UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
CRAIG ALTON ALFORD, 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 defendant's failure to exhaust administrative remedies by appealing his classification barred him from challenging it in a criminal proceeding.
The defendant was convicted of refusing induction into the military. He claimed conscientious objector status, but his claim was rejected, and he was …
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 Conscientious Objector Status cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Alford was convicted of refusing to report for physical examination and to report for induction under 50 U.S.C. App. § 462. We affirm.
Alford’s local board first classified him 1-A in March, 1969. In April he filed a conscientious objector claim, which presented a prima facie case for that classification. Also in April he met with an appeals agent who failed to tell Alford of his rights on appeal or that failure to appeal would bar challenge of his 1-A classification.
In June, the board rejected his conscientious objector claim, reclassified him 1-A and duly notified him of its decision, sending him another Form 110 informing him of his appeal rights. He neither requested a personal appearance nor appealed his reclassification.
The district court held that Alford’s failure to appeal barred his challenging the reclassification in a criminal proceeding for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, citing Lockhart v. United States, 420 F. 2d 1143 (9th Cir. 1969). We agree. United States v. Gress, 464 F. 2d 1002 (9th Cir. 1972).
Any errors made by the board or the appeals agent in connection with Alford’s rights on appeal from his original classification or rejection of his conscientious objector claim were harmless. With the reclassification, a new round of rights and remedies began to which he did not avail himself. Skinner v. United States, 215 F. 2d 767, 768 (9th Cir. 1954), cert. denied 348 U.S. 981, 75 S.Ct. 572, 99 L.Ed. 763; United States v. Hudson, 469 F. 2d 661 (9th Cir. 1972).
Alford’s other contentions are without merit.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Holby, 477 F.2d 649 (2d Cir. 1973)
Authorities Cited
- Cornelious Lockhart v. United States, 420 F.2d 1143 (9th Cir. 1969)
- Skinner v. United States, 215 F.2d 767 (9th Cir. 1954)
- Olliff v. Texas, 348 U.S. 981 (U.S. 1955)
- Cato v. Silling, 348 U.S. 981 (U.S. 1955)
- United States v. Gress, 464 F.2d 1002 (9th Cir. 1972)
- United States v. Hudson, 469 F.2d 661 (9th Cir. 1972)