United States v. Thomas Stewart Atherton
1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7392 · 430 F.2d 741
September 10, 1970 · Docket 23406_1
Opinion
Defendant appeals from his conviction for refusing induction into the armed forces. 50 U.S.C. App. § 462. He contends that his conscientious objector claim was rejected because of a misinterpretation of 50 U.S.C. App. § 456 (j), and that his I-A classification is without basis in fact.
The minutes of the local board suggest three possible bases for the rejection of defendant’s conscientious objector claim.
First, the local board may have relied upon 32 C.F.R. § 1625.2, which prohibits the reopening of a registrant’s classification after the mailing of an order to report for induction unless the board first specifically finds that there was a change in the registrant’s status after the order to report was mailed.
Here, however, the local board issued two orders to defendant to report for induction. The first was cancelled by the board when defendant filed his Special Form for Conscientious Objectors (SSS Form No. 150). The second order, upon which this prosecution rests, postdated the filing of defendant’s Form 150; and therefore the local board could not properly have applied 32 C.F.R. § 1625.2 to defendant’s claim.
The second and third bases for the rejection of defendant’s claim by the local board are related, and are suggested by the board’s statements that “Mr. Atherton is not a member of any particular religious sect,” and that “He bases his claim on his own personal beliefs.”
Exemption under section 456(j) of the statute is not predicated upon membership in a religious sect and adherence to its tenets. As the Supreme Court pointed out in United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 172, 85 S.Ct. 850, 857, 13 L.Ed.2d 733 (1965), “Congress recognized that one might be religious without belonging to an organized church * * * ”, and intended section 456(j) to focus upon “individual belief —rather than membership in a church or sect * *
Defendant expressly claimed that his objections to war in any form were based upon religious faith. “In such an intensely personal area, of course, the claim of the registrant that his belief is an essential part of a religious faith must be given great weight.” United States v. Seeger, supra, 380 U.S. at 184, 85 S.Ct. at 863. There is nothing in the record to contradict defendant’s claim.
The local board’s statement that defendant “bases his claim on his own personal beliefs” might be read as a reference to the statutory provision excluding claims based upon a “merely personal moral code.” But this exception applies only if the registrant’s claim rests upon “a moral code which is not only personal but which is the sole basis for the registrant’s belief and is in no way related to a Supreme Being.” United States v. Seeger, supra, 380 U.S. at 186, 85 S.Ct. at 864 (emphasis added); see also Fleming v. United States, 344 F.2d 912, 915-916 (10th Cir. 1965). As we have said, this is not true of defendant’s claim.
The government contends that the board classified defendant I-A on the independently sufficient ground that his avowed beliefs were not sincerely held— pointing to an entry in the board’s minutes stating that when defendant asked why his claim had been rejected, “The Board told him that they decide whether they feel he is a genuine conscientious objector, and that they base their decision on the information he gives them.”
Deciding whether a registrant is “a genuine conscientious objector,” however, is not the equivalent of deciding whether his claim is made in good faith; and the balance of the minute entry indicates that the board was referring to whether defendant’s claim fell within the statutory definition of a conscientious objector and not to the sincerity of his claim.
Finally, the government urges that in any event the basis for the local board’s classification is irrelevant because defendant’s I-A classification was reviewed and continued by the state appeal board.
32 C.F.R. § 1626.26 requires state appeal boards to classify appealing registrants anew; and it has been held that since official agencies are presumed to operate in a lawful manner, deficiencies in a local board classification may be rendered harmless by reclassification by the state appeal board. E. g., Storey v. United States, 370 F.2d 255, 258-259, (9th Cir. 1966); Cramer v. France, 148 F.2d 801, 804-805 (9th Cir. 1945); see also Bowles v. United States, 319 U.S. 33, 35, 36, 63 S.Ct. 912, 87 L.Ed. 1194 (1943).
This doctrine does not save the present prosecution, however, for in the light of the record and the rationale underlying the cure doctrine, it cannot be assumed that the appeal board applied proper classification standards in this case.
