Case Name: Stephen Michael LAMBERT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. The Honorable Paul BROWN, Secretary of the Air Force of the United States of America, Col. Clare T. Ireland, Jr., USAF, Commanding Officer, 62nd MAW, Lt. Col. Robert G. Denson, USAF, Commanding Officer, 621 OMS, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1970-11-12
Citations: 435 F.2d 148
Docket Number: No. 24594
Parties: Stephen Michael LAMBERT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. The Honorable Paul BROWN, Secretary of the Air Force of the United States of America, Col. Clare T. Ireland, Jr., USAF, Commanding Officer, 62nd MAW, Lt. Col. Robert G. Denson, USAF, Commanding Officer, 621 OMS, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 435
Pages: 148–148

Head Matter:
Stephen Michael LAMBERT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. The Honorable Paul BROWN, Secretary of the Air Force of the United States of America, Col. Clare T. Ireland, Jr., USAF, Commanding Officer, 62nd MAW, Lt. Col. Robert G. Denson, USAF, Commanding Officer, 621 OMS, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 24594.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Nov. 12, 1970.
Michael H. Rosen, Daniel H. Smith, Seattle, Wash, for appellant.
Stan Pitkin, U. S. Atty, Tacoma, Wash, for appellees.
Before HAMLEY and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and GOODWIN, District Judge.
Hon. Alfred T. Goodwin, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Stephen Michael Lambert appeals the dismissal by the district court of his petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking discharge from the United States Air Force as a conscientious objector.
Since noting this appeal, it now appears that appellant has been given a General Discharge from the Air Force and is therefore no longer in the custody of appellees. We are informed that this discharge carries no continuing obligation by way of reserve duty or otherwise and that appellant's position regarding veteran's benefits is substantially the same as it would have been had he been granted an Honorable Discharge. Indeed, his position in this regard is markedly better than it would have been had he been granted the discharge he sought as a conscientious objector. See 38 U.S. C. § 3103.
Since we know of no adverse collateral consequences of this discharge, cf. Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 1556, 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968), it is hereby ordered that this appeal be dismissed as moot.