POWELL, District Judge:
This appeal is from a conviction of the appellant for refusal to submit to induction into the Armed Forces in violation of 50 U.S.C. App. § 462. This Court has jurisdiction under Rule 37 of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
The appellant Welsh registered with his local board on February 2, 1960. On December 11, 1961 the board received his completed classification questionnaire (SSS Form 100). He did not then claim to be a conscientious objector.
On December 14, 1961 the board classified the appellant I-A. On January 15, 1963 the board received appellant’s application for a permit to leave the United States. The application stated that the appellant’s classification was I-A. On February 5, 1963 the board issued a permit allowing the appellant to depart for a period of one year, which expired March 16, 1964. On March 27, 1964 the appellant was ordered to report for a physical examination. On April 10, 1964 appellant requested and was given a special form for conscientious objector (SSS Form 150). It was completed and received by the board on April 24, 1964. In that form the appellant stated that he was “by reason of * * * belief, conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form.” 1 The appellant had altered the statement in the form by striking out the words “my religious training and” so that the statement read as above. He answered the question, “Do you believe in a Supreme Being?” by putting an X in the box marked “No.”2 He attached a note explaining the nature of his beliefs.
On May 12, 1964 the appellant’s local board classified him I-A-O, and on May 25, 1964 the appellant sent the local board a letter amending his SSS Form 150 to request classification as I-O. He claimed exemption from both combatant and non-combatant training and service and requested a personal appearance.
He appeared before the local board on June 9. On June 10 the board informed appellant that he was still classified I-A-O. On June 19, 1964 the board received a letter in which appellant stated he was appealing to the Appeal Board from the refusal to classify him as I-O.
On July 28, 1964 the Appeal Board tentatively determined the appellant should not be classified I-O or any lower class.
On November 15, 1965 the appellant’s file was returned by the Appeal Board which classified appellant I-A by a vote [1081]*1081of 3-0. On November 22, 1965 the board mailed the appellant an order to report for induction on December 8, 1965. He reported to the induction center and refused to step forward when his name was called, thereby manifesting his refusal to submit to induction. This prosecution followed.
The appellant raises principal questions as follows:
1. Was the Selective Service System’s denial of a conscientious objector classification to appellant without basis in fact and arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law?
2. Were the report and recommendation of the hearing officer and the Department of Justice to the Appeal Board arbitrary, capricious and illegal because based upon unlawful standards?
3. Was the appellant denied a fair hearing before the local board because the board gave appellant too short a hearing or failed to pass upon his eligibility for 1-0 classification?
4. Was the appellant denied a fair hearing before the Appeal Board in that neither he nor the Appeal Board was given the full report of the FBI or of the hearing officer made to the Department of Justice?
5. Was the appellant denied due process by the induction station’s failure to give him an opportunity to complete DD Form 98, Armed Forces Security Questionnaire, as required by the regulations ?
6. Did the local board thwart appellant’s timely presentation of his request for classification as III-A based on his wife’s pregnancy and thus deny him due process of law?
I
Appellant claims that the Appeal Board denial of 1-0 and I-A-0 classifications was without any basis in fact. He also contends that insofar as the Appeal Board decision rested upon the “Supreme Being” clause of section 6(j) 3 it is premised upon an unconstitutional distinction between theistic and non-theistic religious beliefs.
In United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 176, 85 S.Ct. 850, 859, 13 L.Ed.2d 733 (1965) the Supreme Court explicitly adopted the following test for evaluating conscientious objector claims:
“A sincere and meaningful belief which occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those admittedly qualifying for the exemption comes within the statutory definition.”
A determinative question posed by application of the Seeger test to the facts of this case is whether the sufficiency of a registrant’s beliefs is to be measured by strength or source or both. Unquestionably strength of belief (or sincerity) is an accepted criterion for judging conscientious objector claims. See United States v. Seeger, supra, at 185, 85 S.Ct. 850; Dickinson v. United States, 346 U.S. 389, 396, 74 S.Ct. 152, 98 L.Ed. 132 (1953). The court in Seeger also noted, apparently with approval, that:
“ * * * The section excludes those persons who disavowing religious belief, decide on the basis of essentially political, sociological or economic considerations that war is wrong and that they will have no part of it. * * * ” United States v. Seeger, supra, 380 U.S. at 173, 85 S.Ct. at 858.
This quotation obviously contemplates a test based on the source of a registrant’s beliefs. The belief is the same for both philosophical and religious objectors, that it is wrong to participate in war.