Despite occasional sweeping statements that appeal board reclassification renders prior local board proceedings irrelevant, the rule that appellate reclassification cures local board errors “is not inflexible.” United States v. Stepler, 258 F.2d 310, 316 (3 Cir. 1956). A survey of the cases indicates that the rule is applied only where it appears from the nature of the deficiency or from other circumstances in the record that it is reasonable to assume that the defect in local board proceedings was in fact cured by appellate reclassification. Thus, ordinarily a registrant’s claim of local board bias is cured by reclassification by an appeal board;
Cases dealing with local board utilization of an illegal standard in classifying a registrant draw a similar distinction— holding that appellate reclassification renders the local board error harmless where the record supports the conclusion that the appeal board did not apply the same standard as the local board,
As Judge Moore recently suggested in United States v. Morico, 415 F.2d 138, 143 (2d Cir. 1969), this result may be mandated by the Constitution:
“Because the draft system directly affects personal liberty, the appellant must have a right to have his classification judicially reviewed at some point. * * * While the right to have a court review the action of the board is * * * restricted, review must be meaningful * * * in the sense that it must encompass a record from which a court can determine whether there was a basis in fact for decision, what that basis was and whether the board applied the correct legal standard.” (Citations omitted; emphasis added.)8
In any event, the general presumption that appeal boards act lawfully does not alone suffice to cure a local board’s use of an illegal classification standard.
The judgment will issue forthwith, and no petition for rehearing or sug-gestión for in banc rehearing will be entertained. Rule 2, Fed.R.App.P.
Reversed.
. The board pointed out that defendant had filed his conscientious objector claim after being ordered to report for induction, that he had not claimed to be a conscientious objector in his original classification questionnaire, and that he had admitted that his beliefs matured between that time and the time he received his induction notice. The board told defendant that he should have filed his SSS Form No. 150 before he received his induction notice.
. Falbo v. United States, 320 U.S. 549, 555, 64 S.Ct. 346, 88 L.Ed. 1089 (1944) (concurring opinion of Justice Rutledge) ; Olay v. United States, 397 F.2d 901, 912-913 (5th Cir. 1968) ; Reed v. United States, 205 F.2d 216, 218 (9th Cir. 1953) ; Cramer v. France, 148 F.2d 801, 805 (9th Cir. 1945). But see Niznik v. United States, 173 F.2d 328, 336 (6th Cir. 1949).
. United States v. Peebles, 220 F.2d 114, 119-20 (7th Cir. 1955).
. Storey v. United States, 370 F.2d 255, 258-259 (9th Cir. 1966); United States v. Moore, 217 F.2d 428, 431-432 (7th Cir. 1954); Tyrrell v. United States, 200 F.2d 8, 11 (9th Cir. 1952) ; Niznik v. United States, 173 F.2d 328, 334-335 (6th Cir. 1949).
A number of courts have held that local board failure to afford a registrant a full and fair hearing invalidates a registrant’s classification even though the registrant has been reclassified by an appeal board on a full record of what transpired below. Franks v. United States, 216 F.2d 266, 270 (9th Cir. 1954) ; United States ex rel. Berman v. Craig, 207 F.2d 888, 891 (3d Cir. 1953) ; Mintz v. Howlett, 207 F.2d 758, 762 (2d Cir. 1953); Knox v. United States, 200 F.2d 398, 401-402 (9th, Cir. 1952). See also Niznik v. United States, 173 F.2d 328, 336 (6th Cir. 1949).
The rationale of these decisions — that a registrant is entitled to a full and fair consideration of his claim at every level of the Selective Service process— might well extend to cases like the present in which the local board’s consideration of the merits of the registrant’s conscientious objector claim was marred by that board’s misconstruction of the statute.
The Military Selective Service Act of 1967 eliminated the Justice Department investigation and hearing in conscientious objector eases, and thus left the local board as the only agency in the Selective Service System which has an opportunity to observe the registrant’s demeanor. Since “the attitude and demeanor of the person in question is likely to give the best clue as to the degree of [his] conscientiousness and sincerity, and * * * the extent and quality of his beliefs,” White v. United States, 215 F.2d 782, 785 (9th Cir. 1954), it is especially important that local boards consider conscientious objection claims unaffected by legal misconceptions.
. United States v. Fry, 203 F.2d 638, 640 (2d Cir. 1953) ; United States v. Stiles, 169 F.2d 455 (3d Cir. 1948); United States v. Zeiber, 161 F.2d 90 (3d Cir. 1947).
. Bowles v. United States, 319 U.S. 33, 63 S.Ct. 912, 87 L.Ed. 1194 (1943): United States v. Morico, 415 F.2d 138 (2d Cir. 1969) ; De Remer v. United States, 340 F.2d 712 (8th Cir. 1965) ; United States v. Van Hook, 284 F.2d 489 (7th Cir. 1960), rev’d on other grounds 365 U.S. 609, 81 S.Ct. 823, 5 L.Ed.2d 821 (1961) ; United States v. Chodorski, 240 F.2d 590 (7th Cir. 1956); Tomlinson v. United States, 216 F.2d 12, 16 (9th Cir. 1954).
