The opinion of the court was delivered by: HANNUM
This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus by William D. Scott alleging that his induction into the Armed Forces of the United States was unlawful.
Prior to August 13, 1969, petitioner was classified 1-A, and was, therefore, available for military service.
In mid-June, 1969, petitioner left this country on a European seminar tour sponsored by Gordon College.
On August 13, 1969, an order to report for induction on September 18, 1969, was issued by the petitioner's local board in Weymouth, Massachusetts.
On August 19, 1969, the local board received a letter from Westinghouse Electric Corporation that the petitioner would be working there commencing August 25, 1969, and would be one of seven engineers in his area interest. The induction scheduled for September 18, 1969, was postponed in order to enable the local board to consider this new information pursuant to 32 C.F.R. § 1625.2(b). On October 22, 1969, the local board reviewed the information and voted not to reopen. Both the petitioner and Westinghouse were so advised.
Thereafter, on November 17, 1969, the petitioner was again ordered to report for induction on December 8, 1969.
On November 25, 1969, the petitioner requested and obtained a transfer of his induction to Philadelphia.
On December 1, 1969, the local board received a letter from the petitioner declaring that he had become a conscientious objector and requesting a Form 150. On the same day, the local board mailed petitioner the requested form and set a date for a courtesy hearing at which the petitioner would have an opportunity to advance his present claim.
The hearing was held on December 11, 1969, at which time the petitioner discussed his conscientious objector claim with the local board and presented several letters in support thereof.
On December 12, 1969, the petitioner was informed that the local board had concluded that the new information did not warrant a reopening of his classification and, therefore, the local board had unanimously voted not to reopen.
On December 13, 1969, the petitioner requested an appeal from that decision.
On December 23, the petitioner was advised that the interview granted him on December 11, 1969, was merely a courtesy hearing to determine whether petitioner's classification should be reopened and that there was no right ...