
In addition, we think that the number of cases that have been returned
to the files awaiting further information may be greater than reported
in the survey. It might be useful to suggest to your action attorneys
that they pick up any cases that they may have filed with Benson during
the moving period, or any others that they may have refiled while they
await further information.
One interesting fact which came to light--surprising only because we
had not thought about it--is that some 5800 cases were, as of last
Thursday, in the physical possession of the action attorneys, the Associate
General Counsels, or the Team Leaders. Thus, nearly 35% of the files
accumulated by the PCB are not stored in the central files. Most are
stuck in desk drawers and many may be stacked on the floor. Recommendations
on this problem are still under discussion.
FORD i GERALD LIBRARY
2
Before closing, I want to thank all of you for your help on this
survey. We know that it puts an added burden on you to carry out
any reporting function, and for that reason we have tried to minimize
the amount of time that has to be spent on regular reporting.
The nature of this survey was such, however, that it had to be done
essentially without warning. In this way, one person could not
shift cases to another, just to get them out of the way to facilitate
counting purposes--thereby possibly throwing the system picture out
of whack. This survey came at the time that it did because of a
late Wednesday afternoon meeting with the Interagency Team requesting
a "pipeline analysis" by Saturday morning.
We found the results to be exceptionally useful. The survey has
convinced us most pointedly of the need to reorganize the filing and
case distribution system., In addition, it served to describe trouble
spots and backlogs, and, finally, validate our thoughts on places where the
system is working well.
If you have any comments on the survey results or want to discuss it
with me, or Bill Strauss you can reach us on 634-4823, or come by
Room 903.
CASES IN PCB PIPELINE AS OF 30 MAY 1975
(Est. 3280)
(2037)
(1290)
(1650)
(1100 est.)
Projected
Applications
Initial File
DD or BCD
Records Received
1
Applicants
Logged, File
Request Out
File Request
Files Not Completed
2
Not Requested
Out
(29)
(593)
(78)
(1542)
2
Files Available
Files Enroute/
Files Rcd. by
Cases Assigned,
For Distribution
Distributed to
AA Teams, Not Yet
No Significant
3
AA Teams
Assigned to AA's
Action
(388)
(724)
Miscellaneous
Jurisdictional
Cases in AA
Question or
Pipeline
Correspondance
(327)
(650)
(699)
(639)
(1172)
3
Draft Case Partially
Draft Hand-
Draft
Written, or in Pro-
Written
Typed
Cases TO/IN
Cases Awaiting
4
cess of Rewrite
Quality Control
Final Typing
(194)
(700)
(1206)
(247)
4
Cases Typed in Final
Docketed
Decided By
Cases Awaiting
and Xeroxed
Board Panel
Xeroxing
(83)
(228)
(145)
Cases to be
Cases Sent to
SIGNED
Heard By
President,
BY
Board
Awaiting Signature
PRESIDENT
POSITION:-
Team Ldr
Asst. TL
(Check
Act. Atty.
on
QC Atty
Sec.
Other
DATE:
TIME
Case Assigned, Summary Not
Yet Written
Case Partially Written, But
Waiting for Information
Draft Hand-written, Ready
for Draft Typing
First Draft Typed, Awaiting
Delivery to AA, QC, TL/ATL,
or to Secretary (any one)
Draft Typed, Awaiting Review
by TL/ATL (*)
Jurisdictional Question,
Case Being Held
Case Received by TL/ATL, But
Not Assigned to AA (*)
Case Awaiting AA Re-write,
or Clearance by TL/ATL/QC
Case Awaiting Final Typing
Final Typed, Awaiting
Distribution (to AA or D&D)
Typed Draft Awaiting Review
by Quality Control
Quality Controlled, Awaiting
Review by QC Team Leader
Case Approved by QC. Ready
for Delivery to AA
Case Awaiting Correspondence
Post Audit Review
File Awaiting Xeroxing
CASES NOT COMPLETED, BUT
RE-FILED IN CENTRAL FILES
(Col. BENSON)
OTHERS NOT FITTING PREVIOUS
CATEGORIES Please Explain
CASE
TABLE 2 - Categorical Opera Operation :Ion Totals for Pipeline Analysis
1,516
327
650
431
268
685
78
138°
1172
194
108
31
362
39
26
247
26
388
TOTAL= 6686
TOTAL
NOTE: (*) Columns are to be filled out by TL/ATL only.
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
6 June 1975
TO: SENATOR CHARLES GOODELL
THROUGH: Larry Baskir
Bill Strauss
5,mg
FROM: Lee Beck H
RE: CIVILIAN C.O. DISPOSITIONS OF 4 June, PER YOUR REQUEST
THIS DATE.
A quick review of the application of Mitigating Factors 4, 10, and
11 indicates that in every case except one there have been no
Aggravating Factors applied and all dispositions have been Pardons
with no Alternative Service. The one case which is the exception
had Mitigating Factors 4 and 10 applied, with no Aggravating
Factors, and the disposition was 6 Months of Alternative Service.
(3773-PDB-C). The action attorney has filed a timely appeal
from this disposition and we will review the case.
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
June 6, 1975
MEMORANDUM TO
:
SENATOR CHARLES GOODELL
THROUGH
: LAWRENCE M. BASKIR
BILL STRAUSS
(fox (MB)
FROM
: LEE BECK LC
SUBJECT
: Review of C. O. Cases Involving
Court-Imposed Probation and/or
Alternative Service
I have completed the review you requested today: To determine
the Board's stance on the weight given court-imposed probation
and/or alternative service in determining whether an appli-
cant should be granted an immediate pardon or a pardon con-
tingent on completion of alternative service. I attempted
to look at dispositions from all panels and involving all
teams, Not only did I ask the action attorneys what the
circumstances of particular cases were, but also their
impresions of the Board's feeling.
My conclusions are as follows: (1) In nearly every case
there has been some probation or alternative service served,
(2) the amount of probation or alternative service has fluctu-
ated greatly, (3) completion of the judicially-imposed
sentence has not been a determinative factor in case disposi-
tions--except for two cases involving Board Members Walt,
Dougovito, and Craig.
The Board has been generally consistent in granting pardons to
those applicants who come under Mitigating Factors 10 and 11.
This has occurred without substantial discussion in the Board
meetings. On those occasions where the disposition has been other
than a pardon, the discussion has been more substantial and
has been led by the more conservative members.
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
June 6, 1975
Memorandum to: Senator Goodell
From: Bill Strauss
Bul
Subject: Relationship between the Board's disposition
rate and the nature of its dispositions
We prepared a chart for you to show the relationship between
the Board's disposition rate and its percentage of pardons.
A similar relationship exists between the disposition rate
and the average length of alternative service.
Bob Horn raised two questions -- whether this trend might
not have resulted (1) from the increased number of UD cases
recently or (2) from the Board's relatively harsh treatment
of incarcerated applicants.
We sampled about 35 cases from each of the Board meetings in
question and found that the percentage of UD cases was
virtually identical. The UD factor thus seems insignificant.
Also, the percentage of "no clemency" cases has remained
fairly constant (4.2% for the early May meeting, and 6.5%
for both the late May and June 4 meetings); it has been our
impression that the "no clemency" disposition rate would be
more affected by the percentage of incarcerated applicants
than would the pardon rate.
Therefore, it appears that our increased disposition rate is
the only factor which can explain the increased harshness of
Board dispositions. Conversations I have had with some action
attorneys reinforce this conclusion, as they say the rapid
pace of dispositions prevents them from bringing mitigating
aspects of cases to the attention of the Board.
