Court Opinion

ID: 9457220
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:16:27.823668+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:16.337814
License: Public Domain

KILKENNY; Circuit Judge
(dissenting) :
I am convinced that appellee should have exhausted his administrative remedies pursuant to the provisions of Army *100Regulation 635-200.1 Here, we are faced with a post-induction problem, rather than the pre-induction affair which was before the court in Breen v. Selective Service Board, 396 U.S. 460, 90 S.Ct. 661, 24 L.Ed.2d 653 (1970), cited by the majority. Apparently, the exhaustion of remedies issue was not presented to the panel in Andre v. Resor, 443 F.2d 921 (9th Cir., June 11, 1971), another case cited by the majority. The record shows that the pregnancy occurred after the order to report for induction. The over-all legal philosophy employed in Ehlert v. United States, 402 U.S. 99, 91 S.Ct. 1319, 28 L.Ed.2d 625 (April 21, 1971), should be here applied. I would reverse.

. “b. An individual claiming erroneous induction because of denial of a procedural right, as provided by the Military Selective Service Act of 1967, may submit a request for release from custody and control of the Army. All requests for release will be forwarded to commanders specified in section VI, chapter 2, and by them, to the Director, Selective Service System, Washington, D.C. 20435, for his recommendation. Upon return of a case from the Director of Selective Service, a commander specified in section VI, chapter 2, will—
il) Disapprove the request for release when the individual was not denied a procedural right, or
(2) Forward the request for release together with the recommendation from the Director of Selective Service when the individual was denied a procedural right to The Adjutant General, Department of the Army, ATTN: AGPO-SS, Washington, D.C. 20315. [AR 635-200, Chapter 5, Section III, 5-5. b. (1) (2)].”