The government concedes that appellant’s beliefs are held with the strength of more traditional religious convictions. But appellant constantly declared that his beliefs stemmed from [1082]*1082sociological, economic, historical and philosophical considerations. He denied that his objection to war was premised on religious belief. The Appeal Board was entitled to take him at his word, as he failed to meet the statutory standard, and to deny his request to be so classified.
Appellant next urges us to adopt the well reasoned opinion of Judge Kaufman in United States v. Seeger, 326 F.2d 846 (2d Cir. 1964), rev’d, 380 U.S. 163, 85 S.Ct. 850, 13 L.Ed.2d 733 (1964). That Circuit Court opinion held that the “Supreme Being” clause of section 6(j) unconstitutionally discriminated between theistic and non-theistic religious beliefs, 326 F.2d at 852-855. But in our case the Department of Justice recommendation quoted the test given above from Seeger. 380 U.S. 173, 85 S.Ct. 850. The facts and result of Seeger at the Supreme Court level lead to only one conclusion: the Supreme Court deleted the “Supreme Being” clause from the statute as Mr.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
POWELL, District Judge:
This appeal is from a conviction of the appellant for refusal to submit to induction into the Armed Forces in violation of 50 U.S.C. App. § 462. This Court has jurisdiction under Rule 37 of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
The appellant Welsh registered with his local board on February 2, 1960. On December 11, 1961 the board received his completed classification questionnaire (SSS Form 100). He did not then claim to be a conscientious objector.
On December 14, 1961 the board classified the appellant I-A. On January 15, 1963 the board received appellant’s application for a permit to leave the United States. The application stated that the appellant’s classification was I-A. On February 5, 1963 the board issued a permit allowing the appellant to depart for a period of one year, which expired March 16, 1964. On March 27, 1964 the appellant was ordered to report for a physical examination. On April 10, 1964 appellant requested and was given a special form for conscientious objector (SSS Form 150). It was completed and received by the board on April 24, 1964. In that form the appellant stated that he was “by reason of * * * belief, conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form.” 1 The appellant had altered the statement in the form by striking out the words “my religious training and” so that the statement read as above. He answered the question, “Do you believe in a Supreme Being?” by putting an X in the box marked “No.”2 He attached a note explaining the nature of his beliefs.
On May 12, 1964 the appellant’s local board classified him I-A-O, and on May 25, 1964 the appellant sent the local board a letter amending his SSS Form 150 to request classification as I-O. He claimed exemption from both combatant and non-combatant training and service and requested a personal appearance.
He appeared before the local board on June 9. On June 10 the board informed appellant that he was still classified I-A-O. On June 19, 1964 the board received a letter in which appellant stated he was appealing to the Appeal Board from the refusal to classify him as I-O.
On July 28, 1964 the Appeal Board tentatively determined the appellant should not be classified I-O or any lower class.
On November 15, 1965 the appellant’s file was returned by the Appeal Board which classified appellant I-A by a vote [1081]*1081of 3-0. On November 22, 1965 the board mailed the appellant an order to report for induction on December 8, 1965. He reported to the induction center and refused to step forward when his name was called, thereby manifesting his refusal to submit to induction. This prosecution followed.
The appellant raises principal questions as follows:
1. Was the Selective Service System’s denial of a conscientious objector classification to appellant without basis in fact and arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law?
2. Were the report and recommendation of the hearing officer and the Department of Justice to the Appeal Board arbitrary, capricious and illegal because based upon unlawful standards?
3. Was the appellant denied a fair hearing before the local board because the board gave appellant too short a hearing or failed to pass upon his eligibility for 1-0 classification?
4. Was the appellant denied a fair hearing before the Appeal Board in that neither he nor the Appeal Board was given the full report of the FBI or of the hearing officer made to the Department of Justice?
5. Was the appellant denied due process by the induction station’s failure to give him an opportunity to complete DD Form 98, Armed Forces Security Questionnaire, as required by the regulations ?
6. Did the local board thwart appellant’s timely presentation of his request for classification as III-A based on his wife’s pregnancy and thus deny him due process of law?
I
Appellant claims that the Appeal Board denial of 1-0 and I-A-0 classifications was without any basis in fact. He also contends that insofar as the Appeal Board decision rested upon the “Supreme Being” clause of section 6(j) 3 it is premised upon an unconstitutional distinction between theistic and non-theistic religious beliefs.