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
June 6, 1975
Memorandum to: Senator Goodell
RAK
Bind
From: Bob Knisely and Bill Strauss
Subject: Impact of Board Panel Meetings on
Action Attorney Production
It still appears that Board panel meetings are interfering
significantly with attorney production of draft summaries,
even though fewer attorneys are milling about in the panel
meeting areas.
On Wednesday, 223 cases were received in quality control --
representing mainly work done on Tuesday (when the Board was
not in session). On Thursday, only 147 cases were received
in quality control, reflecting the difficulties faced by
attorneys having to produce summaries while the Board panels
were meeting on Wednesday. This is a 33% dip in production.
We shall continue to monitor the impact of Board panel
meetings on attorney production.
&
GALD
GOODELL
MEMORANDUM
June 10, 1975
TO:
Assistant General Counsels
Deputy Assistant General Counsels
FROM:
John Jin Foote
QERALD FORD LIBRARY
SUBJECT: Post Case Preparation SOPS
We are presently under the gun to put as many of our cases as possible into the
Docketing/Distribution system for Board presentation. Until recently, this was no
problem, since Board meetings were every two weeks at most, and handled a relatively
small number of cases.
Suddenly, the Board is meeting for twelve panel days a week or more, and process-
ing as many as 125 cases pèr panel day.
As you have all been able to perceive, this puts a serious stress on a whole new
segment of the staff process. Until now, the pressure has been on the production
side, with which we have been successful enough to suggest that we will WRITE enough
cases to meet our deadline. Now, some of the pressure has shifted to that portion of
the processing of cases which begins with FINAL typing and ends with presentation to
the Board. Evidence of this pressure was and will be seen in the employment of
temporary clerical support.
With the increased pressure has come evidence of structural deficiencies. There
are massive command and control problems in an enterprise with so many interrelating
facets. The remainder of this memo will address itself to pointing out the problem
areas, and suggesting methods for handling them. We must do better than in the past.
It is worthless to prepare a case in rough and never get it to packets for the Board.
1. Assigning cases for final typing.
This has always been done on a more or less inadequate basis, because of our
clerical shortage, and our push to get rough drafts to QC. Now there is a great
need to get summaries typed in final. We are kicking around the possibility of using
newly incoming clerical personnel to form our own typing pool like the Olsten people
provided. We are presently short from our last tap approximately the same number of
clericals as we hired from Olsten. It is apparent therefore, that to use the new
people as they arrive in the Olsten function might give us the same capacity to
prepare finals as the Olstens did. (And notwithstanding some disruption in the process
caused by the Olstens, they did practically remove our final typing backlog in about
5 days!)
Another approach to this problem, one which the teams may readily take on their
own, is to designate an appropriate number of team secretaries to do final typing and
nothing else. This could be experimented with to see how production of drafts suffers,
if at all.
2. Proofreading.
Here is a major bottleneck. Once summaries are typed in final, they are proof-
read by the casewriters. This can take anywhere from one hour to two days, depending
upon the alacrity with which the summaries are distributed to the writers, the atten-
tion which writers pay to this seemingly menial task, and the diligence with which
secretaries hunt down proofread summaries for xeroxing.
Teams must institute a system for distributing finals for proofreading and return
to the honcho secretary that takes no more than a morning or an afternoon at most.
Shorter time turnarounds are more useful still. You should do an internal check,
having the lead secretary time the attorneys to determine average turnaround. You
must cut that time down.
3. Xeroxing.
Herewith is another bottleneck. Once the summaries are proofed, obviously they
must be xeroxed. I understand that with full-time operators we have cut down some of
the time necessary for getting summaries copied, but there is still the problem of
having prepared material sit around the Xerox room. One Assistant General Counsel has
suggested that each team assign one person to the function. of collecting proofed
summaries from attorneys and seeing that they are xeroxed, collated, stapled, and the
original and three copies drawn for inclusion in the file. This seems to me a reason-
able approach. This person is not his head secretary, who clearly has supervisory
responsibility over the xerox function; rather it is someone whose mission in life is
to REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT IT TAKES TO GET A SUMMARY FROM FINAL TYPING TO THE
POINT WHERE IT CAN BE SENT TO JAY PACINI. Little comprehensive planning seems to
have been done by the teams -- where it must be done -- to reduce this turnaround
time.
4. Transportation to D/D.
Yesterday, Ray and I uncovered a substantial number (two hundred or more) summaries
which were out of xeroxing but which had not yet gotten to distribution, despite lags of
two or more hours. Each step in this process requires that time be cut. There is no
reason why the lead secretary cannot dispatch a runner to carry summaries to D/D on
a regular basis. To fail to do so is to require Jay's people to do nothing during
regular hours, and when a load is deposited on their desks at five p.m., to work until
10 p.m. Jay is understaffed and she needs all the time she can get.
The gist of this memo, which hopes to uncover presently perceived log jams, is
that the length of time from final typing to case docketing is far, far too long. It
appears now to be taking as much as four days from final typing to placing cases in
packets. That it has been that successful, it seems, is largely because Ray and I
have personally gigged team leaders when we found cases lying about. In one team area,
for whatever reason, we found over 100 cases awaiting xeroxing, which had been accumu-
lating for a couple of days. We cannot constantly troop around looking for packets
of unprocessed finals. That is your job.
Part of the problem is that for each team the number of summaries waiting
xeroxing and transportation to D/D is relatively small. But if each team has only
50 such summaries in the pipeline, then you can see as readily as I that that makes
for FOUR HUNDRED summaries which are "moments" from inclusion in packets.
We must obviously achieve a rate of cases out of D/D that is the equivalent of
our production into that part of the process. If 1200 cases are produced in draft in
a week, then we must get 1200 into packets within a week. It is now taking two weeks.
This is not acceptable. We may suddenly reach a point at which the Board is sitting
on its hands, though we have written a sizeable number of cases. They will simply
not have been put through that essentially administrative process at the end of the
team production system.
2.
Each of the Assistant General Counsels must apply themselves assiduously to this
problem. You should call whole team meetings to discuss it. You should talk it over
with your deputies and devise supervisory systems for control of a process which in-
volves EVERYBODY in the staff in the space of two or three days. You should meet
with your secretaries to discuss with them the importance of all this.
We need your help to resolve our newest crisis. It is wearing Ray and me and
Gretchen to a frazzle.
3.
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
Washington, D.C. 20500
June 11, 1975
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
Memorandum
TO:
Charles E. Goodell and Lawrence M. Baskir
FROM:
Michael J. Remington
THROUGH:
William Strauss
SUBJECT:
F.B.I. Identification Checks of PCB
Applicants *
The foundation for the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) is
laid in 28 U.S.C. 8534:
"(a) The Attorney General shall:
(1) acquire, collect, classify, and preserve identification,
crime, and other records; and
(2) exchange these records with, and for the official use of
authorized officials of the Federal Government, the States,
cities, and penal and other institutions.
(b) The exchange of records authorized by subsection (a) (2) of
this section is subject to cancellation if dissemination is made
outside the receiving departments or related agencies,"
Several important questions arise at to referral of PCB applicants' names
to the FBI crime information and identification sections. They will
be discussed below in a question and answer format.
QUESTION #1: Is Senator Goodell an "authorized official of the Federal
Government" falling within the provisions of §534?
This is definitely at issue. Robert Conger, Computer Systems Section,
responded affirmatively, but added that should the need arise, certi-
fication could be immediately granted by the Attorney General. Frank
Still, Identification Section, answered in the negative, and stated
that "authorization" means "express, written authorization", He
warned that obtaining this might not be easy.
QUESTION # 2: What identification information would the PCB be required
to provide the FBI to insure an accurate check?
