opinion: Robert Lee FORSTING, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
  No. 19744.
  United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
  July 10, 1970.
  George E. Duis, Fargo, N. D., for appellant; Ralph K. Helge, Pasadena, Cal., on the briefs.
  Eugene K. Anthony, Asst. U. S. Atty., Fargo, N. D., for appellee; Harold 0. Bullis, U. S. Atty., on the brief.
  Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, Chief Judge, and BLACKMUN and HEA-NEY, Circuit Judges.
  BLACKMUN, Circuit Judge, did not participate in the decision.
  HEANEY, Circuit Judge.
  Robert Lee Forsting was convicted by the United States District Court of North Dakota of failing to submit to induction into the Armed Forces in violation of 50 U.S.C. App. § 462. We reverse because we find that he was not accorded procedural fairness by the State Appeal Board.
  Forsting was classified I-S(H) while in high school. When he entered college, he was classified II-S, but was subsequently reclassified I-A because he received a low Selective Service College Qualification Test score. When this occurred, he requested a 1-0 classification. The Local Board mailed him SSS Form 150. He did not complete it. A short time later, he wrote to his Local Board asking that it withdraw his request. Shortly thereafter, he enlisted in the United States Navy and received an extended active duty date. Four months later and before he went on active duty, he wrote his Local Board again requesting that he be sent Form 150. The form was mailed to him; he completed and returned it. Shortly thereafter, Forsting was honorably discharged from the United States Navy for reasons of convenience to the government.
  The Local Board reviewed Forsting’s completed Form 150 and classified him I-A. Forsting made a personal appearanee before the Board, but again was classified I-A. The Board stated, “Due to the registrant’s first asking consideration as a student and farmer, withdrawing his first 'conscientious objector’ appeal and enlisting in the Navy, the board questioned the sincerity of his religious beliefs.”
  Forsting appealed his classification to the South Dakota Appeal Board. The Board tentatively classified him as I-A and, pursuant to procedures then in effect, requested an advisory recommendation from the Department of Justice. The F.B.I. then conducted an inquiry for the Department. It interviewed sixteen acquaintances of Forsting and prepared a resume of the interviews. A copy of the inquiry was mailed to Forsting, and he was permitted to reply to it. Forsting was then given a hearing before a Hearing Officer of the Department of Justice. The Hearing Officer submitted a report to the Department of Justice. The Justice Department in turn submitted its recommendation to the Appeal Board. That Board quoted the Hearing Officer as follows:
  “The Hearing Officer said that it was apparent, by talking to the registrant, that the registrant is using the religion as a shield to get out of serving in the Armed Forces. The Hearing Officer said that he made this conclusion on the basis of the registrant’s action when he was questioned about his belief. The Hearing Officer said the registrant became very hostile and exceedingly antagonistic when he was questioned and that he, the Hearing Officer, became convinced that the registrant was a draft dodger. The Hearing Officer recommended that the registrant’s claim as a conscientious objector, be not sustained.”
  The Department of Justice concluded, from the F.B.I. Inquiry and from the Hearing Officer’s report, that Forsting was not sincere in his conscientious objector claim and recommended that his claim be denied. Copies of the recommendations were sent to the Appeal Board and Forsting.
  Forsting then wrote to the Appeal Board alleging that the Hearing Officer was prejudiced and that his recommendations were based on inaccurate information. He wrote that the Hearing Officer: opened the hearing by calling him “a draft dodger, a bumb [sic], an idiot and a fool;” stated that “my F.B.I. Report was the most pitiful report he had ever seen;” stated he thought “Mr. Armstrong [the leader of the Radio Church of God with which Forsting was affiliated] was just a MONEY-GRABBER and that when [Armstrong] got rich enough, he would get out of the BUSINESS, and follow the same ‘trend’, as some woman had done before our time;” and stated “that if we were followers .of Billy Graham, we would have a better chance, and he would think a little more seriously about our case.” Compare, United States v. Balogh, 157 F.2d 939, 941 (2nd Cir. 1946), vacated on other grounds, 329 U.S. 692, 67 S.Ct. 625, 91 L.Ed. 707 (1947).
  Forsting also stated in his letter that “contrary to what the recommendation from the Hearing Officer suggests, I did not become hostile or antagonistic at any time. I was polite and considerate to Mr. Kean at all times, and thanked him for the time he took to come to the hearing.” Forsting’s letter to the Appeal Board was co-signed by a friend who had accompanied him to the hearing.
  The State Appeal Board classified Forsting I-A without stating reasons for so doing. Forsting was ordered to report for induction. His violation of that order caused his prosecution in the District Court.
