called the Local Board to inform them that she had received the induction notice for her son, but could not give it to him as he had left home and she had no idea where he was.
5. On May 3, 1971, Local Board No. 106 received a letter from the defendant stating that he is a conscientious objector, and requesting a SSS-150 form.
6. This letter gave defendant's address as 106 Everett Avenue, Willow Grove, Pennsylvania.
7. Local Board 106 accepted this letter as a change of address notification and recorded defendant's new address on his file.
8. Pursuant to this request, defendant was mailed a SSS-150 form on June 17, 1971, at the Willow Grove address.
9. Said form was never completed and returned to the Local Board by defendant.
10. On June 11, 1971, Local Board No. 106, after receiving permission from headquarters in Harrisburg, reported defendant to the United States Attorney's office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, as a delinquent.
11. Defendant, on his classification questionnaire, had identified his brother, Frederick J. Schwartz, Jr., of 914 Pleasant Avenue, Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania, as a person other than a member of his household, who will always know his address.
12. In an effort to locate defendant, Local Board No. 106 on March 5, 1971, contacted Frederick J. Schwartz, Jr. However, Frederick Schwartz indicated that his brother (defendant) had not contacted him in six months.
13. Defendant's lottery (RSN) number was seventy-eight (78).
14. At the time the induction order was issued to defendant by Local Board 106, the Local Board was authorized to call for induction registrants with lottery numbers up to one hundred (100).
15. Defendant was notified of his duty to keep the Local Board informed of his local address. This being contained in the classification questionnaire filled out and signed by defendant.
Count 1 charges that defendant knowingly and unlawfully failed to keep his Local Board informed of his current address as required by the Regulations of the Selective Service System (32 C.F.R. 1641.1). Defendant does not claim that he performed the required duty, but rather that the Local Board did not follow a number of regulations which he asserts are conditions precedent to a criminal conviction.
First, the defendant contends that since the Local Board had not contacted the defendant's employer to ascertain his whereabouts, that the government is precluded from prosecuting the defendant for not notifying the Local Board of his whereabouts. For this proposition, defendant relies on Regulation 1642.41(b). However, this must be read in connection with 1642.41(a). These regulations read:
1642.41 Report of Delinquent to United
States Attorney. --