Court Opinion

ID: 9456972
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:08:21.461633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:10.073199
License: Public Domain

HEANEY, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the result reached in this case. I do so because I believe the record clearly indicates that the local board did not reopen the defendant’s classification and that the local board had a basis in fact for its refusal to do so.
Reopening of a classification is dependent upon the presentation of facts, not previously considered, which, if true, would justify a change in the registrant’s classification. 32 C.F.R. § 1625.-2. Here, the facts presented by the registrant indicated that the registrant selectively objected to the Viet Nam War. Such views do not entitle one to a conscientious objector classification. Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437, 91 S.Ct. 828, 28 L.Ed.2d 168 (March 8, 1971).