Court Opinion

ID: 9455296
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:17:43.208686+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:32.503404
License: Public Domain

KALODNER, Circuit Judge
(concurring) :
I concur in the result reached for this reason: When the defendant’s local
board refused to reopen his 1-A classification pursuant to his claim of conscientious objector status it thereby effectually denied defendant a right to appeal the rejection of his request for conscientious objector status, since there is *1257no appeal from a draft board’s refusal to reopen an existing classification. The end result of the draft board’s refusal to reopen was a denial of due process. United States v. Freeman, 388 F.2d 246, 249-250 (7 Cir. 1968). While the defendant did not “plead” his claim for conscientious objector status in consonance with the particularity and preciseness afforded by the Selective Service System’s special form SSS No. 150, he adequately presented his claim for conscientious objector status to the Clerk of the draft board as evidenced by the Clerk’s “record” on November 15, 1965, and his letter of November 15,1965, set forth in the majority’s opinion. When a claim, in writing,1 for change in classification is presented by a draft registrant on grounds, which, if established by substantial proof, would entitle him to the change sought, a draft board is required to reopen and consider the existing classification so as to afford the registrant the due process right of appeal if his claim is denied.

. Defendant’s letter of November 15,1965 was a written claim.