Cobb

ORDER DENYING ALL RELIEF AND DISMISSING THE ACTION AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that Army Regulation 635-20 is contrary to and in conflict with the United States Constitution, an Act of Congress, and a Department of Defense directive. The regulation in question prohibits filing a conscientious objector application at overseas replacement stations. Many of the same contentions were discussed and resolved unfavorably to plaintiff’s position in an opinion filed by this Court in Pifer v. Laird, 328 F.Supp. 649 (N.D.Cal.1971).

*781 One point is squarely presented in this case which was not directly faced in the Pifer decision. Petitioner contends that he was entitled to adequate notice of the change in army regulations before it became effective. The petitioner, unlike those in Pifer (supra) and other related cases (Turpin v. Resor #70-1765 (N.D.Cal. 4/14/71)), Wright v. Laird #70-1133 (N.D.Cal. 8/6/70), alleges that he was able to file elsewhere, but did not do so in direct reliance upon the former Army Regulation 635-20 which would have permitted him to file in a temporary duty station such as Oakland. He contends the due process clause of…