In United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 176, 85 S.Ct. 850, 859, 13 L.Ed.2d 733 (1965) the Supreme Court explicitly adopted the following test for evaluating conscientious objector claims:
“A sincere and meaningful belief which occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those admittedly qualifying for the exemption comes within the statutory definition.”
A determinative question posed by application of the Seeger test to the facts of this case is whether the sufficiency of a registrant’s beliefs is to be measured by strength or source or both. Unquestionably strength of belief (or sincerity) is an accepted criterion for judging conscientious objector claims. See United States v. Seeger, supra, at 185, 85 S.Ct. 850; Dickinson v. United States, 346 U.S. 389, 396, 74 S.Ct. 152, 98 L.Ed. 132 (1953). The court in Seeger also noted, apparently with approval, that:
“ * * * The section excludes those persons who disavowing religious belief, decide on the basis of essentially political, sociological or economic considerations that war is wrong and that they will have no part of it. * * * ” United States v. Seeger, supra, 380 U.S. at 173, 85 S.Ct. at 858.
This quotation obviously contemplates a test based on the source of a registrant’s beliefs. The belief is the same for both philosophical and religious objectors, that it is wrong to participate in war.
The government concedes that appellant’s beliefs are held with the strength of more traditional religious convictions. But appellant constantly declared that his beliefs stemmed from [1082]*1082sociological, economic, historical and philosophical considerations. He denied that his objection to war was premised on religious belief. The Appeal Board was entitled to take him at his word, as he failed to meet the statutory standard, and to deny his request to be so classified.
Appellant next urges us to adopt the well reasoned opinion of Judge Kaufman in United States v. Seeger, 326 F.2d 846 (2d Cir. 1964), rev’d, 380 U.S. 163, 85 S.Ct. 850, 13 L.Ed.2d 733 (1964). That Circuit Court opinion held that the “Supreme Being” clause of section 6(j) unconstitutionally discriminated between theistic and non-theistic religious beliefs, 326 F.2d at 852-855. But in our case the Department of Justice recommendation quoted the test given above from Seeger. 380 U.S. 173, 85 S.Ct. 850. The facts and result of Seeger at the Supreme Court level lead to only one conclusion: the Supreme Court deleted the “Supreme Being” clause from the statute as Mr. Justice Douglas observed “in the candid service of avoiding a serious constitutional doubt.” Concurring opinion of Douglas, J., United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. at 188, 85 S.Ct. at 865 (1965) quoting from United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41, 47, 73 S.Ct. 543, 97 L.Ed. 770 (1953). We see no need to consider the constitutionality of this clause because it was already sub silentio stricken from the statute and was so considered by the Department of Justice in this case.
The hearing officer found “no religious basis for the registrant’s conscientious objector claim.”4 His conclusion was accepted by the Department of Justice which recommended that the Appeal Board deny appellant’s claim for 1-0 classification. Appellant contends that this recommendation was bottomed on artificial and unlawful standards. In support of this contention appellant relies upon the following observations of the hearing officer: Appellant had not formulated an opinion on euthanasia; he had not formulated an opinion on birth control and, more precisely, upon the question of when life begins in the womb; appellant did not believe in life after death; he did not believe in God or any other entity with authority over man.
A Department of Justice recommendation premised upon an error of law vitiates an Appeal Board classification. Sicurella v. United States, 348 U.S. 385, 392, 75 S.Ct. 403, 99 L.Ed. 436 (1955). In Shepherd v. United States, 217 F.2d 942, 946 (9th Cir. 1954) the hearing officer concluded that Shepherd’s willingness to participate in theocratic warfare negated his claim of conscientious objection. This court held this conclusion was wrong as a matter of law and reversed Shepherd’s conviction. In Bradley v. United States, 218 F.2d 657, 663 (9th Cir. 1954), rev’d on other grounds, 348 U.S. 967, 75 S.Ct. 532, 99 L.Ed. 754 (1955), the hearing officer observed that Bradley believed in using force in self-defense. But the hearing officer did not conclude that this fact negated Bradley’s claim. The court distinguished between a legally insufficient adverse conclusion and mere observation of facts which, had they led to an adverse conclusion, would have been legally insufficient to support it. Bradley v. United States, supra, at 663 n. 9. The observations upon which appellant relies were only observations of fact. We assume, arguendo, that none of them necessarily negates appellant’s claim for conscientious objector classification. See United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 85 S.Ct. 850, 13 L.Ed.2d 733 (1965). But the hearing officer did not conclude that these observations negated appellant’s claim. The distinction drawn in Bradley v. United States, supra, between observations of fact and conclusions of law, controls.
