Negre v. Larsen

Decision Date06 November 1969
Docket NumberNo. 24067.,24067.
Citation418 F.2d 908
PartiesLouis A. NEGRE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Stanley R. LARSEN, Commanding General Sixth United States Army, et al., Respondents-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Richard Harrington (argued), of Athearn, Chandler & Hoffman, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.

Sheldon Deutsch (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., Cecil F. Poole, U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellees.

Before CHAMBERS, KOELSCH, and KILKENNY,* Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant challenges the validity of the District Court's order denying his petition for habeas corpus. He was inducted into the United States Army on August 30, 1967. On February 10, 1968, after receiving his basic training, he was ordered to Vietnam. On February 28th, while still in the United States, he started proceedings for separation as a conscientious objector. The proceedings culminated in a finding by Headquarters, Department of the Army, that he did not qualify, under applicable Army Regulations, as a conscientious objector. He has exhausted his administrative remedies.

Simply stated, the issue before us is whether there is a basis in fact for the finding and decision of the Department of the Army. The scope of review in a case such as this is one of "the narrowest known to the law". Bishop v. United States, 412 F.2d 1064 (9th Cir., June 19, 1969). An exhaustive analysis of the record requires us to conclude that there was a basis in fact for the finding that appellant was not entitled to separation from the Army as a conscientious objector under Army Regulation No. 635-30(1) (3).1

Our analytical view of the record reveals that appellant has a personal moral code based on his sociological and philosophical views, rather than a conscientious objection to participation in war in any form by reason of religious training and belief. He objects to the war in Vietnam, not to all wars. It was not until he was faced with participation in the Vietnamese conflict that his beliefs concentrated sufficiently to express an objection. He does not express an objection to the nation's military activities in Korea, Japan, West Germany and other parts of the world. Nor, does he object to what he terms non-combatant duty in the Army in the United States. Clearly, his views are completely inconsistent with an objection to "war in any form". Although he would refuse to act as a medical corpsman in Vietnam, he would serve in essentially the same capacity in the United States. Beyond question, there was a basis in fact for the conclusion of the Department of the Army that appellant did not qualify for separation, as a conscientious objector.

Based on United States v. Sisson, 297 F.Supp. 902 (D.Mass.1969), appellant argues that a denial of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Glazier v. Hackel, 26106.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 31 Marzo 1971
    ...Jarrett v. Resor, 426 F.2d 213, 217 n. 6 (1970); Quinn v. Laird, 421 F.2d 840 (1970); Sertic v. Laird, 418 F.2d 915 (1969); Negre v. Larsen, 418 F.2d 908 (1969); Krieger v. Terry, 413 F.2d 73 (1969); and Schwartz v. Franklin, 412 F.2d 736, 738-39 The government argues that the present case ......
  • Gillette v. United States Negre v. Larsen
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 8 Marzo 1971
  • Cohen v. Laird, Civ. A. No. 69-1085.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • 26 Junio 1970
    ...that he is opposed to participation in war in any form. See Keefer v. United States, supra (313 F.2d p. 777); Negre v. Larsen (9th Cir. 1969) 418 F.2d 908, 909-910. Another fact provides a basis for questioning the sincerity of petitioner's professions. It must be remembered that petitioner......
  • Font v. Laird
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 24 Julio 1970
    ...this statute under a similar attack as here and have declined to recognize selective conscientious objection. These are Negre v. Larsen, 418 F.2d 908 (9th Cir. 1969) and United States v. Gillette, 420 F.2d 298 (2d Cir. 1970). The Supreme Court granted certiorari in both of these cases on Ju......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT