Court Opinion

ID: 9457397
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:20:38.683589+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:20.062404
License: Public Domain

HASTIE, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I agree with the majority that it was unlawful for the local board to deny Po-lites’ hardship claim without waiting for and considering the more detailed statement of family income requested by the board and supplied promptly by the registrant. However, in the circumstances of this case, I think the action of the appeal board in classifying the registrant on a record that did contain the information in question was curative.
True, the basic legislation and implementing regulations embody the concept that registrants shall be classified in first instance by a board of their neighbors who are likely to be more aware of and sensitive to relevant local considerations, and more concerned that young men of the neighborhood be treated fairly in the administration of selective service, than outsiders would be. At the same time, appeal boards have been authorized and are required to classify registrants Ae novo on a full record, rather than merely to review local board action for possible error. Here, this court is deciding that concededly fair Ae novo classification by an appeal board on a full record cannot stand because the local board that reached the same conclusion erroneously failed to consider certain evidence that later was included in the record submitted to the appeal board. However, the new information was merely a more detailed enumeration of family living expenses that confirmed a summary of those expenses that had been before the local board.
I can see no consideration of localism that would make the local board more competent than the appeal board to decide fairly and knowledgeably whether this confirmatory elaboration of information already presented in less detail strengthened the registrant’s case enough to warrant a hardship deferment. For this reason I think no unfairness resulted from the fact that only the appeal board, considering the matter Ae novo, had before it the statement in question. If some other type of evidence had been involved or some different issue that called for an exercise of superior local competency, I would not hesitate to reach a different result.
In the circumstances of this case, I would affirm the judgment of the district court.