Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

United States v. William E. McKee

446 F.2d 974

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1971-07-12
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: William E. McKee, convicted of refusing to submit to induction, appeals on the grounds that his draft board failed to consider his application for classification as a conscientious objector. McKee requested reclassification as a conscientious objector for the first time after his induction order had been issued. * The Supreme Court has held that a registrant whose conscientious objection crystallizes only after his induction notice is mailed has no right to have his classification reopened, and that he must submit his claim through military channels. Ehlert v. United States, 402 U.S. 99, 91 S.Ct. 1319, 28 L.Ed.2d 625 (1971).

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. William E. McKee. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
3 opinions
UNITED STATES v. McKEE,446 F.2d 974(4th Cir. 1971)
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. William E. McKEE, Appellant.
No. 14063.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
July 12, 1971.
Geddes H. Martin, Columbia, S.C., and Richard L.C. Sullivan, Columbia, S.C., on the brief, for appellant.

Joseph O. Rogers, Jr., U.S. Atty. for District of South Carolina, and Marvin L. Smith, Asst. U.S. Atty., on the brief, for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and CRAVEN and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
William E. McKee, convicted of refusing to submit to induction, appeals on the grounds that his draft board failed to consider his application for classification as a conscientious objector. McKee requested reclassification as a conscientious objector for the first time after his induction order had been issued.fn*The Supreme Court has held that a registrant whose conscientious objection crystallizes only after his induction notice is mailed has no right to have his classification reopened, and that he must submit his claim through military channels. Ehlert v. United States,402 U.S. 99,91 S.Ct. 1319,28 L.Ed.2d 625(1971). The decision inEhlertis controlling here. The judgment is

Affirmed.Page 975Page 1091
  1. We find no merit in McKee's claim that the board by granting his request for transfer of the place of induction invalidated the induction order. 32 C.F.R. § 1632.2(d), 1632.9(g). ↩