This guy should get restitution beyond what they offered, and it's terrible they unanimously decided they'd rather not. If the best available evidence was enough to get him out it should be enough to be compensated for.
The new evidence was enough to get a vacation of his sentence and a new trial, which the prosecutor decided not to pursue. That's not a finding of innocence.
The CNN story does not give the full context and judging by the evidence I would have voted the same way as the parole board.
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=3457
The rape victim identified two men who she knew from the neighborhood. McKinney and Yancy. Yancy's DNA was found on the bed sheets. The police found them both together at Yancy's house and they both lied to give each other alibi's. Iwitness identification of somone known to the victim is pretty reliable unless you think she was straight lying.
If this was a case with one perpetrator and different DNA was found at the scene then we would have a clear miscarrage of justice. In this case DNA was found of one of the men the victim identified, just because McKinney's DNA also didn't happen make it on the sheets doesnt mean he wasnt at the scene.