Court Opinion

ID: 9457079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:11:34.548437+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:12.560356
License: Public Domain

ALDISERT, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
This appeal dramatizes again the woeful inadequacies of certain selective service regulations, exposes the difficulties encountered by federal courts as they strain to fashion just results in these troublesome cases, and illustrates the problems which are created when, in a desire to achieve a praiseworthy objective, courts tamper with traditional concepts of prima facie ease requirements.
We announced in Scott v. Commanding Officer, 431 F.2d 1132 (3rd Cir. 1970), that where there is a request for reopening of a classification based on the existence of conscientious objector beliefs, the local board must buttress any denial of such request with a statement of reasons for its action. There is ample justification for this requirement. Because conscientious objector status may be grounded in highly sophisticated beliefs, is extremely subjective in nature, and may, at times, be most difficult to demonstrate by objective standards, the requirement of a statement of reasons serves the dual purpose of affording a modicum of protection to the registrant and of providing a framework for intelligent administrative and judicial review of the board’s decision.
Imposing a limitation in its operation, Scott mandated the statement of reasons requirement only in cases in which the registrant first establishes a prima facie entitlement to conscientious objector status. The majority here find that appellant established a prima facie case. I cannot agree.
In selective service cases, a prima facie case is present “if a registrant has presented facts which, if true and un-contradicted by other information contained in his file, would be sufficient under the regulations to warrant *198granting his requested classification.” United States v. Burlich, 257 F.Supp. 906, 911 (S.D.N.Y.1966).
Hunt v. Local Board No. 197, 438 F.2d 1128, 1144 (3rd Cir. 1971) (dissenting opinion) (emphasis supplied).
In my view, a registrant must establish two separate elements in presenting a prima facie case of conscientious objection : he must submit a factual statement describing (1) his status, S.S.S. Form 150, Question One, and (2) explaining “how, when, and from whom or from what source” he received the religious training or acquired the belief which is the basis of his- claim, S.S.S. Form 150, Question Three.
Certain aspects of appellant’s statement of status were contradictory. Responding to Form 150, Question Five, he said that “under no circumstances” did he believe in the use of force. Yet, he informed the board that he had been convicted of robbery, a crime of force. Moreover, he indicated that he would use force to defend himself or his mother from attack. Although Question Five is broadly framed, the true thrust of the inquiry obviously goes to the use of armed military force. Therefore, the contradictions, although pertinent to the question of sincerity, which is not before us, should not detract from a finding that there was an appropriate factual articulation of his conscientious objector status. This I am able to find in his paraphrase of the Biblical passage from Corinthians and in the assertion that military induction would place him in a position of having to kill.
It is the second requirement that, in my view, appellant failed to satisfy. He failed to present an adequate factual description of the process by which he came to his alleged status. He said he attended meetings of Jehovah’s Witnesses with his mother, upon whom he relied for religious guidance, “and also congregational meetings,” but was careful to emphasize that he was not himself a member of a religious sect. Moreover, he admitted that he never gave public expression, written or oral, to his professed views. In response to the question, “Describe the actions and behavior in your life which in your opinion most conspicuously demonstrate the consistency and depth of your religious conviction,” he simply referred to the practice followed by adherents to the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith: “I do not celebrate Easter, Christmas, Thanksgiving or any holidays.”
I find this sum of alleged facts- insufficient to establish a prima fade ease. From this rambling mélange of utterances, I cannot deduce whether this is a claim based on religious training and belief tied to an association with a religious sect, or whether the claim is based on personal belief having the strength of religious conviction. Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 90 S.Ct. 1792, 26 L.Ed.2d 308 (1970). Appellant’s statements do not satisfactorily describe how his beliefs were developed or acquired and, significantly, do not disclose when the maturation of the alleged status either began or was completed.
By definition, a prima facie case entails a quantum of facts supporting a given legal proposition. Without facts, the case is simply not made. Conclusory averments are insufficient, and a statement of the ultimate legal principle is no substitute for the necessary specifics to support it. Mere averments of lack of due care do not make out a prima facie case of common law negligence; nor stark assertions of unseaworthiness, one in admiralty; nor a naked claim of defective design, a 402A products liability case. In each such case sinews of fact must be affixed to bare bones of legal conclusions. Similarly, no registrant should be deemed to have met his burden of proving a prima facie case of conscientious objection by saying: “I am a conscientious objector. My mother made me what I am today. I don’t belong to any church.”
