# Private David H. O'Brien v. Stanley Resor, Secretary of the Army, Washington, D. C.

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · March 18, 1970 · 423 F.2d 594

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9455415

## Case

- **Full name:** Private David H. O’BRIEN, Appellant, v. Stanley RESOR, Secretary of the Army, Washington, D. C., Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 18, 1970
- **Citations:** 423 F.2d 594; 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10252
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Bryan
- **Judges:** Sobeloff, Bryan, Winter
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9455415

## Opinion text

ALBERT V. BRYAN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
Again the Court reverses the Selective Service Board, the Appeal Board, and the District Court because the administrative agency in classifying O’Brien as 1-A did not state its reasons. As stated in the dissent in United States v. Broyles, 423 F.2d 1306 (4 Cir. 1970), neither the statute nor due process, in my judgment imposes any such requirement.
Also, I think the majority is on shaky ground in relying, as it does in part, on what certain Board members said to O’Brien. After his final classification O’Brien returned to catechize the Board on its determination. One or two of the members responded that they thought he was sincere. On this score the Court finds evidence of sincerity in O’Brien’s claim.
But this was not a Board finding of sincerity or credibility. Nor was it Board action, which actually was quite to the contrary. After all, what counts is what is done. Here the several members could have been praising O’Brien’s diligence in pressing his claim rather than the sincerity of his belief.
In sum, again I do not believe the Board was required or intended to state the reasons for its conclusion. As the majority disclaims any indication of how the Board should have resolved the application of O’Brien for CO status, I refrain from discussing the sufficiency of the evidence upon the point.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9455415. Public record. Not legal advice.