James J. Howe, Jr., Appellee-Petitioner v. Melvin R. Laird, Secretary of Defense, Appellants-Respondents

Fifth Circuit

James J. Howe, Jr., Appellee-Petitioner v. Melvin R. Laird, Secretary of Defense, Appellants-Respondents

456 F.2d 233, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10851

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 9, 1972

Docket71-3484

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 456 F.2d 233 (James J. Howe, Jr., Appellee-Petitioner v. Melvin R. Laird, Secretary of Defense, Appellants-Respondents) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James J. Howe, Jr., Appellee-Petitioner v. Melvin R. Laird, Secretary of Defense, Appellants-Respondents, 456 F.2d 233, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10851 (5th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The district court concluded that there was no basis in fact for the denial by the Army of conscientious objector status to appellee. We agree. Helwick v. Laird, 5 Cir., 1971, 438 F.2d 959; Kessler v. United States, 5 Cir., 1969, 406 F.2d 151.

The finding of the district court that appellee’s statement in support of his application for discharge, if sincere, made out a prima facie ease, is not disputed. The Army was of the view that appellee lacked the depth of conviction required to qualify for discharge as a conscientious objector. This result rested on the disbelief of appellee by the Army officials who interviewed him. We are unable to find any “. . . affirmative evidence to support the rejection . . .” nor is there anything in the record which “. . substantially blurs the picture painted by [appellee] and thus casts doubt on his sincerity . . . ” Kessler v. United States, supra, 406 F.2d at 156.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The district court concluded that there was no basis in fact for the denial by the Army of conscientious objector status to appellee. We agree. Helwick v. Laird, 5 Cir., 1971, 438 F.2d 959; Kessler v. United States, 5 Cir., 1969, 406 F.2d 151.

The finding of the district court that appellee’s statement in support of his application for discharge, if sincere, made out a prima facie ease, is not disputed. The Army was of the view that appellee lacked the depth of conviction required to qualify for discharge as a conscientious objector. This result rested on the disbelief of appellee by the Army officials who interviewed him. We are unable to find any “. . . affirmative evidence to support the rejection . . .” nor is there anything in the record which “. . substantially blurs the picture painted by [appellee] and thus casts doubt on his sincerity . . . ” Kessler v. United States, supra, 406 F.2d at 156.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

456 F.2d 233, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-j-howe-jr-appellee-petitioner-v-melvin-r-laird-secretary-of-ca5-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack