Document: 414 U.S. 31 94 S.Ct. 196 38 L.Ed.2d 190 Christopher Joseph MUSSERv.UNITED STATES. Robert Haines WALDRON v. UNITED Nos. 72—1733, 72—6748. Nov. 12, 1973. Rehearing Denied Jan. 7 and 14, 1974. See —- —-, 884, 901. PER CURIAM. 1 The petitioners in these cases were each convicted for refusing to submit induction into the Armed Forces, 50 U.S.C. App. § 462(a), seeks review of judgment affirming his conviction upon sole ground that order report was invalid failure local board reopen classification pursuant a request conscientious objector classification, see Mulloy United States, 398 410, 418, 90 1766, 1772, 26 362 (1970). 2 In No. petitioner Musser received an induction, issued by on September 15, 1970. On 21, 1970, he requested Selective Service System Form 150, special form those seeking classification. filled out form, indicating response questions posed conscientiously opposed participation war any reason religious training belief, claiming exemption from combatant noncombatant service 456(j). 29, reviewed Musser's application. minutes meeting indicate opinion members board, claim 'lack(ed) sincerity' '(had to) induction.' same day sent letter stating application had been reviewed, 'hereby advised (that board) did not specifically find there has change status resulting circumstances over which you no control,' Regulation 1625.2, 32 CFR 1625.2,1 would therefore be reopened.2 subsequently continuing duty fact ordered January 19, 1971. date appeared at center but refused induction. For this refusal jurywaived trial sentenced two years' imprisonment. Court Appeals affirmed, 478 F.2d 1068 (CA9 1973). 3 72—6748, Waldron was, December 30, 1968, mailed February 5, 1969. Shortly thereafter, requested, received, completed SSS opposition requesting 24, 1969, notified him it 'found grounds reopening your classification.' Subsequently, 28, State Director Waldron's file recommended postponed 1632.2, given 'courtesy interview' then-current Local Board Memorandum 41. thereupon being until granted interview Feburary 6, following interview, found 'no after you(r) interviewed' 19. He arranged further postpone March 27, able another city where then living, thereafter tried valid 474 (CA7 4 Ehlert 402 99, 91 1319, 28 625 (1971), operating under laws regulations substantially as involved here, must registrant's made issuance based assertion objection 'crystallized' report. reasoned '(a) regulation explicitly providing could considered unless filed before mailing notice . perfectly valid' reasonable timeliness rule insure all possible claims presented prior its determination registrant is subject Id., 101—102, S.Ct., 1321—1322. also concluded, however, 'those whose views are late crystallizing' cannot 'be deprived full fair opportunity present merits their consideration substantive criteria' govern crystallizing notices. 103, 1323. Such opportunity, found, existed in-service Services procedures hearing evaluating claims. Under such system, 'intolerable' situation man's land' post-notice CO heard boards because rules, Army finding inductee waived right avoided: directed boards, while only Forces 104 n. 7, 5 regulations, unambiguously create left open possibility reopened if 'specifically finds control.' 1625.2. Prior Ehlert, courts appeals divided question whether crystallization qualified change. U.S., 101 3, 1321. we avoided 'theological' argument whether, matter law, late-crystallizing 'the Rather, held view consistent administrative interpretation Government changes envisaged 1625.2 limited 'objectively identifiable' 'extraneous' circumstances,3 adopted. 105, 6 Finally, conditions validity met practice.' After reviewing Department Defense Directives, General Counsel Army, determined receive have personnel. 106—107, 1323—1324. make overlapping arguments attempting avoid precedent. First, relying decisions opinions First Third Circuits,4 they contend refusals classifications read 'denial' thus bar review. particular, point 3.b(2) 635—20, cited or discussed opinion, states inservice treatment will favorably when '(b)ased solely claimed denied (Emphasis added.) language Circuit, 'if draft board's reasonless (a registrant) might well placed mutual buck-passing neither nor consider merits.' States Alioto, 469 722, 727 (1972). claim, deal with problem case stated denying Ehlert's merits, reach since showing "change control." 