United States v. James Adam Wood, 454 F.2d 765, 4th Cir. (1972)
United States v. James Adam Wood, 454 F.2d 765, 4th Cir. (1972)
United States v. James Adam Wood, 454 F.2d 765, 4th Cir. (1972)
2d 765
John J. Beall, Jr., Roanoke, Va., Court-appointed (Hunter, Fox & Trabue,
Roanoke, Va., on brief), for appellant.
Birg Sergent, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Leigh B. Hanes, Jr., U. S. Atty. and James
G. Welsh, Asst. U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.
Before BOREMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and RUSSELL and FIELD,
Circuit Judges.
DONALD RUSSELL, Circuit Judge:
We affirm.
objector classification without a statement by his Local Board of the reasons for
such denial. It is settled that the burden of establishing a right to a conscientious
objector classification rests on the registrant.2 Unless, by his application, along
with his supporting data, the registrant establishes a prima facie right to such
classification, the Local Board may deny the application and need not set forth
any grounds or reasons for the denial.3 In other words, the requirement that the
Board articulate its reasons for denial is dependent upon the registrant
establishing a prima facie claim. In this case, the appellant failed to establish,
by his application and supporting material, a prima facie right and the action of
the Local Board in denying the claim to a conscientious objector classification
was in order and there was no necessity under those circumstances for the
Board to provide reasons for its denial.
4
He appended to his application two letters. One of these letters is from his
brother. In this letter, written to provide "proof of sincerity" on the part of the
registrant, the brother states that the registrant's beliefs are "of a personal nature
rather that (sic) religious"; he then summarized those beliefs as being "against
anybody or anything that advocates war, which he believes is a crime against
humanity". The source of such belief, as related by the brother, is this nation's
"involvement in its Asian conflict".7 Advocacy of war is condemned generally
by thoughtful persons and many of our citizens are openly critical of our
"involvement" in Asia; but neither feeling is inconsistent with a willingness to
fight for one's country or adds up to that sincere conviction of conscience
required under Welsh. The other supporting letter is even less relevant. It reads
Such was the extent of the registrant's showing on his request for classification
as a conscientious objector. As we have already observed, such a showing was
insufficient to make out a prima facie claim to the classification and required of
the Board no articulation of its reasons for denial.
Appellant urges that he made a prima facie case because the Trial Judge
recognized his sincerity of belief at the trial. This recognition, however, was in
the context of the Judge grappling with the problem of an appropriate sentence
and can be fairly characterized as comments of a compassionate Trial Judge. In
any event, it is a characterization of general impressions garnered at the trial,
not a finding of fact, and, as the Judge himself found, not sufficient to overturn
the decision of the Board.
10
Affirmed.
In its denial of appellant's application, the Local Board stated: "The board
Dickinson v. United States (1953), 346 U.S. 389, pp. 394-395, 74 S.Ct. 152, 98
L.Ed. 132; Austin v. United States (5th Cir., 1970) 434 F.2d 1301, 1303, cert.
den. 402 U.S. 1012, 91 S.Ct. 2196, 29 L.Ed.2d 435; United States v.
Washington (6th Cir., 1968) 392 F.2d 37, 39; United States v. Schoebel (7th
Cir., 1953) 201 F.2d 31, 32
Peckat v. Lutz (4th Cir., 1971) 451 F.2d 366; United States v. Broyles (4th Cir.,
1970) 423 F.2d 1299, pp. 1303-1305; United States v. James (4th Cir., 1969)
417 F.2d 826, 832
Even his counsel, in his brief filed with this Court, has described his answers to
the questions set forth on his Form 150 as both "cryptic" and "terse"
See Welsh v. United States (1970) 398 U.S. 333, 340, 90 S.Ct. 1792, 26
L.Ed.2d 308
The full answers of the registrant to the four questions propounded on his Form
150, which was his application for a conscientious objector classification, are as
follows:
"Question 1: Describe the nature of your belief which is the basis of your claim
and state why you consider it to be based on religious training and belief.
"Answer: By the miracle of life, I have been given a liberty to pursue a state of
happiness and peace.
"Question 2: Explain how, when and from whom or from what source you
received the religious training and acquired the religious belief which is the
basis of your claim. (Include here, where applicable, such information as
religion of parents and other members of family; childhood religious training;
religious and general education; experiences at school and college;
organizational memberships and affiliations; books and other readings which
influenced you; association with clergymen, teachers, advisers or other
individuals which affected you; and any other material which will help give the
local board the fullest possible picture of how your beliefs developed.)
"Answer: It is my belief that I have been endowed with a free will by my
Creator.
"Question 3: To what extent does your religious training and belief restrict you
from ministering to the sick and injured, either civilian or military, or from
serving in the Armed Forces as a noncombatant without weapons?
"Answer: It is by belief that the Armed Forces cannot justify any Christian
principles that it may practice within its institution.
"Question 4: Have you ever given expression publicly or privately, written or
oral, to the views herein expressed as the basis for your claim? Give Examples.
"Answer: I have examined my conscience before God and sincerely believe that
I have sought the truth."
7
Cf., Kurtz v. Laird (5th Cir. 1971) 449 F.2d 210, 212
See, United States v. Goodman (7th Cir. 1970) 435 F.2d 306, 314; United
States v. Lloyd (9th Cir. 1970) 431 F.2d 160, 166-167, cert. den.; United States
v. Evans (9th Cir. 1970) 425 F.2d 302, 304, cert. den.; Haven v. United States
(9th Cir. 1969) 403 F.2d 384, 385, cert. den. 393 U.S. 1114, 89 S.Ct. 926, 22
L.Ed.2d 120; Camp v. United States (5th Cir. 1969) 413 F.2d 419, 421-422,
cert. den. 396 U.S. 968, 90 S.Ct. 451, 24 L.Ed.2d 434; Fults v. United States
(10th Cir. 1968) 395 F.2d 852, 854; Nickerson v. United States (10th Cir. 1968)
391 F.2d 760, 762, cert. den. 392 U.S. 907, 88 S.Ct. 2061, 20 L.Ed.2d 1366;
United States v. Holmes (7th Cir. 1967) 387 F.2d 781, 785, cert. den. 391 U.S.
936, 88 S.Ct. 1835, 20 L.Ed.2d 856; United States v. Mientke (7th Cir. 1967)
387 F.2d 1009, 1011, cert. den. 390 U.S. 1011, 88 S.Ct. 1261, 20 L.Ed.2d 162;
United States v. Capson (10th Cir. 1965) 347 F.2d 959, 962-963, cert. den. 382
U.S. 911, 86 S.Ct. 254, 15 L.Ed.2d 163; Imboden v. United States (6th Cir.
1952) 194 F.2d 508, 513, cert. den. 343 U.S. 957, 72 S.Ct. 1052, 96 L.Ed. 1357
Gruca v. Secretary of Army (1970) 141 U.S.App.D.C. 85, 436 F.2d 239, 243244, cert. den. 401 U.S. 978, 91 S.Ct. 1207, 28 L.Ed.2d 328