Appellant also, suggests that these observations were improper. But appellant altered the Special Form For Conscientious Objectors, denying a religious basis for his beliefs and denying [1083]*1083belief in a Supreme Being. These alterations raised uncertainty about the “religious” quality of his beliefs. The purpose of the hearing officer’s inquiry is to explore uncertainties. MacMurray v. United States, 330 F.2d 928, 932 (9th Cir. 1964). How can the hearing officer proceed without inquiring into the application of a registrant’s beliefs to ethical, religious, moral and philosophical problems ? And what function would the inquiry serve if a registrant’s answers could not be transmitted through the Department of Justice to the Appeal Board?
Appellant contends that he was denied a fair hearing before the local board. Specifically, he contends that his personal appearance was too short and that the local board failed to pass upon his eligibility for 1-0 classification.
When appellant appeared before the local board he declared that he felt his classification should be 1-0 rather than I-A-O. The reasons for this request, he said, were detailed in his letter of May 25, 1964 (which also contained his request for personal appearance and notice of appeal). He made no attempt to present additional material to the board. Selective Service Regulation 1624.2(B), 32 C.F.R. § 1624.2(b), affords a registrant the opportunity to present “further information.” But no regulation requires a board to question a registrant when he says his position has already been stated. Appellant’s hearing was short because he had nothing further to say.5 No unfairness appears in this respect. See Martin v. United States, 190 F.2d 775, 778-779 (4th Cir.), cert. den., 342 U.S. 872, 72 S.Ct. 115, 96 L.Ed. 656 (1951).
Appellant’s contention that the local board failed to pass upon his 1-0 claim is based upon a letter he wrote after his personal appearance. In that letter he states: “Then one of the board members said ‘we don’t have authority to pass upon his classification. It will have to go to the Appeal Board.’ ”6 If this statement was made as quoted the board member was mistaken. Selective Service Regulations contemplate a decision by the local board following personal appearance of a registrant. 32 C.F.R. § 1624.2(c). Failure to render a decision vitiates a later classification by the Appeal Board. Knox v. United States, 200 F.2d 398 (9th Cir. 1952). But it does not appear that this statement was made as quoted. In his letter appellant continues: “This quotation is as close as I can recall. A secretary was transcribing the conversation so the statement should be a matter of record.” 7 The “record” to which appellant refers states: “Registrant was informed that since he has appealed the I-A-O classification, his file would go to the Appeal Board and they would investigate to determine whether or not he qualifies for a 1-0 classification.”8 There is no reference to local board jurisdiction, nor any explicit statement that the board would not render a decision. The record is consistent with the probability that the board was informing appellant that his claim was being denied. In fact this appears to be what happened, for the next day appellant received a new notice of classification from the local board informing him that he was being retained in class I-A-O.9 This case is distinguishable from Knox v. United States, supra; the. presumption of regularity which was overcome in that case governs here.
Appellant contends he was denied a fair hearing before the Appeal Board because neither the Appeal Board nor [1084]*1084appellant was provided with the full report of the FBI investigation or the full report of the hearing officer.
We think appellant’s contention directed to the Department of Justice’s refusal to provide him with a full copy of the FBI investigative report is without merit. In United States v. Nugent, 346 U.S. 1, 5, 73 S.Ct. 991, 994, 97 L.Ed. 1417 (1953), the Court held:
“ * * * We think that the statutory scheme for review, within the selective service system, of exemptions claimed by conscientious objectors entitled them to no guarantee that the FBI reports must be produced for their inspection. * * * ”
Appellant attempts to distinguish Nu-gent because the registrant in that case did not request a copy of the report. This factor was noted by the Court. United States v. Nugent, supra, at 7 n. 10, 73 S.Ct. 991. But as the quotation above indicates the Supreme Court did not so restrict its decision. Nor can we see any reason why it should be so restricted.
To refute appellant’s contention that the entire FBI record should have been forwarded to the Appeal Board it is only necessary to advert to the identical circumstances in United States v. Nugent, supra, at 7 n. 10, 73 S.Ct. 991.
The same rationale applies to appellant’s complaint about the Department of Justice’s failure to provide either appellant or the Appeal Board with the hearing officer’s full report. The analogy is strengthened by appellant’s presence at the hearing and his consequent knowledge of what transpired there. This knowledge largely obviates the objections to the majority opinion in Nugent expressed by Mr. Justice Douglas in dissent. Contentions identical to those made by appellant were considered in DeRemer v. United States, 340 F.2d 712, 715-717 (8th Cir. 1965). Drawing upon the body of administrative law, and especially considering the unavailability of intra-agency memoranda, the court rejected these contentions. So do we.
Appellant contends his reply to the Department of Justice recommendation supplied by him in accordance with 32 C.F.R. § 1626.25(e), was never placed before the Appeal Board and that this procedural irregularity vitiated the classification process. He testified:
“I took the rebuttal to the Appeal Board. * * * [Fjinally a clerk came out of her room, and she asked me what I wanted, and I said that I had the letter for the — letter of rebuttal to the Attorney General’s letter for the Appeal Board. She said, ‘Oh, yes, * * * ’ And she said ‘Well, I'll see that the Board gets a summary of this letter.’ And I said, ‘You mean they don’t see the letter.’ And she said, ‘Well, they could if they wanted but they usually don’t have a great deal of time and they usually read the summary.’ ” Record, Vol. 2, at 23.
“It is the settled general rule that all necessary prerequisites to the validity of official action are presumed to have been complied with, and that where the contrary is asserted it must be affirmatively shown.” Lewis v. United States, 279 U.S. 63, 73, 49 S.Ct. 257, 260, 73 L.Ed. 615 (1929) (alternative holding). Keene v. United States10 explained the foundation of this presumption:
“The presumption which attends these proceedings [local board level] is founded in the policy of the law, and is derived from the faith and credit [1085]*1085we owe to official acts of duly constituted authority. As such, it is legally sufficient to sustain the burden of regularity and validity until dissipated by some probative evidence to the contrary.”
See also, 9 Wigmore, Evidence §§ 2490, 2491 (3rd Ed. 1940); ALI Model Code of Evidence, Rule 704, Introductory Note to Chap. VIII (presumptions), Morgan, Forward at 52-65 (1942). There is no showing that the Appeal Board did not receive or consider appellant’s letter. This is merely an inference which might, but need not, be drawn. As such, it is insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity. Keene v. United States, supra, note 10.
II
Before being given an opportunity to submit to induction appellant was asked to re-execute his Armed Forces Security Questionnaire, DD Form 98. He stated that some of the answers he gave the year before would no longer be correct and refused to re-execute the form. AR 601-270, ch. 4, § II, para. 80(b) (2) at 4-7 (1965) declares that a registrant who refuses to execute DD Form 98 will “not be inducted into the Armed Forces pending completion of a thorough investigation.” The investigative process is detailed in AR 604-10, § III, para. 18 (1959); 604-10, §§ IV, V (1959). Rather than delay appellant’s induction pending investigation, induction station personnel ordered him to step forward. Appellant now contends that this procedural irregularity vitiates the command to step forward and, therefore, his conviction. We cannot agree.
The rule is well established that “procedural irregularities or omissions which do not result in prejudice to the registrant are to be disregarded.” Knox v. United States, 200 F.2d 398, 401 (9th Gir. 1952). See Edwards v. United States, 395 F.2d 453 (9th Cir., May 10, 1968). Appellant did not offer to prove that an investigation by military intelligence would have uncovered evidence that he was a security risk.
None of the factors which have led us to presume prejudice from procedural omissions are present in this case. Comparison of appellant’s contentions with our decision in Briggs v. United States, 397 F.2d 370 (9th Cir. June 26, 1968) will illustrate the absence of these factors. In Briggs, induction station personnel denied the registrant a physical inspection required by AR 601-270, ch. 3, § III, para. 69 (1965). We presumed prejudice and reversed. A registrant’s failure to take physical examinations precludes him from challenging his classification; he is said to have failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See the discussion of Falbo v. United States, 320 U.S. 549, 64 S.Ct. 346, 88 L.Ed. 305 (1944) in Estep v. United States, 327 U.S. 114, 123, 66 S.Ct. 423, 90 L.Ed. 567 (1946). The Army’s refusal to give a physical inspection should bear equivalent consequences.
