United States v. Paul Norman Thaxter
Opinion
Opinion
Thaxter appeals his conviction for having refused to be inducted into the armed forces. 50 U.S.C.App. § 462. Of the numerous grounds for reversal urged by Thaxter, two are meritorious. Consequently, under the authority of Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333 , 90 S.Ct. 1792 , 26 L.Ed.2d 308 (1970), and Gutknecht v. United States, 396 U.S. 295 , 90 S.Ct. 506 , 24 L.Ed.2d 532 (1970), we reverse.
At age eighteen Thaxter informed his local Selective Service Board that he was a conscientious objector, but he was not then ready fully to articulate his claim for a conscientious objector (I-O) exemption. A year and a half later, upon termination of his student deferment, Thaxter requested of his Board a Claim for Conscientious Objector (SSS Form 150). Rather than completing and returning this form, Thaxter sent his Local Board an article which he had authored and which expressed his pacifist philosophy. The Board then classified him I-A, ordered him to take his pre-in-duction physical examination, and declared him delinquent for his failure to appear for that examination. The delinquency regulations were later held, in Gutknecht, supra, to be without statutory authority.