Court Opinion

ID: 9457472
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:22:51.221313+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:21.879021
License: Public Domain

*1341HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part):
I agree with the holding of the majority opinion that this Court has jurisdiction of the appeal, but respectfully dissent from the view expressed on the merits of the appeal.
As the majority opinion states, appellant returned his notice of reclassification to the Board along with his letter quoted in the opinion. In view of the circumstances as a whole, including his statements of strong moral commitments and beliefs, return of the notice of reclassification, and furnishing of his address, I feel the District Court was correct in finding that he had in substance claimed a conscientious objector status sufficiently so that the Board was obligated to process his papers as such a claim. His wording was not the positive statement that he would not cooperate with the system and would accept no classification implying consent to its right to function, as was made in United States v. Stoppelman, 406 F.2d supra at 129. While some of the wording by appellant was strong and may be read as the opinion says, the letter also carried the conscientious objector meaning which the Board should have so treated. In short I feel that the District Court reasonably found that his statement and actions notified the Board of a conscientious objector claim sufficiently so that it should have been so processed.
Where the registrant has signed the required forms or “any other written statement claiming that he is a conscientious objector * * * ” his acts constitute a claim of conscientious objector.1
It has been held that although the registrant has the burden of showing he is entitled to the exemption, when in effect his desire to claim a conscientious objector classification is shown to the Board, it must afford a hearing on his claim and advise him of his rights and furnish a proper form, and that failure to do so denies due process. United States v. Sobczak, 264 F.Supp. 752 (N.D. Ga.); and see Murray v. Blatchford, 307 F.Supp. 1038, 1043, note 3 (D.R.I.).
In view of the circumstances before us, I would accept the finding of the District Court that such a claim was sufficiently made to put the Board on notice here, and would affirm.

. Local Board Memorandum No. 41 provides in pertinent part as follows:
“2. What Constitutes a Claim of Conscientious Objection.— A registrant should be considered to have claimed conscientious objection to war if he has signed Series VIII of the Classification Questionnaire (SSS Form 100), if he has filed a Special Form for Conscientious Objector (SSS Form 150), or if he has filed any other written statement claiming that he is a conscientious objector.”