100, Thus, argue, ambiguity reopen, taken together current raises specter kind land intolerable Ehlert. 8 misconstrue reasoning effect our holding adopting Government's circumstance 'had hold merely permitted refuse situation,5 without power circumstances. mandatory 'shall reopened' proviso met, requires less. If empowered follows similarly ruling claims, can reopening, concomitant rights personal appearance appeal adverse decision, 2, supra. From event mere signify more than recognition lack do so; does bear significance claim. 9 argue action took decision so viewed Forces.6 simple answer contention what boards' apparent motivations petitioners' may been, simply expressed unexpressed indication deemed denial merits. 10 As turn finally 3.b(2), supra, bars 'claimed While critical word 'denied' arguably applied report, now clear posture. We note written respect then-pending Shomock printed case, 462 338, 345 17 (CA3 1972), indicated raise hearing.7 one way manifests sincerity Musser, expresses other conclusion concerning expressions request. 11 It Courts correctly ruled orders valid. motion leave proceed forma pauperis petitions certiorari granted, judgments affirmed. 12 Affirmed. 13 Mr. Justice BRENNAN MARSHALL grant set oral argument. 14 DOUGLAS, dissenting. 15 decided place hurdles first raised issued. allowing termed 'timeliness' assumed military 107, 1324. '(I)f should arise available prima facie established criteria, wholly different presented.' Ibid. I dissented arguing arising control, civilian rather adjudication preferred. 108, 1325. But apart my own question, affirmed today's per curiam highly questionable, appear 'wholly case.' 16 Neither board. purported look explicit beliefs 'sincere'—a judge below basis. made, yet interviewed course file. untimely. Thus either implicitly some evaluation made. late, afforded normal rights.1 result justified de novo military. challenging assurances consideration, provides '(r)equests discharge entering (2) (b)ased issue, then, actions constitute, Army's view, barring Army. face surely allow construction. perhaps claims' untimely, did. here this, indeed clearly reject These petitioner's With best ambiguous, know 18 majority emphasizes authority That is, course, law. effectively forecloses registrants procedural within afford, guarantee afford depend facts.2 19 Indeed, even assume superficially discovering sub silentio weight accorded proceedings boards. Yet deserving whatsoever foreclosed ordinarily allowed. 20 summarily today conflict squarely, Solicitor concedes, Second, Circuits. 722 (CA1 1972); Jerrold, 480 1293 1973); Cotton, 346 F.Supp. 691 (SDNY Usdin, S.S.L.R. 3039 (EDNY Shomock, 338 Ziskowski, 465 Folino, 72—1974, CA3 June At minimum briefing. time pertinent part follows: 'The anew accompanied information presenting facts classified, which, true, justify classification; provided shall Order Report Induction (SSS 252) Civilian Work Statement Employer 153) used Regulations term 'reopen' signifies fresh belongs. 1625.11, 1625.11. When automatically 1625.13, though 'reclassified' formerly put. 414—415, 1770, examples sort nonvolitional intended allow, consistently cited, mentioned, injury registrant, death family making surviving son. 104, 1972). Although permissive 'may' prerequisites new requirements met. 415—416, 1770—1771. both cases, primarily Miller 388 973 1967), considering effected 'de facto reopening' clothed reopening. subsequent Aufdenspring, 439 1971), Director, acting since-rescinded 1625.3, independently registrants' circumventing contained requests registrants. procedurally impermissible, substance reclassify advantages inherent reclassification, Those distinguished cases. Petitioner reclassification request, fully applied. postponement accordance court Director's 1632.2 exercise 1625.3 cause reopening; further, noted suggestion trigger communication writing, required. Counsel's 'If appellant entered May 1969 actually entitled asserted-views crystallized receipt notice, personnel responsible administering members, policy claim.' F.2d, 345. interpreted reported policies Shomock's appears significant inductions reopens file, appeal. Since files reopened, rights. Compare 1625.4 1625.13. Unlike hearing. refers lodged distinguish between latter assurance confused

Category: 2