OPINION

Before ELY and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON, * District Judge.

Appellant was convicted in a jury-waived trial of refusal to submit to induction into the Armed Forces in violation of 50 U.S.C. App. § 462(a).

Appellant registered for the draft on November 15, 1966. He received a pre-induction physical on February 9, 1968 and was found acceptable for induction. He was last classified 1-A on June 17, 1970 and did not appeal this classification. On September 11, 1970 appellant was ordered to report for induction on September 23, 1970. He failed to report. On January 22, 1971 he was handed a “continuing duty” order to report on February 1, 1971. Again he failed to report. 1 A third induction order was mailed to appellant on October 13, 1971, with a reporting date of November 16, 1971.

On November 15, 1971 appellant completed and signed a “Statement of Personal History”, in which he answered in the affirmative the following questions:

In explanation of his answer appellant stated:

Appellant reported to the Armed Forces Entrance and Examining Station (AFEES) on November 16, 1971. In his “Report of Medical History”, completed as a part of his medical examination, appellant checked in the affirmative the items “Depression or excessive *1228 worry” and “Nervous trouble of any sort”. 2 In response to the question “Have you consulted or been treated by clinics, physicians, healers, or other practitioners within the past 5 years for other than minor illnesses?” appellant answered: “Consulted Dr. Norman Rei-der for advice on severe depressions.”

Appellant presented to the AFEES examining physician, Dr. N. J. Hawthorne, a letter dated May 21, 1971 from Dr. Norman Reider, a psychiatrist. This letter, which was not presented to appellant’s local board, recites that appellant “came to see” Dr. Reider on April 8, 1971 “for a psychiatric evaluation in regard to his draft status”. Dr. Reider’s report of his examination reads:

In his “Report of Medical Examination” Dr. Hawthorne made this notation: “Letter 21 May 71 noted draft eval. only no other NP Rx” — an abbreviation for “draft evaluation only, no other neuro-psychiatric treatment”. In a space for the physician’s summary on the “Report of Medical History” Dr. Hawthorne wrote, inter alia, “depression /see letter/ N C D [not considered disqualifying] ”. The report of the examining physician was reviewed and approved by the medical officer.

After being processed for induction on November 16 appellant “was determined fully qualified for induction in all respects”. He refused to submit to induction.

Appellant testified at the trial that Dr. Hawthorne asked him whether he had ever been hospitalized or treated but asked no further questions regarding the letter from Dr. Reider. Appellant' stated on cross-examination that he had never undergone any psychiatric treatment following his examination by Dr. Reider. 3 It was stipulated at the trial that appellant did not receive a psychiatric examination at AFEES and that his local board did not consider Dr. Reider’s letter in the classification process.

Appellant makes two related contentions: (1) that he “was medically unqualified for induction into the armed *1229 forces”; and (2) that “AFEES failed to evaluate [his] psychiatric claim properly”.

At the outset we recognize that “Absent some highly unusual circumstance, the courts are not permitted to inquire into [a] registrant’s physical fitness” and that “Ordinarily, the question of whether a registrant is mentally fit for the Army is a question for the military and the courts will not interfere.” United States v. Sowul, 447 F.2d 1103, 1105 (9 Cir. 1971), cert, denied, 404 U.S. 1023 , 92 S.Ct. 698 , 30 L.Ed.2d 672 (1972). The scope of judicial review “is the narrowest known to the law. * * * AFEES determines the medical acceptability of a registrant * * * and federal courts must be particularly cautious in reviewing basis in fact questions of a medical nature.” United States v. Wilson, 478 F.2d 475, 477 (9 Cir. 1973). On the other hand, “if the record indicates arbitrary action by AFEES or a deficiency in prescribed procedures that results in prejudice to the registrant, this court can take corrective action.” Id.

With these principles in mind we turn to the applicable regulations. Army Regulation 40-501, Section XVI reads in pertinent part:

Army Regulation 601-270-4-20-h-(l) provides in pertinent part:

Appellant argues that he presented a prima facie case for disqualification under subsections a(3), (4) and (b) of the regulation relating to “Psychoneuroses” and that this compelled a psychiatric evaluation. The Government argues, and the district court held, that the evaluation was discretionary, and that this discretion was properly exercised when the examining physician found “that Dr. Reider’s letter did not establish a psy-choneurotic disqualification”.

It is of course clear that a psychiatric evaluation is not required of every draft registrant; nor would the registrant’s request and his affirmative answers to the questions relating to depression and nervous disorders in themselves require a specific psychiatric evaluation. We have before us the narrower question of whether the evaluation was required by reason of Dr. Reider’s letter.

