JAMES EDWARD CARRIKER, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the evidence provided sufficient basis to support the Draft Board's conclusion denying conscientious objector status.
The appellant was convicted for refusing induction into the armed forces after being classified 1-A. He claimed conscientious objector status based on…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Judicial Review Of Draft Board Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, waiving a jury trial, was convicted by the District Judge under an indictment charging a violation of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 462, in refusing to be inducted into the armed forces after he was given 1-A classification. The appellant claims that he was entitled to exemption from military service as a conscientious objector, he being a member of Rocky Pines True Light Church of Christ of Monroe, North Carolina, a sect entertaining conscientious objection to participation in combatant service. He did not offer to perform noncombatant service, nor does it appear that classification for the performance of such service was offered him, but his claim was denied upon the ground that he was not sincere in professing that he had conscientious objections to military service and was, therefore, subject to 1-A classification.
The evidence shows that he did not join the church until nearly nine months after he had registered for military service. It was also shown that he at no time indicated conscientious objection to military service to friends or acquaintances.
It should be observed that the appellant makes no contention of procedural unfairness or irregularity, and as the District Court’s opinion demonstrates, there is sufficient basis in the facts, in the light of the very limited permissible judicial review, to support the conclusion of the Draft Board.
We adopt the opinion of the District Court, which discusses the testimony adequately and in full detail. 168 F.Supp. 888.
Affirmed.