Age selection groups are established as follows:
(a) The age 20 selection group for each calendar year consists of registrants who have attained or will attain the age of 20 in that year.
(b) The age 21 selection group for each calendar year consists of registrants who have attained or will attain the age of 21 in that year and, in like manner, each age selection group will be so designated through age group 25.
(c) The age 26 through 34 selection groups consist of registrants who meet the following three criteria:
(1) They have attained or will attain the age of 26 through 34, respectively, during the calendar year; and
(2) They have been previously ordered to report for induction but have not been inducted; and
(3) They have been classified in one of the following classes:
(i) Class 1-D-D.
(ii) Class 2-D.
(iii) Class 3-A.
(iv) Class 4-B.
(v) Class 4-F.
(d) The age 19 selection group for each calendar year consists of registrants who have attained the age of 19 in that year.
(e) The age 18 selection group shall consist of registrants who have attained the age of 18 years and six months and who have not attained the age of 19 years in the order of their dates of birth with the oldest being selected first.
Notes of Decisions
Paszel v. Laird, 426 F.2d 1169 (2d Cir. 1970).
“32 C.F.R. 1624.3 4 In Gearey I we remanded to the district court for a determination whether the board had in fact considered the reopening request because the Board's finding that Gearey was not 'a genuine c.”
Russell M. Morgan v. Bert Melchar, 442 F.2d 1082 (3rd Cir. 1971).
“In the ease of an original classification, and hence in the case of a reopening and reconsideration, there is an automatic stay of an induction order pending an appearance before a Local Board, 32 C.F.R. § 1624.3 (1970), and pending administrative appeal, 32 C.”
United States v. Nathan Joshua Zablen, 436 F.2d 1075 (9th Cir. 1971).
“32 C.F.R. §§ 1624.3 , 1626.41. Hence, the board could not have issued appellant a valid induction order prior to July 13.”
United States v. Griglio, 334 F. Supp. 1283 (D. Mass. 1971).
“4, 6, 9, 11, 15, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28) were awaiting either a personal appearance or an appeal and, under 32 C.F.R. § 1624.3 and 32 C. F.R. § 1626.”
Paszel v. Laird, 426 F.2d 1169 (2d Cir. 1970).
“32 C.F.R. § 1624.3 . ; In Gearey I we remanded to the district court for a determination whether the board had in fact considered the reopening request because the Board’s finding that Gearey was not “a genuine c.”
United States v. Holby, 345 F. Supp. 639 (S.D.N.Y. 1972).
“4, 9, 12, 13, 17 and 42) were awaiting either a personal appearance or an appeal and, under 32 C.F.R. §§ 1624.3 , 1626.41, could not be ordered for induction; four registrants (Nos.”
United States v. Robert Gene Rosebear, 500 F.2d 1102 (8th Cir. 1974).
“His order to report could not be issued sooner because of the requirement in 32 C.F.R. § 1624.3 (1971) that such an order could not be issued during the time given in § 1624.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.