Document: 398 U.S. 410 90 S.Ct. 1766 26 L.Ed.2d 362 Joseph Thomas MULLOY, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 655. Argued April 20, 1970. Decided June 15, Robert Allen Sedler, Lexington, Ky., for petitioner. J. Connolly, Washington, D.C., respondent. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Following a jury trial in United States District Court Western Kentucky, petitioner was convicted refusing to submit induction into Armed Forces violation § 12(a) Military Selective Service Act 1967, 62 Stat. 622, as amended, 50 U.S.C. App. 462(a) (1964 ed., Supp. IV). He sentenced five years' imprisonment and fined $10,000, his conviction affirmed by Appeals Sixth Circuit. 412 F.2d 421. We granted certiorari, 396 1036, 680, 24 consider petitioner's contention, raised both court Appeals, that order report invalid because local board had refused reopen I—A classification following application I—O conscientious objector. The argument is it an abuse discretion reject objector claim without reopening classification, so doing deprive him right administrative appeal. 2 * On October 17, petitioner, who then 23 years old classified (available military service), wrote Board '(a)fter much, much thinking, seeking, questioning my own religious upbringing political experience I have concluded am therefore opposed war any form.' In response this letter clerk sent Special Form Conscientious Objectors (SSS) 150), which he promptly completed returned.1 3 stated form conscientiously reason training belief participation form. said believed Supreme Being involved duties superior those arising from human relation; taught against God's law kill; member armed services would be obliged kill or indirectly assist killing. form's inquiry how, when, what source received acquired upon objection based, gave detailed answer, explaining been born Catholic; at one point life thought become priest; gone through crisis college left church, but returned greatly influenced writings Merton, preached nonviolence. learned work with antipoverty organization Appalachia need love understanding among people, futility violence. early training, coupled adult experience, particularly worker Appalachian poor, brought present position 4 also specific answers other questions asked, such when where given public expression views expressed basis claim, actions behavior most conspicuously demonstrated consistency depth convictions. Five people were well acquainted board, attesting sincerity beliefs. One Catholic priest, honesty integrity felt service do violence conscience. Other letters worked spoke nonviolence confirmed accuracy incidents referred manifestations brother while vehemently disagreed unwillingness bear arms country, still sincere 5 request discuss decided grant personal appearance. This interview took place on November 9 lasted about 10 15 minutes. It attended three four members. re sume prepared 'advised claiming C.O. did not until later realize importance now believing did,' 'felt interrupt there no else take place.' minute entry file indicated all members information form, accompanying letters, together interview, warrant classification. However, formal vote taken January 11, 1968, time indicated, again noted reopening' After receiving notification board's action, 21 seeking appeal its failure reclassify I—O. considered case. replied extended matter courtesy, reopened same day ordered February 23, 1968. reported, induction. refusal resulted criminal charge led under II 6 Under regulations 'local may anew registrant (if presented with) facts which, if true, justify change registrant's *.' 32 CFR 1625.22 Even denies requested reclassification, crucial difference between action simple all. For once reopens, required 'consider new has (and to) classify manner never before classified.' 1625.11. A thus respects original and, even placed before, '(e)ach (following reopening) shall followed appearance case classification.' 1625.13. Where, however, are 'such facts, *,' 1625.4, reopen, Thus, whether substance, comes heard personally While here denied opportunity rejection claim. Therefore, improper, wrongly deprived essential procedural right, invalid. III 7 Though language 1625.2 permissive, does follow arbitrarily refuse differing somewhat their formulation precisely just showing must made courts appeals virtually Federal Circuits held set out establish prima facie determine entitled classification.3 Not these held, discretion, we agree. 8 Where makes non-frivolous allegations previously that, sufficient regulation statute granting unless truth conclusively refuted reliable file. See v. Burlich, 257 F.Supp. 906, 911. absence refutation can except evaluative determination adverse merits. And sort cannot affording chance Because narrowly limited scope judicial review available registrant,4 full indispensable fair operation System.5 reclassification made, simply file.6 Yet that. clear SSS 150 constituted met statutory standard (50 456(j) IV)), Government concedes much. suggests, might undercut himself—by statements courtesy demeanor convinced telling truth. There is, scant evidence record based grounds. And, event, grounds predicated consequent 11 say justified classification; could properly occur only after first reopened. protections attending making purportedly declining classification.7 12 Since nonfrivolous, factual file, depriving accordingly invalid, reversed. 13 ordered. 14 Reversed. BLACKMUN part consideration decision At outstanding induction, though least two orders subsequently canceled various reasons relevant here. Prior I-A II-S student deferment II-A occupational deferment. If sought mailed registrant, provide 'shall specifically finds status resulting circumstances over control.' 1625.2. Gearey, 379 915, 922 n. (C.A.2d Cir. 1967), adopting enunciated 911 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1966): Turner, 421 1251 (C.A.3d 1970); Grier, 415 1098 (C.A.4th 1969); Robertson States, 404, 1141 (C.A.5th 1968), rev'd en banc grounds, 417 440 (1969); Townsend Zimmerman, 237 376 (C.A.6th 1956); Freeman, 388 246 (C.A.7th 1967); Davis 89 (C.A.8th Miller 973 (C.A.9th Fore 395 548, 554 (C.A.10th 1968). See, e.g., Clark Gabriel, 393 256, 424, 418. 246; 1251; Olvera Cir., 223 880 1955); see Simmons 348 397, 75 99 L.Ed. 453. practical matter, narrow status. 'A claimant turn habeas corpus remedy (to challenge legality classification) prevents accepting circumstances. As result submit. proceeding, proceeding reviewing draft defense tested 'basis fact' formula. almost inevitable, since Board's inference will always something support lack sincerity.' 246, 248—249 1967). argues whenever able postpone indefinitely administration System undermined. But plainly incredible, where, already passed on, itself applicant's Moreover, false subject severe penalties.

Category: 2