In Bowles the ground upon which the registrant’s appeal to the President was decided was expressly stated. 319 U.S. at 35, 63 S.Ct. 912. In illorieo the local and state board chairmen testified to the standards which had been applied. 415 F.2d at 143-144. In Van Hook the appeal board stated that it was “entirely ignoring all of the local board's conclusions * * 284 F.2d at 491.
In Tomlinson the registrant filed a statement calling the local board’s erroneous legal standard to the appeal board’s attention, and stating and documenting the proper legal standard by reference to official materials. 216 F.2d at 12. This was also true in Chodorski, 240 F.2d at 593. Moreover, in Chodor-ski and De Remer, the appeal board set aside the local board's I-A classification and placed the regist'ant in Class I — A-O.
. United States v. Stepler, 258 F.2d 310 (3d Cir. 1958); Mintz v. Howlett, 207 F.2d 758 (2d Cir. 1953); Niznik v. United States, 184 F.2d 972 (6th Cir. 1950) ; United States v. Balogh, 157 F.2d 939 (2d Cir. 1946) ; United States ex rel. Levy v. Cain, 149 F.2d 338 (2d Cir. 1945) ; United States v. Corliss, 280 F.2d 808, 816-817 (2d Cir. 1980) (dictum). See also United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 167-168, 187, 85 S.Ct. 850, 13 L.Ed .2d 733 (1965); Sicurella v. United States, 348 U.S. 385, 392, 75 S.Ct. 403, 99 L.Ed. 436 (1955) ; Shepherd v. United States, 217 F.2d 942, 945-946 (9th Cir. 1954).
This is the implicit holding of Balogh and Cain, as the Supreme Court recognized in Sicurella, supra, 348 U.S. at 392, 75 S.Ct. 403; and is also the implicit ruling in Niznik.
In Stepler the local board stated its reasons for denying the registrant a ministerial exemption and one of these reflected a misconstruction of the statute. The appeal board continued the registrant’s classification without comment. The court pointed out that the local board statement reflecting the erroneous standard was before the appeal board, and there was nothing to indicate that the appeal board regarded the statement as incorrect. The court concluded: “From this record we cannot tell whether the appeal board accepted the [unlawful] reasons given by the local board. Since the record is so unclear, we cannot say that the error of the local board was cured on appeal.” 258 F.2d at 317.
In Mintz the court held that continuation of a registrant’s classification by the National Appeal Board had not cured a defect arising from the local and state boards’ misconstruction of the statute, remarking that the National Board had “stated no reasons” for its action.
In Corliss Judge Friendly recognized and applied the doctrine that local board prejudice will not upset an appeal board’s reclassification, but noted, “Cases where the Local Board had applied an erroneous test and it is impossible to tell whether the Appeal Board relied upon this are distinguishable [citing Stepler, Niznik, Mintz and the discussion in Chodorski].’’ 280 F.2d at 816-817.
In Seeger, Sicurella, and Shepherd, the Department of Justice applied an illegal standard in determining the classification it would recommend to the appeal board, and the appeal board placed the registrant in the recommended classification without indicating the basis for its decision. It was held that the appeal board’s classification decision was vitiated because it could not be detertermined whether the appeal board had relied on the improper ground in classify
Our decision in Bishop v. United States, 412 F.2d 1064 (9th Cir. 1969), is not contrary to the rule stated in the text. Bishop did no more than reject defend- ■ ant’s contention “that were we to decide that incorrect standards were applied by [defendant’s] local board, reversal is required.” Id. at 1065 (emphasis added).
. See also Ypparila v. United States, 219 F.2d 465, 469 (10th Cir. 1954).
. A recent study suggests that the assumption that appeal boards reclassify without reference to the local board’s prior action “ignores the actual approach that appeal boards take to their reviewing function.” “Appeal board chairmen interviewed admitted their panels gave consideration and credence to classifications made by local boards, particularly in close cases.” Comment, The Selective Service System: An Administrative Obstacle Course, 54 Calif.L.Rev. 2123, 2159 (1966).
. The majority and dissenting opinions were submitted to the active judges of the court and a vote taken on the question of in banc consideration. A majority of the court voted against such consideration. Judges Chambers, Barnes, Ely, Carter, Kilkenny, and Trask would have heard the case in banc.