United States v. Douglas James Farrell

Farrell was indicted and convicted in the distict court for violation of 50 U.S. C. App. § 462, refusing to submit to induction into the military service. On appeal, Farrell asserts numerous errors in his classification process. We affirm.

1. Refusal to Reopen to Consider C. O. Claim.

Farrell asserts that the local board’s refusal to reopen his I-A classification to consider his conscientious objector claim was improper and a denial of due process. Farrell did not assert a claim of conscientious objector status until after his induction order had been mailed. Thus, the board was without authority to reopen Farrell’s classification under 32 C.F.R. § 1625.2 because crystallization of conscientious objector beliefs is not a change of status resulting from circumstances beyond Farrell’s control. Ehlert v. United States (9 Cir. en banc 1970) 422 F.2d 332 , aff’d 402 U. S. 99 , 91 S.Ct. 1319 , 28 L.Ed.2d 625 (1971).

2. Denial of II-S Classification.

Farrell asserts that the board improperly denied his request for a II-S (student) deferment. Loyola University notified the local board of Farrell’s enrollment. The regulations provide, however, that the registrant must make a written…