Court Opinion

ID: 9455617
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:27:24.367473+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:39.778135
License: Public Domain

*1366FAIRCHILD, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
It seems to me that we are imposing too refined a standard upon the board under the circumstances of this case. I have examined the two Forms 150 which Shermeister filed. I think that the court may, and under these circumstances should, do so. The form filed May 2 and supplemented May 8 set forth extensively Shermeister’s belief and reasons for believing that United States activity in Viet Nam is wrong. The form filed June 26 did little if anything more than restate the earlier expression of this view. Because he presented no new fact nor any really different claim, I can not find a deprivation of right in the board’s decision, “no action necessary”.
Any defense, in my view, would have to rest upon the proposition that Shermeister’s claim entitled him to the benefit of United States v. Sisson (D.Mass., 1969), 297 F.Supp. 902.