* Information for this memorandum was obtained from the following
individuals at the Federal Bureau of Investigation: Richard Taylor (324-
2120), Legal Analysis Section; Frank Still (324-2518), Identification
Section; and Andrew Decker (324-3000), Computer Systems Section.
- 2 -
The Computer Systems and Identification Section people would need
the applicant's name, social security number, date of birth, race,
sex, military identification number, and selective service number.
Even with all this information, total accuracy could not be guar-
anteed and the FBI would stamp each rap-sheet with "Not Responsible
for Accuracy; Identification Not Made on the Basis of Fingerprints".
QUESTION #3: How would the FBI identification-check work for PCB
pplicants?
The required information would be forwarded by the PCB to the FBI
on separate sheets of paper prepared by Col. Benson's staff.
The FBI would run theinformation through its computerized system
(NCIC) and then through its identification section. The former,
which reveals information on fugitives and crime statistics for
several states, could be accomplished very quickly. The latter,
which involves the search of an alphabetical file, a fingerprint
classification file, and a personal history file, takes much more
time. At the end of this process, the FBI clerk ultimately arrives
at the individual's rap-sheet (if it exists).
Frank Still described the whole process as somewhat "difficult".
He provided the following example. Applicant's name is John Smith.
In the FBI's alphabetical file there are 21,000,000 names, of which
there are 17,000 John Smiths. Many of these individuals were born
on the same day and they often do not have social security numbers.
Without fingerprints, identification of the proper John Smith becomes
very difficult. +
QUESTION #4: How much time would the identification check take?
About two weeks, provided that "authorization" is obtained under
$534 and the FBI is immediately provided with the necessary informa-
tion. /Note: there is presently a personnel shortage in the Identi-
fication Section and the PCB could not be given priority over the
everyday fingerprint checks.7
QUESTION # 5: Would the information conveyed to the FBI be used to
the applicant's detriment?
Since the applicant's address will not be submitted, the FBI will
not immediately become aware of the individual's whereabouts. It
should be presumed, however, that if one of the PCB applicants is
presently a fugitive, the FBI will subsequently ask for his address.
QUESTION # 6: Could the PCB send the applicant's rap-sheet to him
(along with his case summary)?
This is a very difficult question. The FBI normally allows an indi-
vidual to procure his own rap-sheet, upon payment of $5.00 and
submission of his fingerprints (to insure accuracy). The Bureau
of Prisons sometimes sends-out rap-sheets, but only when this would
benefit the individual such as in a parole or probation proceeding.
The principal problem with sending rap-sheets to PCB applicants is
that of mistakes. A mistake as to a rap-sheet could represent a
serious infringement of an individual's liberty. /Note: there is
a case pending in a D.C. Federal District Court concerning a
- 3 -
NCIC mistake, 7
It should also be reiterated that $534(b) states that ,exchange
of records authorized by subsection (a) (2) of this section is subject
to cancellation if dissemination is made outside the receiving
agencies." It appears that this would prohibit sending the rap-
sheet to the applicant. The question thus becomes how can the
PCB insure to the applicant, especially if the FBI will not, that
a mistake as to rap-sheet will not be made. I cannot answer this.
QUESTION # 7: What should the PCB do to immediately commence a
crime identification check for all applicants?
First, Senator Goodell should get immediate "authorization".
Second, letters should be written and either hand-delivered to
Asst. Director Andrew Decker, Room 7222, Computer Systems (NCIC),
or Frank Still, Identification Section, asking for immediate
cooperation in this matter. In the alternative, a letter could
be sent directly to Director Clarence Kelly, through Mr. Nick
Callahan (because of Mr. Kelly's illness). This letter would
formally request a NCIC and Identification check for PCB applicants.
Some provision should be made for a personal meeting between. one
or two members of the PCB staff and several representatives of the
FBI. This meeting would be used to establish a working relationship
between the two organizations, Third, the PCB should implement a
Standard Operating Procedure to provide the FBI with the necessary
information. Fourth, immediate thought should be given to the
"accuracy" problem.
+
A sample of the alphabetical index of PCB applicants reveals
that there are several common names. For example, there are 7
individuals who are named John Smith. Other common names are
Michael Smith (8), John Davis (6), William Davis (5), James Jones (6),
James Taylor (9), John Johnson (7), William Williams (6), and
William Brown (9).
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
June 16, 1975
GERALD FORD
MEMORANDUM TO:
Larry Baskir
Bus
FROM:
Bill Strauss
SUBJECT:
Panel Counsel Meetings of June 13
COPIES TO:
Panel Counsels (Distribution c)
As you know, the PM & E staff held a series of six meetings with Panel
Counsels on Friday, June 13. The meetings were well-attended and were
quite useful in identifying policy discrepancies between the Clemency
Law Reporter's language and the apparent policy of Board panels and
action attorneys. The number of discrepancies was fairly large, perhaps
to be expected insofar as these were our first meetings of this kind.
(This reinforces our need for weekly meetings to keep communication lines
open between Panel Counsels and ourselves.)
The following issues were raised -- and, if at all possible, you or the
Board should clarify what is our policy on them:
AGGRAVATING FACTOR #1: There was considerable disagreement about what
the term "felony conviction" does or should mean. Does a one-year suspended
sentence apply? Does a six-month jail term for an offense which could have
had a longer sentence apply? We need a firm rule for cases in which it is
not clear whether the crime has in fact been designated as a felony under
state law.
AGGRAVATING FACTOR #2: No issues.
AGGRAVATING FACTOR #3: No issues.
AGGRAVATING FACTOR #4: Not included in the Clemency Law Reporter language,
but articulated by PM & E staff, was the test that this factor applies
only if there is some evidence of (a) cowardice or (b) some risk of immediate
danger to other troops. However, some members of the Board have been
applying this factor in all cases where applicants went AWOL from ahywhere
else in Vietnam but Saigon -- or even while on home leave (or R&R) from
Vietnam.
2
AGGRAVATING FACTOR #5: Should we omit the language "in circumstances
where a reasonable inference may be drawn that the offense had been
committed for selfish and manipulative reasons?" The Board may not be
applying the rule in this manner, with the simple absence of evidence
sufficient of itself to bring about this factor. However, except in
extraordinary cases (e.g., very thin files), the absence of any
explanation or circumstantial mitigating evidence tends to create a
reasonable inference that the offense was indeed for selfish and
manipulative reasons. It is my understanding that the Board may not
apply this rule in thin (or absent) file cases.
AGGRAVATING FACTOR #6: Does this factor apply to a Jehovah's Witness who
refuses to accept draft-board-ordered alternative service for non-religious
(e.g., financial) reasons?
AGGRAVATING FACTOR #7: Does this factor apply just to civilian cases? In
at least one instance, the Board has applied it to a military case. If it
is to be so applied, should a suspended sentence in the military be
equated with probated sentences and parole in the civilian context? If a
suspended sentence is vacated in the military because of some misconduct
on the part of the soldier, the Board has considered the vacation the same
as a revocation of probation or parole and checked this factor. Frequently,
in the military, when a suspended sentence is vacated, the soldier, is sent
back to confinement, and in addition he must face a new court martial on
the charges that caused the suspension to be vacated. The result is that
the Board now checks this factor--and also checks aggravating factor #1
for an additional adult conviction.
AGGRAVATING FACTOR #8: Do unpunished AWOLs count in assessing multiple
AWOLs? If the general rule is no, what about UD-unfitness cases where the
discharge was the disciplinary response to the AWOL offenses? What if the
UD had been based on both punished and unpunished AWOL offenses? What
the UD had been based at least in part on non-qualifying AWOL offenses? Also,
action attorneys now must describe the form of punishment for each AWOL
offense--listing summary court martials and non-judicial punishments.
