*1 940 A. 10th

No. 72-53. C. Francis United States. v. Cir. denied. Certiorari Douglas,

Mr. Justice dissenting. petition This on its face seems to me to be one we should and reverse the below on grant judgment the basis States, of Sicurella v. United very- 348 U. 385. At the S. put least we the case down for oral argument. should report Petitioner was convicted for failure to for in- duction into the Armed Forces in violation of 50 U. C.S. App. (a) 462 and Appeals § the Court of affirmed. 457 F. 2d 553.

When I-A, petitioner classified as requested classifica- tion as objector. a conscientious rejected The Board request his on grounds: five “1. Left Church. Religion is not thoroughly under- stood. Appears

“2. insincere in his request. 1-0 Possibly coached.

“3. help Could man, a wounded but wouldn’t in battle. “4. Decision to fill out apply SSS 150 and for 1-0 status came after he fell behind academically.

“5. take military Won’t Appears orders. that he is against any taking orders.”

The first reason plainly seems untenable as a ground for denying the 1-0 years classification. Two earlier petitioner joined had the of Church Christ. But the fact that he left it is irrelevant to his 1-0 status. His tie to a church is irrelevant to claim, purely his because ethical or moral grounds, though any unrelated to church, are adequate, if sincerely Seeger, believed. United States v. 380 163; States, U. S. Welsh United v. 398 U. S. 333.

The third ground is plainly also insufficient. It is true says as the Government that the extent to peti- which would be tioner willing help to the wounded is relevant as to whether he should be to assigned Class I-A-0 for non-

941 objection military- all Yet one’s to combatant service. part military that of serv- may service include even well *2 capacity. ice serve in That that one can noncombatant a to point petitioner’s willingness the apparently was of in battle. It his help injured man, except an underlines that service even in a noncombatant ca- asserted belief upon The pacity his beliefs. fifth stated infringes ground by really part parcel the is and Selective Service Board military of petitioner’s objection asserted to all service. States, In Sicurella v. United 348 it S., 392, U. at was say impossible to on the grounds what Service Selective Board made the ground being illegiti- classification. One mate, aside conviction, integrity we set the for the of system the demanded rely legiti- that the Board on some Clay mate ground. We followed that course in v. United States, 703-704, concededly 403 U. 698, S. where two of grounds the three the which Board denied relief on Sicurella, were not valid ones. And noted that, we since that rule had practice become the established of federal courts, when of dealing with the criminal sanction the Id., Selective Service at 705. Laws.

I way see no to this Sicurella distinguish case from and Clay and would therefore and grant certiorari reverse. I Or, very as at the said, least we should certiorari grant and put the case down for argument. oral Memphis

No. 72-96. Gas & Division Light, Water A. D. C. C. Cir. v. Federal et Power Commission al. Certiorari part denied. took no in Mr. Powell Justice the consideration or of petition. decision this Capital Corp.

No. 72-105. Assistance v. United C. A. 9th dispense Cir. Motion to et al. States with petition printing granted. Certiorari denied.