On December 10, 1972, the position of Government Appeal Agent and Assistant Government Appeal Agent were terminated under the regulations promulgating the new law. This leaves only the Advisors to Registrants to help registrants to cope with an increasingly complex law. The intent of eliminating the Government Appeal Agent is clearly evident when one considers the number of Government Appeal Agents and Assistants who served, as opposed to the number of Advisors to Registrants left (see enclosure). Also, there is no stipulation in the regulations that the Advisor to Registrants should, whenever possible, be an attorney. To expect a layman to move into an uncompensated position and understand an extremely complex law is presumptuous. The situation is further complicated by other factors. A letter dated June 2, 1971, Mr. Kenneth J. Coffey, National Headquarters Public Information Officer, stated: "The training given to Government Appeal Agents, Associate Government Appeal Agents, Advisors to Registrants, Local Board Members and other personnel varies from state to state. There is no national uniform training for these people, but rather it is left up to the discretion of each state director to determine what he feels is appropriate." If the implementation of the selective service law is to be "fair and just," as Congress intended, all men must have equal access to accurate information. We fail to understand how this could possibly be the case when the training of the above-mentioned personnel is different from state to state. This is compounded by the significant variations in the number of Advisors to Registrants appointed in each state, as shown on the attached table (see enclosure, letter from K. Coffey, June 2, 1971, p.2). A continuing refusal to even try to develop uniformity in the dissemination of information is quite evident. On June 16, 1971, a letter was sent to National Headquarters proposing the creation of two new positions, those of Coordinators of Advisors to Registrants. The duties of these officials, as outlined in the proposal, included training the Advisors to Registrants and helping the Advisors maintain current knowledge of the law. Among the potential goals described were the mitigation, as much as possible, of the conditions which led men to seek help from irresponsible individuals and groups and the increase of the chances that men would make decisions with which they would be satisfied later. The proposal was denied because, among other reasons, "the Director sees no reason to believe that further coordination at the level of National Headquarters would help the system" (letter of October 8, 1971 from Colonel Maxwell O. Jensen, Operations Division Deputy Manager, to Mr. Marc Mayerhoff). Selective Service was then asked if a need for such coordination was seen at the state level and replied negatively. The initial proposal consisted of a cover letter and a two-page outline and included a statement that a more detailed report was available upon request. Selective Service chose not to learn more about the proposal before rejecting it. Copies of the proposal and some of the subsequent correspondence are attached. Additionally, changes in the regulatory material governing the operation of the Selective Service System are not available to the general public when they go into effect; rather, they are usually distributed several months thereafter. For example, this office recieved its copy of Local Board Memorandum No. 121 (Issued June 25, 1971) from the U.S. Government Printing Office last week, over six months after it went into effect. It is necessary to spend large sums of money on such things as the Selective Service Law Reporter to obtain the information. A second example is something which happened yesterday to the UWM Assistant Military Service and Selective Service Counselor. In an attempt to obtain a copy of the Selective Service Registrants Processing Manual (SSRPM), which went into effect unannounced in mid-January, he called the Office of Public Information at National Headquarters and asked for Mr. Kenneth J. Coffey. After being advised that Mr. Coffey was unavailable, he spoke to another person in the office. In spite of the counselor's statement that it was very important that he receive a copy of the SSRPM as soon as possible, he was advised by Mr. Coffey's office that it was only "half-published" as yet and that he should wait a few weeks before ordering it from the Government Printing Office Eight weeks is the usual period between the ordering and delivery of materials from the Government Printing Office. Clearly, Selective Service does not provide the information men need in order to "have notice of the requirements" of the law, as is prescribed under section 1641.1 of the regulations. On July 24, 1970, during his appearance before the Subcommittee on the Draft of the House Armed Services Committee, Dr. Curtis W. Tarr indicated that he was aware of this problem by saying, in part: "There is another reason for making this information available, and that relates back to the point I made about draft counseling. There is more of this going on all the time, and it is an honest attempt by conscientious people to help young persons make reasonable choices. The more information we provide that is official, the better opportunity we provide for people who are trying to work creatively with young people. And the more we cut off the supply of valid information, the more we push them into the hands of those who will supply only the information that is appropriate to their cause." ("Review of the Administration and Operation of the Selective Service Law: Hearings by the Special Subcommittee on the Draft of the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Ninety-First Congress, Second Session," [Washington, D.C.: 1970], p. 12556). Just before that, Dr. Tarr stated, "It seemed to me that when I first came into this office that there was no