This is prejudicial and does not bear on any aggravating factor and so might
be excluded from our summary format. However, changing our summary format
would be painful. Should action attorneys continue to mention summary
court martials for AWOL offenses--or should they simply note that it was
a " punished AWOL offense. "
AGGRAVATING FACTOR #9: Again, do unpunished or non-qualifying AWOLs count
in tabulating the length of AWOL offenses? (We probably should apply the
same rule for both aggravating #8 and #9.) Also, does the Board apply
this factor to the last qualifying AWOL offense, to the longest qualifying
AWOL offense, or to a cumulation of all qualifying AWOL offenses. Different
Board panels seem to be applying the rule differently.
3
AGGRAVATING FACTOR #10: Does "overseas assignment" include Alaska
and Hawaii?
AGGRAVATING FACTOR #11: There was considerable confusion about this
factor. This factor was originally established to report a non-absence
offense which contributed, along with an absence offense, to a discharge.
So far, it has been applied by action attorneys only in UD-Chapter 10
cases. It has been applied by the Board panels in some UD-Unfitness
cases, however. Should it apply in UD-Unfitness cases? If so, should
this factor apply if the non-absence offenses resulted only in a general
or special court martial -- or should it apply if any punishment resulted?
Does it apply if no punishment (other than the UD-Unfitness discharge)
resulted? Finally, do we apply this factor when an applicant receives
a BCD or a DD for charges which include both absence and non-absence
offenses? It appears that the Board panels have in fact done SO.
AGGRAVATING FACTOR #12: Does the Board apply the same rule as in
mitigating factor #11 -- that only the last qualifying offense counts?
Also, the Board does in fact consider simple apprehension to be sufficient
to bring about this factor. The language in the Clemency Law Reporter
indicated that some evidence of willful evasion of authorities is also
needed, but the Board has yet to apply this rule.
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
FORD
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
GERALD
June 17, 1975
MEMORANDUM TO:
Panel Counsel (Distribution c)
FROM:
Bill Strauss
SUBJECT:
Clarification of Board Policy on
Aggravating Factors
The Panel Counsel meetings of last Friday identified some policy
discrepancies between the Clemency Law Reporter language and Board
panels' application of aggravating factors. Today (June 17), the
Full Board discussed these issues and has clarified its policies.
In future Board panel meetings, Panel Counsels and Action Attorneys
should apply the rules stated in the Clemency Law Reporter, as
modified and clarified below:
Listed below are the issues presented to the Board and their respective
resolutions:
AGGRAVATING FACTOR #1
ISSUES: There was considerable disagreement about what the term
"felony conviction" does or should mean. Does a one-year suspended
sentence apply? Does a six-month jail term for an offense which
could have had a longer sentence apply? We need a firm rule for
cases in which it is not clear whether the crime has in fact been
designated as a felony under state law.
BOARD RESOLUTION: The Board announced that "felony conviction"
means a conviction for any crime for which the sentence is or could
have been imprisonment for one year or more. Some reference to
state law may be necessary. The Board also reaffirmed that any
such conviction, whether prior to or subsequent to the qualifying
offense, brings rise to this factor.
AGGRAVATING FACTOR #2: No issues.
AGGRAVATING FACTOR #3: No issues.
AGGRAVATING FACTOR #4
ISSUES: Not included in the Clemency Law Reporter language, but
articulated by PM & E staff, was the test that this factor applies
only if there is some evidence of (a) cowardice or (b) some risk of
immediate danger to other troops. However, some members of the Board
have been applying this factor in all cases where applicants went
AWOL from anywhere else in Vietnam but Saigon--or even while on home
leave (or R&R) from Vietnam.
2
BOARD RESOLUTION: According to the Board, going AWOL directly
from Vietnam brings rise to this factor automatically. Going
AWOL from R&R or home leave does not constitute this factor--
but does constitute aggravating factor #10.
AGGRAVATING FACTOR #5
ISSUES: Should we omit the language "in circumstances where a
reasonable inference may be drawn that the offense had been
committed for selfish and manipulative reasons?" The Board
may not be applying the rule in this manner, with the simple
absence of evidence sufficient of itself to bring about this
factor. However, except in extraordinary cases (e.g., very thin
files), the absence of any explanation or circumstantial mitigating
evidence tends to create a reasonable inference that the offense
was indeed for selfish and manipulative reasons. It is my under-
standing that the Board may not apply this rule in thin (or absent)
file cases.
BOARD RESOLUTION: The Board will first determine whether evidence
of selfish and manipulative reasons is present (i.e., whether aggra-
vating #5 has its regular application). If no such evidence is
found, a "weak" aggravating #5 will be applied in circumstances
where a reasonable inference may be drawn that the offense had been
committed for selfish and manipulative reasons. Such an inference
may be drawn even if there are no apparent reasons in the record
for the qualifying offense. However, this "weak" application of
aggravating #5 will not arise if any of the mitigating factors
#1, #2, #3, #8, #10, or #12 are present, except in unusual circum-
stances where these mitigating factors bear no reasonable relation-
ship to the qualifying offense. This "weak" aggravating #5 application
is a matter of Board discretion and should not be marked by Action
Attorneys.
AGGRAVATING FACTOR #6
ISSUES: Does this factor apply to a Jehovah's Witness who refuses
to accept draft-board ordered alternative service for non-religious
(e.g., financial) reasons?
BOARD RESOLUTION: The religious exemption to this factor applies
only in circumstances where an applicant had bona fide religious
reasons for his offense.
3
AGGRAVATING FACTOR #7
ISSUES: Does this factor apply just to civilian cases? In at
least one instance, the Board has applied it to a military case. If
it is to be so applied, should a suspended sentence in the military
be equated with probated sentences and parole in the civilian context?
If a suspended sentence is vacated in the military because of some
misconduct on the part of the soldier, the Board has considered the
vacation the same as a revocation of probation or parole and checked
this factor. Frequently, in the military, when a suspended sentence
is facated, the soldier, is sent back to confinement, and in addition
he must face a new court martial on the charges that caused the
suspension to be vacated. The result is that the Board now checks
this factor--and also checks aggravating. factor #1 for an additional
adult conviction.
BOARD RESOLUTION: This factor applies to military as well as
civilian cases. Also, it applies to any violation of probation
or parole subsequent to a felony (or military court-martial)
conviction, even if the conviction had been a for a non-qualifying
offense.
AGGRAVATING FACTOR #8
ISSUES: Do unpunished AWOLs count in assessing multiple AWOLs?
If the general rule is no, what about UD-unfitness cases where the
discharge was the disciplinary response to the AWOL offenses?
What if the UD had been based on both punished and unpunished AWOL
offenses? What the. UD had been based at least in part on non-qualifying
AWOL offenses? Also, action attorneys now must describe the form of
punishment for each AWOL offense--listing summary court martials and
non-judicial punishments. This is prejudicial and does not bear
on any aggravating factor and so might be excluded from our summary
format. However, changing our summary format would be painful.
Should action attorneys continue to mention summary court martials
for AWOL offenses--or should they simply note that it was a "punished
AWOL offense."
BOARD RESOLUTION: Non-qualifying (i.e., pre-1964) and unpunished
AWOLs are to be counted in applying this factor.
AGGRAVATING FACTOR #9
ISSUES: Again, do unpunished or non-qualifying AWOLs count in
tabulating the length of AWOL offenses? (We probably should apply
the same rule for both aggravating #8. and #9.) Also, does the
Board apply this factor to the last qualifying AWOL offense, to the
longest qualifying AWOL offense, or to a cumulation of all qualifying
AWOL offenses. Different Board panels seem to be applying the rule
differently.
