UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
ROGER TALBOT ALVARADO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the local board's consideration of the conscientious objector form did not constitute a reopening of the classification, and a prima facie showing does not mandate reopening.
Alvarado was ordered for induction and requested a conscientious objector form. The local board considered the form but determined reopening was not r…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Reopening Classification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Alvarado appeals his conviction for refusing induction into the armed forces in violation of 50 U.S.C. App. § 462. We affirm.
On April 21, 1967, Alvarado was mailed an order to report for induction on May 10, 1967. Thereafter, on April 27 he requested a copy of Selective Service Form 150 in order to claim a 1-0 deferment as a conscientious objector. The local board supplied the form, considered it upon return and concluded that re-opening was not required.
(1) Alvarado’s contention that the local board’s consideration of his request amounted to re-opening under Miller v. United States, 388 F. 2d 973 (9th Cir. 1967) is without merit since the local board must give some consideration to his showing before it can determine whether it amounts to “circumstances beyond his control.” 32 C.F.R. § 1625.2. See United States v. Price, 427 F. 2d 162, 163 (9th Cir. 1970); United States v. Bowen, 423 F. 2d 266, 267 (9th Cir. 1969).
(2) His claim that the local board was required to re-open because he made a prima facie showing is foreclosed by Ehlert v. United States, 402 U.S. 99, 91 S.Ct. 1319, 28 L.Ed.2d 625 (1971).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dick Andrew GEE v. United States, 452 F.2d 849 (5th Cir. 1971)
Authorities Cited
- Ehlert v. United States, 402 U.S. 99 (U.S. 1971)
- Miller v. United States, 388 F.2d 973 (9th Cir. 1967)
- United States v. Faxon David Clayton Bowen, Jr., 423 F.2d 266 (9th Cir. 1969)
- United States v. Earnest J. Price, 427 F.2d 162 (9th Cir. 1970)