United States v. Ward, 26375.
Decision Date | 28 June 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 26375.,26375. |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Henry WARD, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Volney V. Brown, Jr. (argued), Beverly Hills, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
Eric Nobles, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Robert L. Meyer, U. S. Atty., David R. Nissen, Chief, Crim. Div., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before CHAMBERS, CARTER and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
Ward was convicted for violation of 50 U.S.C. App. § 462, refusal to submit to induction. We reverse.
On March 18, 1968, Ward was ordered to report for induction. That same day, the induction was "postponed until further notice", and Ward was reclassified I-S(C) student deferment "until October 1968." On March 29, 1968, Ward completed and returned Selective Service Form 150, in which he described his conscientious objection to war. The board then classified Ward I-A-O eligible for non-combatant military training on April 17, 1968. Within the 30-day appeal period, Ward visited the local board offices and, in response to his inquiries, a board secretary allegedly informed him that he could not appeal his I-A-O classification without "new evidence."1 In mid-June of 1968, Ward withdrew from his college courses with the intention of enrolling in a "bible school" to become a minister. On August 16, 1968, Ward received a new induction order and, after one postponement, reported on January 9, 1969, but refused induction.
The question presented on appeal is whether the local board erred on April 17 by classifying Ward I-A-O at a time when he was a college student and legally entitled to a I-S(C) deferment.2 The Government asserts that Ward requested a I-A-O classification by filing his Form 150 on March 20, and the board merely granted his request on April 17. It is correct that a Form 150 incorporates a request for exemption. It might also be considered "informational", however, in view of a registrant's duty to report to the board the occurrence of any fact that might bear upon his classification 32 C.F.R. § 1625.1. Thus, it is possible that Ward filed the Form 150 to announce the crystallization of his C.O. beliefs as groundwork for establishing "sincerity" for future I-A-O classification when his I-S(C) deferment expired. Such a conclusion would seem more plausible than that insisted upon by the Government, to wit — a professed C.O. requested immediate reclassification from a I-S(C) deferred status to a I-A-O draft-eligible status.
The Form 150 in use at that time 2-10-66 version also provided that if a C.O. claim was made, "the local board shall proceed in the prescribed manner to determine registrant's proper classification." The "prescribed manner" referred to is specifically set forth in 32 C.F.R. § 1623.2, to wit:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Ward, Crim. No. 13095.
...Franks v. United States, 216 F. 2d 266 (9th Cir. 1954); Goety v. United States, 216 F.2d 270, 272 (9th Cir. 1954); United States v. Ward, 445 F.2d 261 (9th Cir. 1971). Defendant's local draft board erred in not reclassifying him I-S on the date they postponed his induction. Accordingly, the......
-
United States v. Kelly, 72-1767.
...information it might have reclassified appellant. The board's failure to consider the information was prejudicial. (Cf. United States v. Ward (9th Cir. 1971) 445 F.2d 261.) * Honorable Russell E. Smith, United States District Judge, District of Montana, sitting by designation. 1See, e. g., ......
-
United States v. Stupke
...classified twenty months earlier. Appellant's reliance on United States v. Zablen, 436 F.2d 1075 (9th Cir.1971) and United States v. Ward, 445 F.2d 261 (9th Cir.1971) is mistaken since both cases involve mistakes in classification which caused induction orders to be issued prematurely and t......