Court Opinion

ID: 9459046
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:08:51.585173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:59.584766
License: Public Domain

KILKENNY, Circuit Judge
(dissenting) :
I would hold that 32 C.F.R. § 1628.-2(b), when read in the light of 32 C.F. R. § 1628.4(e), did not create a right in the registrant to the medical interview. It is my belief that the provision for the interview was promulgated for the benefit of the Selective Service System, rather than for the registrant. Otherwise, the ultimate decision on the interview would not have been left to the Board.
In any event, it is only in case that a registrant claims one or more of the disqualifying medical conditions or physical defects which appear in the list specified in 32 C.F.R. § 1628.1 that the local board is required to order him to present himself for an interview. Hypoglycemia, which registrant claimed, is not on the list prescribed by the Sur*884geon General pursuant to the provisions of § 1628.1. Although hyperinsulinism, on the prescribed list, is manifested by hypoglycemia, the fact remains that hypoglycemia can occur from other causes and does not invariably indicate hyperinsulinism. On the record before us, the Board was under no obligation to turn to a medical dictionary, or, otherwise seek medical advice, in order to pass on the medical claim. Simply stated, his claimed infirmity did not appear on the Surgeon General’s list. The Board was not required by the Regulations, or otherwise, to go beyond his claim.
The fact that appellant, on August 5, 1968, directed a letter to the local board, in which he claimed to be suffering from hyperinsulinism, is of no importance. This occurred after appellant had been found physically acceptable on his preinduction physical and the Board had reviewed his file and decided not to reopen his classification. Nowhere in the Regulations can be found a right to a medical interview on a late claim such as the one presented on August 5th.
I would affirm the judgment.