Government agency that did such a poor job of educating its clientele as did Selective Service." (Ibid., p. 12553) Nineteen months have passed since Dr. Tarr made those statements. His pubicly stated goal of increasing the amount of information coming from Selective Service has not been met. We feel that this appendix points out sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the goal has never been actively sought. All that has happened is the elimination of the Government Appeal Agent, the release of a few totally inadequate pamphlets, and the continuation, if not the increase, of Selective Service's disregard of its obligation to supply registrants accurate information about their rights and responsibilities under the law. GOVERNMENT APPEAL AGENTS AND ADVISORS TO REGISTRANTS JUNE 1971-Continued **Source: Statistical Section Management Information and Statistics Office, National Headquarters, Selective Service System, "Registration and Classification of Selective Service Registrants," (Washington, D.C.: December 1970). Source: Dr. Curtis W. Tarr, "Semiannual Report of the Director of Selective Service for the period January 1 to June 30, 1970 to the Congress of the United States," (Washington, D.C.: October 15, 1970). ****Source: Individual State Headquarters (April 21 to May 25, 1971). n.g. figure not given by State Headquarters. n.u. figure given, but not usable. † Several State Headquarters indicated that they considered local board members or clerks to be Advisors to Registrants Mr. MARC MAYERHOFF, Milwaukee, Wis. STATE HEADQUARTERS, SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM, Raleigh, N.C., April 28, 1971. DEAR MR. MAYERHOFF: This will acknowledge your letter of April 19, 1971, wherein you requested information as to the number of Government Appeal Agents, Associate Government Appeal Agents and Advisors to Registrants in the State of North Carolina. It is a pleasure to inform you that we have 99 Government Appeal Agents, 3 Associate Government Appeal Agents, and all of our local board clerks serve as Advisors to Registrants. I trust this is the information you are seeking. WILLIAM H. MCCACHREN, State Director. Mr. MARC MAYERHOFF, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS, SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM, DEAR MR. MAYERHOFF: This is in response to your letter of May 19, 1971 relative to advisors to registrants in the State of Minnesota. We have been advised by State Headquarters, Selective Service System for Minnesota that their letter of 22 April 1971, to you may have been misleading. There was no intention to imply that local board members were actually ap pointed in a dual capacity to serve as advisors to registrants as well as board members. There was no intention to imply that local board members were seeking to function as advisors to registrants. In the normal course of their duties local board members are frequently asked for advice pertaining to various selective service procedures and in such instances they are willing to provide information. Sincerely, WALTER H. MORSE, General Counsel Mr. MARC MAYERHOFF, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS, SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM, DEAR MR. MAYERHOFF: Thank you for your letters to the Office of Public Information. The figures for total living registrants include all people who are registered with the Selective Service System datinig back to World War II who are still alive. On page K-169 of "Registration and Classification of Selective Service Registrants," the V-A registrants are subtracted from the total living registrants to show the number of people under 26 plus those 26 to 35 whose liability is extended. The figure is not quite accurate because some men classified I-C and I-D may be over 26 and haven't yet been put into V-A. The relevant question about the First Priority Selection Group is how many men pass through it, not how many are in it at any one time. The problem is complicated by the fact that about half of the men ordered for pre-induction exams fail them. Since we do not examine high numbered registrants, there tend to be more of them in First Priority than there are low numbered men. To give an idea of the measurement problems, let us take the present First Priority Selection Group as an example. In January of this year there were about half a million in the group. By that time, most of the men with random sequence numbers up to 100 had been examined, so the pool was smaller by the men who failed the exams and were reclassified I-Y or IV-F. In the months after January, some men dropped out of school or dropped deferments and flowed into the pool. At the same time, others entered school and were made II-s, some were examined up to Random Sequence Number 150, and half of those were rejected, some enlisted or were inducted. As a result, at the end of March there were over half a million in the First Priority Selection Group, somewhat more than January even though 50,000 men had been inducted and more than that number enlisted. In April, the size of the pool dropped below half a million. In June, July and August however, the pool will grow as men graduate from school and are reclassified I-a. There may be up to half a million of these men, although some have already been examined and will be made I-Y or IV-F. The pool will then shrink slowly for the rest of the year. How many men are in the pool? About 150,000 may be inducted with num bers up to maybe 170 or so (this is not a prediction worth acting on). Considerably more than that number will have enlisted, either as real volunteers or through the pressure of the draft. There will probably be over 700.000 men in I-A with numbers not reached at the end of the year. Approximately two million men turn 19 each year. About as many leave school as enter it. Thus somewhat less than two million men will have to face the First Priority Group in one way or