In a similar situation we held that a registrant had presented a prima facie case. United States ex rel. Kameshka v. Neff, 446 F.2d 1164 (3d Cir. 1971). Although the board did have the conclusion of the Scientific Advisory Board before it, we do not feel that in this situation it was sufficient information to excuse the board from presenting reasons for its action.
Bent's situation is compounded by the fact that Bent and several of the siblings have undertaken efforts to further their education. The people and numbers set forth in the record fall into that area which Judge Hastie described in United States ex rel. Kameshka v. Neff, 446 F.2d 1164, 1168 (3rd Cir. 1971): "While a board had wide discretion in acting on a claim for . . . deferment, its adverse action appears to be arbitrary when the record fully justifies the deferment and shows neither facts nor stated reasons that support its denial of deferment.
The foregoing determinations make it unnecessary for us to reach defendant's arguments that he is entitled to an acquittal because: (a) there was no basis in fact for the denial of his hardship deferment claim; (b) he was denied due process by virtue of the cursory review of his and other files by the Appeal Board; (c) the local board erred in failing to consider his (post induction notice) conscientious objector claim; and (d) the Board did not state its reasons in writing for denial of the occupational and hardship claims. Cf. United States ex rel. Kameshka v. Neff, 446 F.2d 1164 (3d Cir. 1971), sustaining entitlement to an occupational deferment. In Mulloy v. United States, 398 U.S. 410, 416, 90 S.Ct. 1766, 1771, 26 L.Ed.2d 362 (1970), the court stated: