Court Opinion

ID: 9459159
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:12:03.306122+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:02.601687
License: Public Domain

*439GIBBONS, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
The registrant was convicted of failing to report for a selective service physical examination on January 5,1971. As Judge Hunter’s opinion makes clear, he had such notice of the scheduled examination as was then required by the applicable Selective Service System Regulations. On January 13, 1971 the registrant first mailed to his Local Board Selective Service System Form 150, setting forth a conscientious objector claim. He had, as early as July 29, 1969 informed the board of a possible conscientious objector claim, and it was not until August of 1970 that the board forwarded a Form 150 to him. None of the delay between August, 1970 and January 13, 1971 in the filing of the Form 150 is attributable to the Selective Service System. Thus, as of January 5, 1971, when his physical examination was scheduled, the registrant was properly classified I-A.
In these circumstances the special treatment for 1-0 registrants with respect to physical examinations set forth in the then applicable regulation, 32 C.F.R. § 1660.20(a), did not cover his case. The registrant was under a duty to report. In this respect there is no difference between Judge Hunter and me.
To the extent, however, that Judge Hunter relies upon our prior decision in United States v. Zmuda, 423 F.2d 757 (3d Cir. 1970), I express my disagreement. Zmuda holds that a conscientious objector’s status as such had no relevance to his duty to undergo a physical examination. But Zmuda was decided without reference to 32 C.F.R. § 1660.20 (a). As the Ninth Circuit makes clear in United States v. Hayden, 445 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir. 1971), this shortcoming make the Zmuda analysis seriously defective. Were the issue presented in this case I would vote to follow Hayden rather than Zmuda. In this case, however, at the time the registrant failed to comply with the order to report for a physical examination he did not fall within 32 C.F.R. § 1660.20(a). Thus he was under a duty to report on January 5, 1971, and his conviction for failure to do so was proper.