another, although there will never be anywhere near that many men in it at any one time. Men who are deferred are not in the First Priority Selection Group. When they lose a deferment, they return to whatever priority selection group they were in before their deferment, which in most cases was the first. The training given to Government Appeal Agents, Associate Government Appeal Agents. Advisors to Registrants, Local Board Members and other personnel varies from state to state. There is no national uniform training for these people, but rather it is left up to the discretion of each state director to determine what he feels is appropriate. Complaints may be filed with state headquarters if a civil service employee's work is considered unsatisfactory. We regret that this Headquarters does not have copies of the "Selective Service Forms Manual" available for public distribution. However, it will be made available through the Government Printing Office following a review of new Selective Service forms which reflect the many changes in Selective Serv ice processes. We cannot say at this time when the manual will become available to the public, although we expect it to be during this coming summer. In the meantime, if it is essential for you to have a copy of the present Forms Manual please let me know and we will xerox a copy for your use. We hope that this information will prove helpful and appreicate your interest in the Selective Service System. Sincerely, KENNETH J. COFFEY, Public Information Officer (For the Director). Enclosures. LETTER FROM JACK COLHOUN, TORONTO, CANADA (FEB. 8, 1972) DEAR SENATOR KENNEDY: I noticed a news item in the 8 Februray 1972 New York Times that your Senate sub-committee was planning to hold hearings "on Selective Service procedures and on the possibility of granting amnesty to draft evaders through administrative procedures" and that the committee would focus especially on the World War II arrangements under which amnesty procedures were developed through administrative action alone.'" As an editor of Amex magazine and the author of an article dealing solely with the 1947 Truman Amnesty, I would like to call your attention to my study and request that it be read at your committee hearings. Being a deserter, it is. of course, impossible for me to be there in person. I would like to call your attention to my findings that the 1947 amnesty was highly unjust, pardoning only about 9% of those considered for amnesty. Moreover, the 1947 amnesty seems to have been predicated upon an individual's socio-economic class standing rather than upon criteria of justice. Today social class seems to be a crucial element in the draft resister-deserter phenomenon. For the latter point see my open letter to Senator McGovern in Amex; also refer to the New York Times' editorial on amnesty of 2 January 1972: Social class is also an element. Most draft resisters and would-be concientious objectors are college educated middle-class youths. Deserters tend to be less well-educated and more apt to act on their direct military experience, rather than on an understanding of their abstract rights. That factor needs weight in deciding their cases. In regard to Selective Service procedures, kindly refer to an article published in the Sunday New York Times early this fall in the Week in Review Section in which you will find that one study of a Minnesota Selective Service Appeal Board achieved an average of 59 seconds per case regarding conscientious objection applications which had been turned down. A case-by-case adjudication for deserters would tend to reinforce the present situation. It is nearly impossible to obtain an in-service CO. A martial environment militates against this but also a strong factor is that most deserters would be as unlikely to convince a civilian board of their conscientious objection. In order to present a cogent argument for CO status, a thorough and discilpined mode of thought is essential and this, in most cases, comes from higher education. College education is a luxury of which most deserters have not been able to partake. Consequently, any procedure, like that of the 1947 Truman amnesty, which requires a systematic set of beliefs as a prerequisite of being pardoned will be a process of gross injustice. Furthermore, the only grounds which the 1947 amnesty considered acceptable for pardon were religious objection to war; social-philosophical-political objections to war were not acceptable criteria. Clearly, the Indochina War has proven that these latter considerations must be included in any amnesty. Thanking you in advance for your cooperation, I am, JACK COLHOUN. STATEMENT OF VIRGINIA COLLINS, NEW ORLEANS, LA. Amnesty is very necessary in this time of our history. As a result of the Vietnam conflict and the creation of mass hysteria by the few warmongers, the country is very much divided. Every American family has experienced some loss (imprionsment, exile, killed in action, etc.) in one way or another by this illegal war in Vietnam. In order to ensure that change which is inevitable in our time will be given some direction, it is incumbent upon this country to bring its citizenry together. Amnesty is a political and legal instrument that can do this without a doubt. There have been many recent articles concerning it, presenting arguments pro and con. but most of them have dealt primarily with the superficial, not the in-depth nature of the political and legal applications. Let's look at the definition for a moment. The root word of the term, amnesty, comes from the Greek (amnestia) meaning: to forget: to wipe the slate clean, unconditionally and completely. Thus, amnesia and amnesty result from a condition. The polarity of this country. war hysteria. repression of Black and political people, urban unrest, inner-city conflicts, framed and unlawful arrests, such as: Angela Davis, Walter Collins, the Panther Party, the Republic of New Af |