Dr. Reider, a psychiatrist, made a diagnosis of “Depressive Neurosis, chronic, severe, with schizophrenic features”. He believed appellant was “unsuitable for service in the Army” and that, “He should be disqualified under AR 40-501”. It is clear that Dr. Reider was familiar with the applicable regulation and expressed a positive opinion that ap *1230 pellant should be disqualified under that regulation. 4

The Army Regulation requires a specific psychiatric evaluation whenever the examining physician has “reason to question” an examinee’s emotional adequacy for military service. The natural import of the phrase “reason to question” does not suggest that an ex-aminee must establish a psychiatric disqualification before being granted a psychiatric evaluation. The Regulation itself implies that the purpose of granting an evaluation is to determine whether a psychiatric disqualification is justified. If an examinee is required to establish a disqualification before being granted an evaluation there would be no need for the evaluation. We hold that the requisite “reason to question” is supplied when an examinee presents a prima facie case, that is, facts which, if true, would justify the grant of a psychiatric disqualification. See United States v. Allen, 459 F.2d 563, 565 (9 Cir. 1972). Thus, the critical issue is whether appellant presented a prima facie case for psychiatric disqualification. 5

In arguing that the Reider letter did not afford a basis for a prima facie claim of psychiatric disqualification, the Government relies on our decision in United States v. Thrower, 483 F.2d 283 (9 Cir. 1973), where the court had under consideration a comparable letter from a psychiatrist consulted by the registrant. Thrower , however, is distinguishable. Thrower had been granted a neuro-psy-chiatric examination by AFEES. 6 The issue in Thrower was not, as here, whether the psychiatrist’s letter presented a prima facie case for psychiatric disqualification, requiring a specific psychiatric evaluation, but whether the letter “constituted new information and required a review of that letter by the local board”. 483 F.2d at 284 . Thrower simply held that all of the defects alleged in the psychiatrist’s letter “had been considered and evaluated previously”, 7 and that “It cannot then be said, that the doctor’s letter constitutes new information such as to bring it within the applicable Army Regulations so as to have made a prima facie case requiring the board to reopen his classification.” 483 F.2d at 285 .

We conclude that appellant made a prima facie case for psychiatric disqualification under Army Regulation 40-501, supra, and that this required a *1231 specific psychiatric evaluation. As in Wilson, supra, 478 F.2d at 478 , we do not decide whether appellant is “medically disqualified from the military service”. We simply hold that he made a prima facie case for a specific psychiatric evaluation, and that the failure to provide for that evaluation in compliance with Army Regulations requires reversal.

Reversed.

Honorable W. J. Jameson, United States Senior District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation.

. Appellant’s Selective Service file contains a “Report of Information” signed by appellant on September 1, 1971 at a “personal visit” reading, “Was contacted by Mr. Walters of F.B.I. concerning failure to report for induction September 23, 1970. Would like to submit to induction physical examination”.

. Appellant had cheeked both of these in the negative in his Report of Medical History at the time of his pre-induction physical on February 9, 1968.

. As shown by his medical history appellant’s one consultation with Dr. Reider was the only time he had consulted a physician or other practitioner within five years of his examination on November 16, 1971. In his medical history on February 8, 1968 the only reference to consultation or treatment within five years of that date was a statement that he had seen a physician “about numbness in legs”.

. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the Army questioned Dr. Reider’s quali- . fications as a psychiatrist or the objectivity of his findings and conclusions.

. The determination of whether appellant has presented a prima facie case is a proper matter for judicial inquiry. The district court concluded that such an inquiry is justified only in cases of “unusual circumstances”, relying upon our decisions in United States v. Sowul, supra, and United States v. Shunk, 438 F.2d 1204 (9 Cir. 1971), holding that absent unusual circumstances a court is not permitted to inquire into a registrant’s medical fitness. Here, however, the issue is not whether appellant is medically fit for induction, but whether AFEES followed prescribed procedures in processing appellant’s claim for psychiatric disqualification. See Wilson, supra, 478 F.2d at 477 and Shunk, supra, 438 F.2d at 1204 , which hold that whether there is “a deficiency in prescribed procedures” is subject to judicial inquiry. See also Mulloy v. United States, 398 U.S. 410 , 90 S.Ct. 1766 , 26 L.Ed.2d 362 (1970) and United States v. Allen, supra, which hold that the question of whether a registrant has presented his local board with a prima facie case for reclassification is subject to judicial review.

. In Thrower the registrant had been examined on April 23, 1969. 1-Ie complained of “various ailments”, including depression and nervous trouble, a drug habit, and homosexual tendencies, but did not submit a letter or other supporting evidence. He submitted the letter to his board on May 5. It was referred to AFEES, which then requested that the registrant be directed to return for a psychiatric consultation, when he was found acceptable for induction. When he reported for induction in December, 1969 his papers, including the letter, “were reviewed by AFEES and neuro-psychiatric examination * * * was administered”. 483 F.2d at 284 .

. The court found that none of the doctor’s findings was “at variance with, nor in addition to, the findings with regard to [his initial] preindu'ction physical”. 483 F.2d at 285 .