The majority recognize some inadequacy in appellant’s presentation. Other*199wise there would be no reason to suggest that appellant possessed “neither the knowledge nor the intellectual wherewithal to synthesize his views.” Having previously expressed myself on the complexities of crystallization of conscientious objector views, see Scott v. Commanding Officer, supra (concurring opinion), I readily appreciate that there may be difficulties in articulating such beliefs. And I recognize the advantages possessed by those who through personal skill or professional assistance are able to meet the most stringent prima facie requirements with elegant language, impressive documentation, and a dossier of corroborative materials. But the conclusion that appellant here did not have the capacity to marshal his views or articulate his beliefs is wholly gratuitous and without evidentiary support. The record discloses that this appellant (1) attended ten years of public schools, (2) was steadily employed thereafter, and (3) at the time of his application was an employee of the Philadelphia Board of Education, assigned to a position, self-styled as that of “disciplinarian,” charged with sensitive responsibilities supervising the conduct of teenagers.
That I am unable to accept the majority’s finding of a prima facie case, however, does not mean that I am dissatisfied with the majority’s ultimate disposition of this appeal. Indeed, rather than engage in what I consider to be a distortion of the prima facie standard— a distortion which is likely to have broad precedental effect beyond the Selective Service area — I would candidly acknowledge that the prima facie test is simply inappropriate in cases such as this. In short, I would dispense with the need to prove a prima facie case of conscientious objection in situations in which the Scott requirement of a statement of reasons would otherwise apply.
Frankly, I cannot say with certainty why the necessity for establishing a prima facie case was inserted as a prerequisite to requiring boards to state reasons for denying conscientious objector claims. A possible explanation lies in the circumstances under which Scott arose. The registrant there submitted his claim as a request for reopening, having already been assigned a I-A classification. Perhaps the requirement that a prima facie case be made out in order for a registrant to obtain the administrative benefits accompanying a reopening of classification, Mulloy v. United States, 398 U.S. 410, 416, 90 S. Ct. 1766, 26 L.Ed.2d 362 (1970), had a transferable impact on the Scott holding. But surely reopening considerations have little to do analytically with the Scott rationale. If Scott mandates that a local board assign reasons for denying a conscientious objector claim which is presented as a request for reopening, it seems absolutely clear that a board should be required to do the same if the claim were made at the time of an original classification and before any classification were assigned. Certainly, in the latter situation, not involving reopening, prima facie notions would not otherwise be involved.
Perhaps, however, the Scott rule anticipated the submission of frivolous claims and sought to relieve the local boards of the obligation to set forth reasons when denying insubstantial claims. But I cannot believe that such reasoning would withstand close inspection. A claim which might seem frivolous to a local board might appear of quite different character and substance to a reviewing tribunal. Indeed, this possibility of disagreement is the very raison d’etre for review, whether administrative or judicial.
The Scott rule was promulgated out of a sense of fundamental fairness. We recognized the difficulties inherent in the expression of conscientious objector status and believed that a registrant should be entitled to be apprised of the reasons for a board’s denial of his claim. *200For the purposes of appeal, the registrant should know whether the denial resulted from an inadequate presentation of often complex religious-psychological-sociological attitudes, or whether the denial was based on disbelief or findings of insincerity. At the same time, we recognized the difficulty of enlightened and informed administrative or judicial review in the absence of actual findings by the local board.
I would, therefore, dispense with the prima facie requirement and extend the Scott rule to every instance in which a Form 150 has been completed and duly and timely forwarded to the local board. I would make mandatory the filing of written reasons for denial of any such request for conscientious objector status, whether presented in the original instance or couched in the form of a request for reopening of status. The holding in our case of United States v. Speicher, 439 F.2d 104, 108 (3rd Cir. 1971), though compromised by other statements referring to the prima facie requirement, would seem to require as much. “Our holding is that in post-1967 cases, when neither the Local Board nor the Appeal Board states its reasons for denying a conscientious objector claim, the induction order is invalid.”
No constitutional or statutory restriction inhibits the extension of the Scott rule, which is, in effect, a judicially engrafted regulation designed to fill the void in existing regulations. It should not escape notice that despite the recent proliferation of selective service litigation dealing with various aspects of administrative practice, the Selective Service System apparently has not deemed it necessary to undertake needed reexamination of its existing regulations. Until the System performs this obviously needed review, the judiciary will continue to find it necessary to seek greater administrative and procedural fairness by filling the interstices of official regulations.