32 C.F.R. § 1627.3
Classification of volunteers
When a registrant who is eligible to volunteer files an Application for Voluntary Induction, he shall be classified in Class 1-A and processed for induction.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases, 1966–1972 · leading case: McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185 (1969).
McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185 (1969). “2 (1969), and, in some instances, to the President, 32 CFR § 1627.3 (1969). No registrant is required to appeal.”
Fein v. Selective Serv. Sys. Local Bd. No. 7 of Yonkers, 405 U.S. 365 (1972). “Under 32 CFR § 1627.3 [3] a registrant was not entitled to take an appeal to the presidential, or national, appeal board from an adverse classification by the state appeal board made by a unanimous vote.”
Jack L. Edwards v. Selective Serv. Local Bd. No. 111, Newton Cnty., Georgia, 432 F.2d 287 (5th Cir. 1970). “3 20 32 C.F.R. 1627.3 21 Id. 1627.4 22 Id. 1627.”
Cassius Marsellus Clay, Jr. v. United States, 397 F.2d 901 (5th Cir. 1968). “) Registrant could not file such an appeal because the regulations ( 32 C.F.R. § 1627.3 ) require that one or more members of the appeal board dissent from the classification before a registrant has such a right to file the appeal himself.”
United States v. David J. Miller, 367 F.2d 72 (2d Cir. 1966). “See also 32 C.F.R. § 1627.3 (Supp.1966) (significance of vote).”
United States v. Hedges, 297 F. Supp. 946 (S.D. Iowa 1969). “After his arrival in Bolivia the defendant instituted an appeal to the President pursuant to 32 C.F.R. § 1627.3 , which allows such appeal when one or more members of the Appeal Board dissent from a classification.”
United States v. Melvin Harvey Tobias, 447 F.2d 227 (3rd Cir. 1971). “by the registrant to the National Selective Service Appeal Board if one or more members of the state appeal board dissents from the board’s decision, 32 C.F.R. § 1627.3 . 3 . Military Selective Service Act of 1967, § 10(b) (3).”
Timothy Martinetto v. United States, 391 F.2d 346 (9th Cir. 1968). “See 32 C.F.R. § 1627.3 . 1 The agency procedures which occurred between June 29, 1966 and September 27, 1966, when Martinetto refused to report for instructions, are immaterial for the purposes of this appeal.”
United States v. Richard Allen Guymon, 438 F.2d 634 (9th Cir. 1971). “The dissenting vote on the Appeal Board gave him a right to appeal to the President pursuant to 32 C.F.R. § 1627.3 . Because Guymon did not avail himself of an appeal to the President, the Government argues that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that he is…”
Fein v. Selective Serv. Sys. Local Bd. No. 7, 430 F.2d 376 (2d Cir. 1970). “On September 16, 1968, the National Selective Service Director, at Fein’s request (no right of appeal by the registrant being available from an unanimous vote of the appeal board, 32 C.F.R. § 1627.3 (1967)), appealed the decision to the Presidential Appeal Board.”
Ramos v. United States, 319 F. Supp. 1207 (D.R.I. 1970). “A registrant can request a personal appearance before his local board to contest his classification or to provide new or additional information, as a basis for requesting reconsideration of his classification.”
McDowell v. Sacramento Local Bd. Grp., 264 F. Supp. 492 (E.D. Cal. 1967). “…director to the President on the ground that it is in the national interest or necessary to prevent injustice. See 32 C.F.R. §§ 1627.3 , 1627.1(a).”
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.