Court Opinion

ID: 9457954
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:39:16.594611+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:35.458255
License: Public Domain

STEPHENSON, Circuit Judge
(dissenting) .
I cannot join the court’s opinion. The Conscientious Objector Review Board denied Kemp’s application on the grounds (1) that it was not truly based upon deeply held religious, moral or ethical beliefs, and (2) that Kemp lacked the “depth of conviction” required to qualify for separation as a conscientious objector. As Judge Collinson’s soundly reasoned opinion makes clear, 340 F. Supp. 285 (W.D.Mo.1971), there is ample evidentiary support for the Board’s action.
The majority, in refusing to equate the Board’s depth of conviction language with the more refined and precise find*631ing that Kemp’s beliefs were not sincerely held, exalts semantics at the expense of meaningful substance. While I can agree that one need not be a theologian in order to hold sincere religious conviction, I also firmly believe that one need not possess the linguistic skills of an experienced jurist to ably discharge his duties as a member of an Army Review Board. Unfortunately, in upsetting such firmly grounded determinations as the one in the instant case, the-majority requires just that on the part of those who voted to deny Kemp’s application.
I would affirm on the basis of Judge Collinson’s opinion.