17. Because plaintiff was born on August 21, 1947, his random selection sequence number is 291.
18. Random selection sequence number 291 had not been reached by Local Board No. 3 as of July 7, 1970.
19. By letter from Local Board No. 3 dated June 19, 1970, plaintiff was ordered to report for induction on July 7, 1970.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. A basis in fact existed for Local Board No. 3's classification of plaintiff as 1-A on September 12, 1969.
2. Plaintiff's duty to submit to induction was fixed by the Local Board's Order to Report for induction dated October 21, 1969. The issuance by the Local Board on October 30, 1969 of a Postponement of Induction pursuant to 32 C.R.R. § 1632.2(a) to enable plaintiff to complete his first year of law school in no way affected the validity and continuing effectiveness of the original Order to Report for Induction, to which plaintiff has remained subject and under which he was subsequently directed to report for induction on July 7, 1970. 32 C.F.R. § 1632.2(d); United States ex rel. Luster v. McBee, 422 F.2d 562, 569-570 (7th Cir. 1970).
3. The statement of the President as reported in the news media on September 19, 1969, does not have the binding force of an administrative order or law and, in any event, did not, as quoted, relate to the draft call pursuant to which plaintiff was ordered to induct, which draft call was prior to November of 1969.
4. The Proclamation of the President dated November 29, 1969 and contemporaneous Executive Order 11497 (amending Selective Service Regulation 1631, 32 C.F.R. § 1631), which establish a random selection sequence for determining the order in which registrants are to be inducted into the Armed Services of the United States, are not retrospectively applicable to plaintiff, who was issued on October 21, 1969 an Order to Report for Induction pursuant to a call by the Secretary of Defense upon said Local Board prior to October 21, 1969. Swift v. Director of Selective Service, et al., No. 44-70 Criminal, United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, decided April 13, 1970, but not officially reported.
5. Even assuming that plaintiff had been afforded consideration by his Local Board of a request filed prior to April 23, 1970 for a II-A classification he was not then entitled nor is he presently entitled to the same, since plaintiff was not then and is not now presently engaged in the occupationally deferred activity as required by 32 C.F.R. §§ 1622.22 and 1622.23.
6. Since plaintiff was not actually engaged in an occupationally deferred activity as required by 32 C.F.R. §§ 1622.22 and 1622.23 prior to April 23, 1970, the statement of the Executive Secretary of the Local Board to plaintiff upon his visitation in April of 1970 to the effect that he was not eligible for a 2-A deferment was not misrepresentative and induced no mistaken reliance by plaintiff.
7. In filing the instant Complaint on July 6, 1970, the day before plaintiff was to report for induction, when he had knowledge that he had been accepted for future employment at Penn Hall Academy in April of 1970, plaintiff is guilty of laches and will not be looked upon favorably in a court of equity.
An appropriate Order is entered.
Now, this 17 day of July 1970, it is hereby ordered that plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction be and the same is hereby denied and it is further ordered that the Temporary Restraining Order entered by the Court on July 7, 1970 and continued on July 9, 1970 be and the same is hereby dissolved.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.