4
BOARD RESOLUTION: If the last AWOL offense resulted in an NJP or
a court-martial conviction, only those AWOL offenses specified in
the NJP or court-martial charges are counted in assessing the
length of AWOL. If the last AWOL offense did not result in an NJP
or a court-martial conviction (even if it directly led to an
applicant's discharge), all unpunished AWOL offenses subsequent
to the last punished AWOL offense are counted in assessing the
length of AWOL.
AGGRAVATING FACTOR #10
ISSUES: Does "oversea's assignment" include Alaska and Hawaii?
BOARD RESOLUTION: Alaska and Hawaii are not included in this factor.
In addition, this factor applies in full force only to any
failure to report to Vietnam or to any overseas staging area
for Vietnam (e.g., Okinawa) for all other overseas assignments
(e.g., Germany or Korea), a "weak" aggravating #10 applies.
ACGRAVATING FACTOR #11
ISSUES: There was considerable confusion about this factor. This
factor was originally established to report a non-absence offesen,
which contributed, along with an absence offense, to a discharge
So far, it has been applied by action attorneys only in UD-Chapter
10 cases. It has been applied by the Board panels in some UD Unfitness
cases, however. Should it apply in UD-Unfitness cases? If so
should this factor apply if the non-absence offenses resulted in
a general or special court martial--or should it apply if
any punishment resulted? Does it apply if no punishment (other than
the UD-Unfitness discharge) resulted? Finally, do we apply this
factor when an applicant receives a BCD or a DD for charges which
include both absence and non-absence offenses? It appears that
the Board panels habe in fact done SO.
BOARD RESOLUTION: This factor applies only to punished offenses
in UD-Unfitness cases. Summary court-martial convictions and
NJPs for non-qualifying offenses are included in its scope.
This factor does not apply to UD-Chapter 10, BCD, or DD cases.
AGGRAVATING FACTOR #12
ISSUES: Does the Board apply the same rule as in mitigating factor
#11 that only the last qualifying offense counts? Also, the Board
does in fact consider simple apprehension to be sufficient to bring
about this factor. The language in the Clemency Law Reporter
indicated that some evidence of willful evasion of authorities is
also needed, but the Board has yet to apply this rule.
BOARD RESOLUTION: Only the last qualifying offense counts, and some
evidence of apprehension is necessary. If the applicant did not
willfully evade authorities (e.g., if he lived openly at home)
prior to his apprehension, a "weak" aggravating #12 is applied.
TAB A
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
June 18, 1975
FOR
is
Standard Operating Procedures for Docketing
GERALD
A. Advance Planning of the Docket Schedule
1. Senator Goodell will assign panel members to
docket blocks (i.e., 90 minute time segments, four of
which will be the typical day's workload). He must
do this no later than COB Friday, a full week before
the beginning of the docket week in question. He will
do this by filling out the appropriate parts of the
weekly docket form (D-1), then sending it to Jim Poole of
the Board Interface Unit. Jim will assist him at his
request in making these schedules.
2. The same panel members will work together as a
designated panel (A,B,C,D, or E) for an entire week.
Panel rearranging will be done only on a weekly basis.
Senator Goodell will assign panel chairpersons as he
makes panel assignments.
3. There will be four docket blocks. The first and
third docket Blocks will begin at 9 AM and 2 PM, re-
spectively, without fail. The second and fourth docket
blocks are "flexible" and will be scheduled to begin
at 11 AM and 4 PM, respectively, but they are not re-
quired to do SO. These flexible docket blocks may:
(a) Begin early, at panel request and with adequate
notice to panel counsels
(b) Be canceled, for cause, with consent of the Board Chair-
man; or
(c) Begin on time.
Under no circumstances may any panel begin more than
five minutes later than scheduled.
2
B.
Team Leaders Submissions to Docketing
Team Leaders will be responsible for ensuring that the
following procedures are carried out:
1. On the case summary, the section in the upper left
hand corner entitled "P.C.B. Attorney:" will be com-
pleted as follows:
Case Attorney's Name/if reassigned, new case
attorney's name--Asst. Team Leader/Team Leader
2. Case Attorneys are responsible for submitting a
packet (Case Summary, A and M Sheet, B-A form, and 3
or 4 prepared address labels (to be discussed below))
to a team secretary for final typing of the summary.
Note that the A and M sheet, B-A form and 3 or 4 labels
remain attached. The secretary returns the packet to the
case attorney for final review. Thereafter, the case
attorney returns the packet to the secretary who is
responsible for xeroxing the packet in the following
number of copies:
a) The final summary
15 copies
b) The A and M Sheet
12 copies
c) The B-A Form
3 copies
d) Labels
0 copies
C. Distribution of Packet and Xerox Copies
The completed packet and attached forms and labels are distri-
buted as follows:
a) Original and 3 copies of the case summary and A and M
sheet to the case attorney; Original and 1 copy of each
to the file proper, 1 copy of each for the case attorney's
use in his presentation to the board/panel, and one copy
of the summary and A and M sheet to the Assistant Team
Leader. The balance of the packet and attached forms and
labels is submitted to the Summary Distribution Section
(Jay Pacini) for distribution as described below:
3
b) One copy of the summary is mailed via certified
mail to the applicant's address as indicated on the
B-A Form (Note: If the labels, which contained in all
files numbered 8000 and above, contain the current best
address, they should be used on the envelope to mail
the summary to the applicant. In this regard it is in-
cumbent upon case attorneys to check these labels care-
fully against the most recent correspondence from appli-
cant and, if labels are correct, USE THEM! Of course,
if the applicant has moved since the labels were prepared
SO that they are no longer correct, discard them.)
c) One copy of the case summary is sent to the applicant's
attorney, if any, at the address listed on the B and A
form.
d) One copy of the summary is submitted to the administra-
tive staff (Gretchen Handwerger.) This copy will have the.
certified mail slip attached, indicating the date mailed.
e) One copy of the case summary will be filed in
Docketing Section Master File.
f) One summary copy is an extra to avoid unnecessary
re-xeroxing
g) Seven copies of the summary are used in the prepara-
tion of the "Docket Packets" ( 3 or 4 to panel members,
1 to panel counsel, 1 copy is for Senator Goodell, and 1
or 2 are extras which always seem to be used).
h) One copy of the A and M sheet will be filed along
with the case summary in the Docketing Section Master
File.
i) One copy of the A and M Sheet is an extra to avoid
unnecessary re-xeroxing.
j) Seven copies of the A and M sheet are used in the
preparation of the "Docket Packets".
k) One copy of the B-A form is used by Summary Distribution.
1) One copy of the B-A form is forwarded to Gretchen
Handwerger along with the 2 or 3. remaining labels, if correct.
4
All teams when submitting the packets (case summary,
A and M sheet, B-A forms and labels) to Distribution
Section should submit them without mixing them with those
of another team. This will eliminate unnecessary sorting
in the Distribution Section.
Once "Docket Packets" are prepared and a Packet List
(Docket) is prepared one copy of both will be returned to
the panel counsel for his use.
D. Case Docketing
1. The Distribution Section will compile cases by team
using one bin per team as is current practice.
2. When thirty cases have accumulated in a team bin,
the packet will be matched to the next available Board Panel
docket block. The Weekly docket form (D-1), as prepared by
Senator Goodell, will be posted prominently in the Distri-
bution Section and used for making docketing assignments.
The only exceptions to the "next available" rule (provided
that enough cases are otherwise available to meet the Board
docket schedule) will be when the Assistant General Counsel
notes, in a memo to accompany his cases, that certain dates
or times will be impossible for him, his assistant team
leaders or his action attorneys.
3. In the packets, the cases will be arranged sequentially,
by case number--even if this mixes the batches of separate
Assistant Team Leaders.
