Opinion ID: 283383
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The prohibition against his being represented by counsel. 32 C.F.R. 1624.1.

Text: 7 b. The prohibition against his presenting supporting witnesses, except as allowed by the board in its discretion. 32 C.F.R. 1624.1. 8 c. The unlimited right of the board to restrict the time and form of the registrant's appearance. 32 C.F.R. 1624.1. 9 Appellant says that the critical importance of the appearance and the finality of the administrative classification, as combined with the attendant criminal enforcement penalties, make such curtailment of a registrant's rights violative of due process. 10 2. Due process of law was violated by the procedures governing appellant's administrative appeal. Appellant complains particularly about the following: 11 a. The denial of an opportunity for the appellant to appear, either personally or by counsel, before the appeal board. 32 C.F.R. 1626.24. 12 b. The consideration given to the F.B.I. report composed of hearsay evidence from unidentified informants (submitted with the Justice Department recommendation). 32 C.F.R. 1626.24. 13 3. Appellant's right to trial by jury was abridged by the refusal of the trial court to submit to the jury disputed issues of fact underlying the administrative handling of appellant's case. See Tamblyn v. United States, 216 F.2d 345 (5th Cir. 1954). 14 Appellant's first two objections, denial of the right to have counsel and to present supporting witnesses, are answered by the following passage from Merritt v. United States, 5 Cir. 1968, 401 F.2d 768 [October 15, 1968]: 15 Appellant's further assertion that his constitutional rights have been violated because of the absence of provisions in the Selective Service Act and the Regulations for representation by counsel before the local board for compulsory process, and for the confrontation of witnesses against him, is without merit. The procedure under the draft law and classification by a local board is in no way penal, nor is it a criminal trial with the right to be represented by counsel, and to call, ex- amine and cross-examine witnesses. United States v. Capson, 10 Cir. 1965, 347 F.2d 959, 962; Imboden v. United States, 6 Cir. 1952, 194 F.2d 508; 513, cert. denied, 343 U.S. 957, 72 S.Ct. 1052, 96 L.Ed. 1357. (emphasis added). 16 In claiming that due process was denied to appellant by The unlimited right of the local board to restrict the time and form of the registrant's appearance appellant cites 32 C.F.R. section 1624.1 but clearly also has in mind section 1624.2, which gives the board members discretion to impose such limitations upon the time which the registrant may have for his appearance as they deem necessary. 17 Appellant has not made it to appear that the board abused its discretion so as to deny him a fair hearing, and we find no constitutional defect on the face of these regulations. 18 We have carefully considered all of the remaining specific due process objections and likewise find them all to lack merit. 19 The judgment appealed from is affirmed.