Execution of DD Form 98 has not been held to be an administrative remedy which the registrant must exhaust. Also, a medical deferment is granted at least partially for the benefit of the individual registrant. But rejection by the Army for security reasons, like rejection for felony conviction, is wholly for the benefit of the Army and may be waived. See Nickerson v. United States, 391 F.2d 760, 762-763 (10th Cir. 1968); Bjorson v. United States, 272 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1959), cert. den., 362 U.S. 949, 80 S.Ct. 859, 4 L.Ed.2d 867 (1960), overruled in part and on other grounds in Daniels v. United States, 372 F.2d 407, 414 (9th Cir. 1967); Korte v. United States, 260 F.2d 633, 637 (9th Cir. 1958), cert. den., 358 U.S. 928, 79 S.Ct. 313, 3 L.Ed.2d 301 (1959).
The overriding objective of selective service is “to raise an army speedily and efficiently.” Falbo v. United States, supra, 320 U.S. at 553, 64 S.Ct. at 348. But appellant would have us presume prejudice from the Army’s refusal to conduct a useless investigation of his political and social background. Without a real showing of prejudice there is no [1086]*1086reason to require such a waste of military-intelligence resources. Nor should any obstinate inductee be given an opportunity to delay his induction for possibly months by refusing to execute the security questionnaire.
Ill
Appellant claims that he should have been granted a III-A (dependency) deferment. He argues that proper presentation of his request for this deferment was thwarted by the local board clerk. Appellant testified that he visited his local board to inform it that he had moved and that his wife was pregnant and that he and his wife had made an appointment with a doctor to confirm the pregnancy. He further testified:
“When I asked if I could give the board more information than I had given them, I had filled out an address, change of address form, the clerk said to me, ‘What is your classification?’ I said ‘my classification is I-A-O.’ The clerk then said ‘If we want any more, if we want any more information from you, we'll send you a form.’
Q. Did that form ever come?
A. No sir.” Record, Vol. 2 at 19.
This evidence does not support appellant’s contention that assertion of a III-A claim was thwarted by the clerk. Nowhere does it appear that appellant told the clerk his wife was pregnant. It is probable that the clerk thought appellant was referring to further evidence in support of his I-A-0 classification (conscientious objector available for non-combatant duty). Because appellant had already received this classification, to the best of the clerk’s knowledge additional supporting information was unnecessary. As appellant relates it, although he was thinking of his wife’s pregnancy, he spoke to the clerk only generally of “more information.” It was appellant’s duty to request the III-A deferment in writing accompanied by a doctor’s certificate. 32 C.F.R. §§ 1625.2 (writing), 1622.30(c) (3) (certificate of pregnancy). The requirement of a writing is mandatory and must be followed if the deferment is to be granted. Shaw v. United States, 264 F.2d 118, 119-120 (9th Cir. 1959).
Appellant submitted with his brief evidence of his present III-A status.11 While this provides appellant with a present deferment, it has no bearing on the validity of his I-A classification at the time he refused to submit to induction. Cox v. United States, 332 U.S. 442, 454, 68 S.Ct. 115, 92 L.Ed. 59 (1947); Gatehell v. United States, 378 F.2d 287, 292 (9th Cir. 1967).
Affirmed.
Note: The dissenting opinion of Judge Hamley, while based on other grounds, mentions the possible unconstitutionality of the “religious training and belief” provision of section 6(j) of the Act; The majority feels that since it was not listed as one of the questions presented in appellant's opening brief or argued there it does not require comment in the majority opinion. The only error claimed is the denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal and this question was not presented in that motion.
The majority feels that any application for relief under 28 U.S.G. § 2255 on this ground would find no support in this record and would be met by the prior holdings of this court sustaining the religious exemption against Establishment Clause attack. Etcheverry v. United States, 320 F.2d 873, 874 (9th Cir.), cert. den., 375 U.S. 930, 84 S.Ct. 331, 11 L.Ed.2d 263 (1963), reh’r den., 375 U.S. 989, 84 S.Ct. 515, 11 L.Ed.2d 476, 376 U.S. 939, 84 S.Ct. 791, 11 L.Ed.2d 660 (1964), 380 U.S. 926, 85 S.Ct. 878, 13 L.Ed.2d 813 (1965); Clark v. United States, 236 F.2d 13, 23-24 (9th Cir.), cert. den., 352 U.S. 882, 77 S.Ct. 101, 1 L.Ed.2d 80, reh’r den., 352 U.S. 937, 77 S.Ct. 219, 1 L.Ed.2d 169 (1956); George v. United States, 196 F.2d 445, 450-452 (9th Cir.), cert. den., 344 U.S. 843, 73 S.Ct. 58, 97 L.Ed. 656 (1952).