The opinion
GOODWIN, Circuit Judge
(specially concurring).
I concur in the affirmance.
I cannot agree, however, that Rollins forfeited his right to a medical interview for failure to present “evidence” of a disqualifying condition. The local board “shall” order a registrant to report for a medical interview if he “claims” a disqualifying defect. 32 C. F.R. § 1628.2(b). While United States v. D’Arcey, 471 F.2d 880 (9 Cir., 1972) (en banc), held that the registrant is entitled to a medical interview if he presents “evidence” of a defect, the pur *100 pose of D’Arcey was to implement rather than to narrow Reg. 1628.2(b). In using the word “evidence,” D’Arcey was merely stating the rule in light of the situation presented in that case.
Moreover, assuming that Rollins was required to submit some evidence of his claimed defect, I am not persuaded that he failed' to do so. The initial reports of the doctor indicated that Rollins may have had the claimed condition. The final report may be interpreted to mean that the claimed condition has been determined not to exist, but an equally reasonable interpretation is that Rollins was asymptomatic under the diet prescribed and that he need not have returned unless his symptoms reappeared.
Nevertheless, I am in full accord with the result reached by my brethren. Normally, the fact that a registrant is subsequently found physically acceptable at the' Armed Forces Entrance and Examination Station does not mean that he was not prejudiced by the denial of medical interview. As we stated in United States v. Baray, 445 F.2d 949 (9th Cir. 1971), and reiterated in D’Arcey .
“ x * x Unlike the preinduction physical examination in which hundreds of registrants may be examined by several doctors in a day’s processing, the medical interview gives the registrant the opportunity to have a single doctor focus his attention on the registrant’s condition and make a specific finding thereon * * 445 F.2d at 954 .
Here, however, Rollins received an in-depth examination of his specific condition at Letterman General Hospital. This examination far exceeded any that could have been conducted in connection with a medical interview. See 32 C.F.R. § 1628.3 (a) (1969). For this reason I believe that we would be elevating form over substance to treat the omission of the interview as a denial of due process.