4. A packet list (Form D-2), listing cases in numerical
order, will be prepared for each AGC with cases in each packet.
5. The seven packets for each panel block will each have
a cover sheet prepared (Form D-3), noting some identifying
information and stapled to the top of each packet. The packet
lists (Form D-2) will be the second page of the packets sent
back to AGC.
6. The seven packets will be distributed as follows:
5
a. One to the Assistant Team Leader
b. One retained in the Docketing Section
C. One to the Administrator's staff.
d. Three or four to the Board panel members, with
the extra copy (if any 3 panel members) retained by
the Docketing Section if necessary.
E.
Sequencing Cases
1. With cases docketed and packets returned to the
AGC's not later than three days before the scheduled
docket block, the AGC's will prepare a Presentation
List for each packet not later than COB, two days before
the scheduled panel appearance. He will group the cases
by AssistantTeam Leader, and to the extent possible, by
individual action attorneys.
2. After confirming the schedule with his attorneys,
he will have three copies made of his filled-out Pre-
sentation List (Form D-4). Not later than 4 PM of the
day before the scheduled docket block, he will distri-
bute the three copies to Central Docket Control on the
ground floor of 2033 M Street, which will, relay a copy
to the scribes and panel chairpersons (retaining the
third). The ATLs will keep the original Presentation
List.
3. Assistant Team Leaders should note approximate times
for attorneys presentations on their Presentation Lists
as well as approximate times for their own initial
appearance in the overall Team Docket block. It is only
necessary to note the time of the first case for each
attorney, is rounded to the nearest 5 (or even 10)
minutes. If an ATL has the second half of a docket
block, he should anticipate beginning his presentations
at 9:45, 11:45, 2:45 or 4:45 ( as appropriate). As a rule
of thumb, figure 3 minutes per case--but 5-6 minutes
for cases involving possible veterans benefits, no
clemency, or special fact circumstances.
6
F. Panel Presentations
1. The Assistant Team Leader will serve as Panel
Counsel for all cases presented by his action attorneys.
At the start and later, as appropriate, AGCs will
assist them in this role. In this role, the DAGC is
responsible for having reviewed or familiarized him-
self/herself with all cases to be presented before a
given panel. Under extraordinary circumstances, a sub-
stitute may be appointed by the Assistant General Counsel:
The substitute will in turn be responsible for having
familiarized himself with all cases prior to presen-
tation.
2. The ATL will call off cases from his Presentation
List, remembering that Board members will have the cases
in numerically sequenced packets.
3. The ATL should arrive with two attorneys, one with
cases to present right away. The other action attorney
should study his cases in the Central Docket Control
waiting area; he will be "on deck." When the first
attorney finishes, he should leave the panel meeting room
and be replaced by the next "on deck" attorney.
4. If the schedule is being followed (plus or minus a
few minutes), the next "on deck" attorney should arrive
ten minutes early without being summoned. If the panel
is running early or late, the departing attorney should
immediately call a team secretary to alert other attorneys
of the revised schedule.
5. Board panels will spend a maximum of two hours
(120 minutes) on a single packet. All leftover cases
must be redocketed.
6. If a Board panel is running late, it will have its
9 AM docket block run until 11 AM, when it will start.
its 11 AM docket block (unless the 11 AM block is started
early, as previously noted). The panel is guaranteed a
minimum of one hour's mid-day break for lunch. If it
also runs late in the afternoon, its sessions could run
straight through from 2 PM to 6 PM. If it runs through
its docket blocks on schedule, it will have mid-morning
and mid-afternoon breaks.
7
G.
Redocketed Cases
1. If docket blocks must be cancelled because of any
change in Board members' schedules, entire packets
may have to be redocketed. If so, the packets circu-
lated to the Board members will be returned to the
Docketing Section for reassignment to the next available
docket block. Revised cover sheets (Form D-3) will be
sent to the appropriate AGCs to the Administrator's
staff, and to the Board members on the next panel.
2. If the Board panel does not hear all its cases on
a given docket block, the AGC will alert Central Docket
Control before he leaves. Central Docket Control will
keep a simple numerical log of cases individually re-
docketed (to assure that none are inadvertently forgotten).
The AGC and DAGC will retrieve original copies of the
case summaries upon return to the case files.
H. Administrative Oversight
1. It will be the responsibility of Senator Goodell,
Jim Poole, and the Assistant General Counsels to assure
that these procedures are being followed and that
special unforseen problems are solved.
2. A weekly statistical progress report will be imple-
mented shortly.
Attachments
PCB Form D-1
WEEKLY DOCKET
For the Week of
to
DATE:
/
/
/
/
/
M
T
W
Th
F
Panel Chairperson:
9
A PANEL:
11
2
4
Panel Chairperson:
9
B PANEL:
11
2
4
Panel Chairperson:
9
C PANEL:
11
2
4
Panel Chairperson:
9
D PANEL:
11
2
4
Panel Chairperson:
9
E PANEL:
11
2
4
9
FULL
BOARD
11
2
4
Form D-2
PACKET LIST
DATE:
PANEL:
DOCKET BLOCK:
MO/DA
Day of Week
(starting time)
Case #
Attorney
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Panel Counsel 9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
AGC Team 14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
Panel Counsel30.
Form D-3
DOCKET COVER SHEET
Distribution to:
Board Member
Panel Counsel
Administrator
Docketing
Docket Date:
MO/DA
Day of Week
Panel:
Docket Block:
(starting time)
Panel Counsel:
(ATL)
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
June 23, 1975
MEMORANDUM TO SENATOR GOODELL AND LARRY BASKIR
FROM : Rob Quartel Refeated
B.FOF
THROUGH: Bill Strauss/ Bob Knisely
OK
GERALD
SUBJECT: The Production "Pipeline"
At the production meeting last week, you raised several
points concerning backlogs, and specifically noted bottlenecks
in (1) Xeroxing, and (2) Docketing and Distribution (D & D).
We have addressed these problem areas as follows:
Xeroxing
1. All case summaries and attached sheets (Ag/Mit sheets and
Best Address forms) are now being xeroxed--and typed--
on legal-sized paper. This completely eliminates the
need to collate by hand.
2. Previously, the xeroxed packets of summaries and attach-
ments were sent back to the teams, where team copies were
separated and the twelve remaining were sent on to D&D.
We have eliminated that step by putting another operator
in the xerox room, who both staples and separates the
copies into two boxes per team for eventual distribution.
One box goes directly back. to the team, and the other
goes directly to D&D. This same operator takes the
copies from the D&D box directly to D&D, once every hour;
the teams are responsible for retrieving their own copies
and the original.
Docketing
The new docketing procedures have been fully implemented as
of today. A copy of those procedures are attached at Tab A.
The essential features of those procedures, as you know, are:
(1) two fixed docket blocks per day, (2) two "flexible"
docket blocks per day, (3) "special" docket blocks for
full-board cases, (4) team assignment of docket order within
a set block of cases, and (5) grouping of cases within a
docket block by Assistant Team Leader whenever possible.
Page 2
Other Backlogs
Another backlog pointed out at that meeting concerned
the 2000 case summaries (from cases already decided by Board
panels) which had not yet been sent to the applicants. A team
of interns, working Thursday and Friday evenings, and all day
Saturday, has reduced the backlog down to 218. This figure
also includes incremental summaries which represent cases
decide on Thursday, Friday, and at the full Board this morning.
In addition to the above, we are, tomorrow morning, running
another "snapshot," " the results of which should be available
early Wednesday. It is our perception that the results
will show that we have really squeezed the pipeline, and that
we should plan to discuss de-staffing operations with you
late in the week.
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
July 8, 1975
MEMORANDUM TO SENATOR GOODELL
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
FROM: Bill Strauss
SUBJ: Suggested Gallup Poll Questions
As a result of Rick Tropp's initiative, the Gallup
organization is willing to ask three questions about
clemency/amnesty in their next national poll. We have
been asked to prepare the questions.
I have proposed four questions, of which I suggest the
first three. I was tempted to include a question to
highlight the public's misinformation about the program,
but the public's opinion about a possible reopening of
the program has greater policy implications.
(1) Last September, President Ford announced a
program offering conditional clemency to draft evaders
and military deserters of the Vietnam era. Which of the
following statements best characterizes your opinion of
President Ford's clemency program?
A. I am not in favor of it, because nothing
less than unconditional amnesty is worthwhile.
B. I am not in favor of it, because it is not
nearly all-inclusive or generous enough.
C. I am in favor of it, but I do not think it
is all-inclusive or generous enough.
D. I am in favor of it, as it is a well-conceived
and fair program.
E. I am in favor of it, but I think it is too
all-inclusive or generous.
2
F. I am not in favor of it, because it is much
too all-inclusive or generous.
G. I am not in favor of it, because there should
never have been any clemency program for draft evaders
and military deserters.
H. No opinion
(2) A major purpose of President Ford's clemency program
was to heal some of the wounds which the nation incurred
during the Vietnam era. Now that the war is over, do you think
some of these wounds are being healed?
A. Yes, primarily because of the clemency program.
B. Yes, partly because of the clemency program.
C. Yes, but not at all because of the clemency
program.
D. No, as the clemency program has had little effect.
E. No, partly because the clemency program has
needlessly preserved or aggravated the wounds.
F. No, primarily because the clemency program has
needlessly preserved or aggravated the wounds.
H. No opinion.
(3) About 13,000 persons were eligible to apply for
clemency, but only about 25,000 actually did apply before the
program's application deadline last March. No more appli-
cations are being accepted. Should the program be extended
to give the other 105,000 draft evaders and military deserters
another chance to apply?
A. Instead of extending the program, President Ford
should declare unconditional amnesty.
B. The program should be extended, but in a more
all-inclusive or generous form.
C. The program should be extended, as is.
3
D. The program should not be extended, as
eligible persons have already had sufficient oppor-
tunity to apply.
H. No opinion.
(4) After clemency is granted offered to former draft evaders
and military deserters (most of whom will have completed
periods of alternative service), would you and your neighbors
be willing to accept them as regular members of your community?
A. Yes, I would, and most of my neighbors probably
would.
B. Yes, I would, but most of my neighbors probably
would not.
C. No, I would not, but most of my neighbors probably
would.
D. No, I would not, and most of my neighbors probably
would not.
E. No opinion.
CELL: You SHOULD FOCUS ON LEE'S ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES I
TO MY QUESTIONS #1, 2 AND 3. HE AND
AGREE ON THE BASIC CHARACTER OF THE
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD QUESTIONS we
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
9 July 1975
SHOULD BuS ASK.
MEMORANDUM TO SENATOR GOODELL
FROM:
Lee Beck
RE:
Questions for the Gallup Poll.
After reviewing several polling formats, reviewing the
questions prepared by Bill Strauss, and discussing the matter with Bill
at length, I would like to submit an additional set of questions. We are
preparing questions which will have several significant impacts:
(1) upon our final report, (2) upon the national viewpoint of clemency
and (3) upon the national opinion of the President. The first of these
impacts is our primary interest, but we cannot overlook the latter two
unless we have been informed that Gallup does not intend to release the
results to the Press.
Therefore, I have designed three questions which I
believe to be methodologically sound and free from political bias. It is
necessary to submit them for discussion only, however, as I feel it
imperative that we discuss the form and content of the questions with
the professional pollsters before final submission.
(1) Last September, President Ford announced a program
offering clemency to draft evaders and military
deserters of the Vietnam Era. you were the
President, What kind of program, if any, would
you provide? HAVE LIKED FOR HIM TO PROVIDE?
(a) An unconditional amnesty.
Vs. MY III
(b) A conditional Col amnesty, REQUIRING ALTERNATIVE COMPLETION SERVICE. OF
(c) An individual case-by-case review to grant
unconditional pardons.
(d) An individual case-by-case review to grant
pardons on completion of alternative service.
Goodell/Beck
p. 2
(e) An individual case-by-case review to grant
conditional pardons only in cases of extreme
injustice.
(f) I would not grant any clemency.
(g) ,No opinion.
Comment: The first question serves several functions. The explicit
function is to find out if the President's idea of a clemency program and
the public's idea(s) coincide. Option (d) seems best representative of
the DoJ and DoD programs, while our program fall between (c) and (d).
On this point we may want to include the category which we represent.
Secondly, this question inherently poses the standard amnesty extremes.
The standard options of "Unconditional Amnesty" and "No Clemency"
present themselves as parametric gauges to previous polls. We have
seen marked changes in public opinion on this question in the last few
years; depending to some extent on efforts of the resistance movement
in this country and military activity in Viet Nam. Just after the President's
announcement, 5% of the polling sample favored "qualified amnesty".
The same poll indicates that 37% of the polling sample favored unconditional
amnesty; the highest recorded percentage for unconditional amnesty during
the Viet Nam era. I, therefore, believe it crucial that we sample the
American thought, if not to be included in the report alone, but to advise
the President on the general mood.
(2) Under President Ford's program, approximately
130, 000 draft evaders and military deserters were
eligible. Approximately 25, 000 applications were
received and are being individually reviewed to
determine the conditions, if any, under which clemency
is to be granted. Do you believe that the program should
be extended to allow the additional 105, 000 eligible
persons to apply?
(a) Yes, indefinitely.
vs. MY
(b) Yes, for a limited period of time.
(c) No, the President has been generous enough.
Goodell/Beck
p. 3
(d) No, the President has already been too generous.
(e) No opinion.
Comment: We have been dealing in recent days with just this policy
question, and we should be advised of the public thought. This
question, on which Bill and I seem to basically agree, does not lend
well to the final report. It would not be in keeping with our mission
of reporting to assess whether the President listened to public polls
on this policy matter, especially when we have initiated the question
ourselves. There may, and I expect there are, other uses for this
question in the report.
(3) A major purpose of President Ford's clemency
program is to heal the wounds of the Viet Nam era.
Do you believe that the clemency program can is
help achieve that goal?
(a) Yes.
Vs. Mx #2
(b) Yes, but only in part.
(c) No, the clemency program has had little effect.
(d) No, the clemency program has needlessly preserved
the wounds.
(e) No, the clemency program has aggravated the
wounds.
(f) No opinion.
Comment: I believe we need such an evaluative question as this, but
also feel it necessary to guard against presenting implicit value biases
withi n the question. You will note that this question is a modification of
Bill's question Number 2.
Finally, I would like to submit that any questions we
might prepare are subject to methodological constraints which we may
not be aware of. I would reiterate the need to submit tentative questions
and ask the professional advice of the Gallup organization before closing
the issue.
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
July 12, 1975
MEMORANDUM
is
FORD
To: Jim Poole
SERALD
From: Charlene Geraci
C6
Subject: Number Assignments of Packets
Please find below a list of the numbers I have assigned to all
the packets we have on file of Full Board Cases and Special Panel
Cases. In the future, all packets leaving this office will have their
assigned number in the upper right-hand corner. We will keep a master
list of these numbers and all future numbers on file for ready
reference.
