Evening star., 1944-03-09
Only Ten Lose Deferments
nReview of 76Coses Here
Five Placed in IA Were Granted
Delays by Arlington Board No.

Only 10 men of the first rs to have
their deferments reviewed by the
District Board OF Appeal lost their
deferments and will 60 into la as a
result Of the boards decisions, Dis
trict selective service headquarters
has announced.
In most Of the cases where local
boards were reversed, District
draft spokesman said, the record
showed no request for deferment
had been filed by the employer.
The rs cases reviewed were among
206 acted on by the appeal board
during the two weeks ended January
%. These are the first of thousands
OF cases which must be reviewed by
the District appeal board because
the men work in Washington, but
were deferred by draft boards out
side Washington.
Al but II of the cases involved
Government employees, who had
been given deferments before the
Puryear Committee OF the War
Manpower Commission began to
IuncClOn FeDruary !.
In acting on appeals from la
classificationS, its regular task, the
appeal board granted 81 appeals for
occupational deferment, Is appeals
for deferment as hardship cases and
2 appeals Of conscientious objectors.
The appeal board denied "A appeals
for occupational deferment, II ap-
peals Of registrants seeking defer
ment either because of their jobs
or hardship to dependents and 10
appeals on hardship grounds only.
Five From Arlington.
OF the 10 men who lost their de-
ferments on review, five were reg
istered with Arlington Draft Board
No. !. A spokesman for the board
said that in some cases it had given
occupational deferments to fathers
without a request from their en-
ployers. but in one case where the
appeal board had reversed it's de-
cislon because there was no request
from the employer, the local board
insisted that request was on file.
The registrant in that case was
Raymond George Fisher. 80, a pre-
Pearl Harbor father, who had been
deferred until April 80 as $4,000 a
year statistical analyst for the Mu-
nltlons Assignment Board. In de-
nylng his continued deferment, the
board recommended a 30-day stay
Of induction.
The others who lost their defer
ments were:
LOUIS Root Eastman, jr., 80. a
father employed at the Office of
strategic Services, who, according to
the appeal board, had started work
December Ia, l943, and had been
given a deferment until June, 1914
without Government request for
his deferment.
Murphy L, Barnes. 36, an Airing
Wn registrant, employed as senior
agricultural economist at the Agri-
culture Department. He also is a
father, deferred until April 80 with
out Government request. In his
case the appeal board also recon-
mended 30-day stay of induction
Frank Vincent Black, %. also an
Arlington registrant, employed as
an auditor for the Maritime Com
mission. He is a father, deferred
until April 80 without a Govern
ment request. The appeal board
recommended 30-day stay.
Government Request Claimed.
douglas Ensminger, "a, of Airing
ton. a father employed as senior
social scientist at the Agriculture
Department, deferred until April 30
His draft board said a Government,
deferment request had been flee
for him. The appeal board listed
no reason for reversing the draft
board in his case, but recommended
a 3O-day stay of induction.
William Grover Cook, 80, a ia.
ther registered with an Ellicott Cit,
tMd.) board, a machine operator
at the National Republic Publish.
ing Co. He had been deferred unit
June l3, 1914. The board gave nc
reason for the reversal.
William Emerson Edwards. IS g
father registered with a Cleveland
board. The appeal board said nc
request had been filed for his de.
Ierment as counsel of the Defense