Case ID: f2d_456/html/0233-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James J. HOWE, Jr., Appellee-Petitioner, v. Melvin R. LAIRD, Secretary of Defense, et al., Appellants-Respondents.
    No. 71-3484
    Summary Calendar.
    
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 9, 1972.
    William S. Sessions, U. S. Atty., Charles B. Tennison, San Antonio, Tex., for appellants-respondents.
    Leonard J. Schwartz, Patrick D. Burke, San Antonio, Tex., Rigely, Schwartz, Fa-gan & Burke, Inc., San Antonio, Tex., for appellee-petitioner.
    Before BELL, DYER and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
    
      
        Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409.
    
   PER CURIAM.

The district court concluded that there was no basis in fact for the denial by the Army of conscientious objector status to appellee. We agree. Helwick v. Laird, 5 Cir., 1971, 438 F.2d 959; Kessler v. United States, 5 Cir., 1969, 406 F.2d 151.

The finding of the district court that appellee’s statement in support of his application for discharge, if sincere, made out a prima facie ease, is not disputed. The Army was of the view that appellee lacked the depth of conviction required to qualify for discharge as a conscientious objector. This result rested on the disbelief of appellee by the Army officials who interviewed him. We are unable to find any “. . . affirmative evidence to support the rejection . . .” nor is there anything in the record which “. . substantially blurs the picture painted by [appellee] and thus casts doubt on his sincerity . . . ” Kessler v. United States, supra, 406 F.2d at 156.

Affirmed.