Full Board Cases
Date
#1
1-47
5-30-75
#2
1-13
6-05-75
#3
1-135
6-17-75 & 6-18-75
#4
1-73
6-23-75
#5
1-75
6-25-75
#6
21-70
7-02-75
#7
1-35
(date not assigned yet)
Special Panel Cases
#1
1-58
5-30-75
#2
1-50
(date not assigned yet)
#3
1-50
(date not assigned yet)
#4
1-25
(date not assigned yet)
#5
1-25
(date not assigned yet)
Goodell
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
July 28, 1975
MEMORANDUM
TO
: : Distribution List B
BERALD FORD LIBRAN,
FROM
:
John Foote
Associate General Counsel
SUBJECT: Preparation of Remaining Cases and Deadlines for Same
It is no secret that we are fast approaching the end of the
Clemency Program. September 15 will see us virtually non-existent
as an organization. But there is much to be accomplished between
now and then.
To achieve our final goal, we must meet interim goals based upon
the following facts that constitute the world as we can see it
today.
1. There are but 35 regular working days until September 15, and only
10 regular working days before the 8th of August.
2. There are some 2000 plus cases that have not yet entered the system.
These have been "uncovered" by Russ Deane and Bill Gallo in their
recent audit of the files, and include the cases which are yet on
regular order from St. Louis, the cases for which there are no files
extant, and the cases in which files are on loan to other agencies
and have not yet been turned over to us--and may never be.
3. Cases must wait 30 days after Board decision to permit them to
ripen, and Strauss to do his analysis of Board decision-making.
This puts a deadline for presentation to the Board of approximately
15 August on our heads, SO that the last of the cases can be on
warrants to the President by September 15. (This has some leeway,
since there will be a possible carry-over staff somewhere in the
bowels of DOJ or DOD after September 15--but it will consist of
approximately 15 people. There is very little excess that can
remain.)
4. The strength of the case writing teams has been reduced, to
meet the demands of the administrative difficulties faced, and to
reflect overall reduced production requirements.
These facts of life have led Larry to set the following two goals which
we must strive to meet in order to complete our entire task.
page 2
First, by August 1, we must have pushed through the system all of the
"routine" cases possible. They must be in draft and to QC. By routine,
we here mean those cases on which files are extant, and on which summaries
can be written up, including those on which there is enough information
to write the major part of the summary, but which must be marked "incomplete"
to indicate that there is something missing.
Second, by August 8, we must have put all remaining cases into the system.
There will be some on which nothing can be done, but more on that below.
The above means that we will have to psychologically and physically get
ourselves ready for another crunch period lasting 10 or SO regular working
days. We have faced and met such crises before, and there is no reason
to believe that it will not be SO again. We must return to the highest
pitch production levels of 5+ per attorney per week. This will not be
easy given the nature of same of the remaining cases, but every effort
must be made.
AUGUST 1 DEADLINE
TO achieve this deadline, we must simply continue to march. We must push
production up once again, and put to work all available resources that are
not needed in administrative tasks.
Summaries that cannot be completed should be marked "incomplete."
The Board will be told what we are doing, and no one should suffer because
they have to present a written addendum, or have to amend their summaries
orally at presentation.
Each team should prepare, by August 1, a written report for Larry Baskir
and Bob Knisely of what cases remain in the teams as of that date,
and what the reasons for their SO remaining are. We feel that this
will provide you with a control device, and needed information for us.
With the "hard" cases yet before us, there will be a completely natural
tendency to put off routine cases with difficult aspects until it is
too late to meet the August 1 deadline for them. We want to clear as
many of these routine cases as humanly possible by that date, and this
should help up spot any trouble areas.
AUGUST 8 DEADLINE
The above procedure should enable us to clear a majority of the remaining
cases from the case writing system.
However, past August 1 there will be some cases yet to be dealt with.
Hopefully, these will lie principally in two categories: (1) those where
same information has been located, either from extant files or from file
reconstruction efforts, but which the attorney believes cannot be presented
to the Board because the information that is available is inadequate, and
(2) those on which no information can be found.
page 3
Needless to say, in attempting to deal with these remaining cases, some
will turn out to be no jurisdiction cases, and some to be cases in which
evidence of their having beendisposed of by the Board is in the file, but
which have slipped by the file audit to the teams (hopefully a small
number.) The rest will require some processing.
We must make an attempt on all the "hard" cases to reconstruct enough
information to enable us to write summaries. Each team has two persons
who have been involved in this file reconstruction effort with Russ
Deane. We recommend strongly that you have these people brief your
entire team on the techniques employed to develop information. From
this, we can write a substantial number of summaries.
By August 8, the team leaders should have developed a good grip
on cases in each of the above two categories. If a case is in category
(1), he should review it with the case attorney, and they should decide
whether the case can be presented or not. If not, then the cases, in
toto should be taken to Bob Knisely's office by that date. If a case
is in category (2), that is, all efforts to develop information have
proved fruitless, it should be forwarded directly to Bob by that date.
Both of these groups will be reviewed there and presented to the Board
for its determination as to how they should be resolved.
The teams have already begun to receive the remaining cases. Some 874
substantially complete records were distributed on Friday. However,
today and in the next few days the records you will recieve consist of
largely incomplete files, as mentioned above. In most cases, not only
the trial records, but the military service records are missing as well.
There are several reasons for distributing these cases now, foremost
among them being the time deadlines set forth here.
You will also notice that records have been ordered in most of these
cases, but have not been received. We must assume that the records
in these cases have been lost, and proceed accordingly. In the next
few weeks, possibly before presentation of cases before the Board, the
records may be received. In that situation the summaries can be revised.
Otherwise we must consult alternative sources of information, as directed
in other sections of this memorandum.
We will, of course, continue to search for those records that may be
obtained, but at this late date, we cannot afford to hold up summary
production of cases which can be reconstructed in the hope that records
arrive in time.
Each of the Team Leaders has been given most of the information
contained in this memo already. This is just confirming in writing
the outlines of the plan we perceive will bring us to the end in
same successful style. We are all aware of the difficulty of the task,
page 4
but it is not much different from other such tasks that we have faced
and defeated before this. Concentrated effort and control over the
location and disposition of the remaining cases will be the key.
As always in this process, ultimate accomplishment of the goal is
in your hands. We appreciate the effort and skill with which you have
done your work, and are confident that this will fall before you as have
all previous obstacles.
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500'
July 28, 1975
MEMORANDUM
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
TO: Whom It May Concern
FROM: Docketing
SUBJECT: Status of Full Board and Special Panel Packets
As of July 18, 1975, the following packets have been
compiled for Full Board Cases and Special Panel Cases.
FULL BOARD CASES
Date
#1
1-47
5-30-75
#2
1-13
6-7-75
#3
1-135
6-17& 6-18-75
#4
1-73
6-23-75
#5
1-75
6-25-75
#6
21-70
7-02-75
#7
1-35
(compiled 7-3-75)
#8
1-25
(compiled 7-15-75)
#9
1-25
(compiled 7-16-75)
#10
1-25
(compiled 7-18-75)
#11
1-25
(compiled 7-23-75)
#12
1-25
(compiled 7-25-75)
#13
1-25
(compiled 7-25-75)
SPECIAL PANEL CASES
DATE
#1
1-58
5-30-75
#2
1-50
(compiled 7-1-75)
#3
1-50
(compiled 7-2-75)
#4
1-25
(compiled 7-2-75)
#5
1-25
(compiled 7-16-75)
#6
1-25
(compiled 7-16-75)
#7
1-25
In our shop we have 7 Full Board cases and 15
Special Panel cases awaiting packeting. On Thursday, July 21,
we will receive 49 more Full Board cases and 32 more
Special Panel Cases.
NOTE: Full Board packets 7-13 have not been assigned
to a Full Board meeting and al in all Special Panel cases
have not been presented to a panel.