UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
FRED SPENCER LONIDIER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
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 local board erred in refusing to reopen the defendant's classification to consider his conscientious objector claim.
The defendant reported for induction, qualified his security questionnaire, and was sent home pending investigation. He later filed a conscientious ob…
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 32 C.F.R. § 1625.2 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was ordered to report on January 10, 1967, for induction into the armed forces. He reported on that date, but “qualified” his Security Questionnaire (DD Form 398) by stating that a relative had once been a member of the Communist Party. He was sent home and his local board was notified by an officer at the induction center that his records were being “held in abeyance” pending the completion of a security investigation.
On November 6, 1967, defendant filed a Special Form for Conscientious Objection (SSS Form No. 150) with his local board. Eight days later, the local board notified defendant that it had voted not to reopen his classification because “it did not specifically find there has been a change in circumstances over which you had no control,” as required by32 C.F.R. § 1625.2 as a condition to the reopening of a classification after the mailing of an induction order. The board further informed defendant that theretofore his induction date had been temporarily postponed “[pjursuant to the provisions of part 1632 of Selective Service Regulations,” but that he was to report for induction on December 6,1967. Defendant reported and refused to submit to induction.
The local board therefore erred in applying32 C.F.R. § 1625.2 and refusing to reopen defendant’s classification to consider his conscientious objector claim.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Langdon Smith Foster, 439 F.2d 29 (9th Cir. 1971)
-
United States v. Shea, 508 F.2d 82 (5th Cir. 1975)
-
United States v. Stevens, 438 F.2d 628 (9th Cir. 1971)
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Evans, 425 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1970)
- Hamilton v. Commanding Officer, 328 F.2d 799 (9th Cir. 1964)