  The District Court permitted Forsting to introduce evidence as to the alleged prejudice of the Hearing Officer but decided that Forsting must be convicted because there was a basis in fact for the Local Board’s classifying him I-A. The court stated:
  “* * *, [T]he Selective Service cover sheet containing all of the action taken by the defendant’s Selective Service Board, the Hearing Examiner and the State Appeal Board, * * *, has been carefully reviewed by this Court.
  “It is clear to this Court that the conclusions of the Selective Service Board No. 6 of Aberdeen, South Dakota, are sustained by a reading of the defendant’s Selective Service file.
  "* * * [T]he local board took due note that the defendant first askéd consideration as a student, and a farmer, withdrawing his first ‘conscientious objector’ appeal and enlisting in the Navy from which he was subsequently discharged, which caused the board to question the sincerity of the defendant’s religious beliefs.
  ******
  “A Selective Service Board is not required to record all of its inner thoughts and motives in the classification of registrants; to demand this would impose upon the Selective Service System an intolerable burden.
  “Constitutional standards and judicial decisional standards are met if the Selective Service folder discloses a basis in fact for the registrant’s classification, and in this case it does.
  “There is a presumption of regularity which attaches to the proceedings of local boards within the entire Selective Service System. In the view of this Court the proceedings of the defendant’s local board in this case were and are presumptively correct, nor have they been successfully challenged in this case.
  “It should be said that this Court expresses no opinion as to whether the defendant is or is not a conscientious objector or whether he was or was not properly classified. His local board classified him I-A and there is a basis in fact for that classification as disclosed in the registrant’s cover sheet, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 1 in this case.”
  We assume, for the sake of this appeal, that the District Court correctly held that the proceedings before the Local Board were regular. But Forsting had a right to appeal to the State Appeal Board, and he exercised that right. The validity of Forsting’s classification must then be judged on the basis of the Appeal Board’s action. DeRemer v. United States, 340 F.2d 712, 719 (8th Cir. 1965).
  In reviewing the action of the Appeal Board, we are limited to a determination of whether there was a basis in fact for the classification. Witmer v. United States, 348 U.S. 375, 75 S.Ct. 392, 99 L.Ed. 428 (1955); United States v. Hesse, 417 F.2d 141 (8th Cir. 1969); or whether the registrant was denied basic procedural fairness, Simmons v. United States, 348 U.S. 397, 75 S.Ct. 397, 99 L.Ed. 453 (1955); Gonzales v. United States, 348 U.S. 407, 75 S.Ct. 409, 99 L.Ed. 467 (1955).
  We do not decide whether there was a basis in fact for the Appeal Board’s classification because we hold that Forsting was denied basic procedural fairness before that Board. The Appeal Board had before it: (1) Forsting’s Selective Service file, (2) letters submitted by friends of Forsting, and (3) the Department of Justice report which included a resume of the F.B.I. Inquiry, a brief summary of the Hearing Officer’s findings, and the recommendation of the Justice Department.
  The Appeal Board gave no reason for its decision. It gave no indication that it considered or failed to consider the recommendation of the Department of Justice. There is nothing in the record to show that it considered or failed to consider Forsting’s detailed, specific and supported allegations of bias on the part of the Hearing Officer. Under such circumstances, to sustain the conviction, we would have to surmise either that the Appeal Board gave no weight to the Department of Justice’s recommendation in reaching its decision, or that it made an independent investigation with respect to the Hearing Officer’s prejudice and satisfied itself that he was fair. We refuse to so speculate when a man’s liberty is at stake. Estep v. United States, 327 U.S. 114, 66 S.Ct. 423, 90 L.Ed. 567 (1946). We note, however, that it would require considerable naivete to hold that the Appeal Board did not give weight to the negative recommendation of the Justice Department. Simmons v. United States, supra; Sicurella v. United States, 348 U.S. 385, 75 S.Ct. 403, 99 L.Ed. 436 (1955); United States v. Owen, 415 F. 2d 383 (8th Cir. 1969).
  It is clear that the Selective Service System need not have provided for a Department of Justice investigation and hearing. Indeed, this procedure has now been discontinued. It is also clear that where the procedure is used, a transcript of the hearing need not always be furnished to the registrant. Simmons v. United States, supra; United States v. Nugent, 346 U.S. 1, 73 S.Ct. 991, 97 L.Ed. 1417 (1953). But it is equally clear that if a hearing is provided, the Hearing Officer must be fair and impartial. Simmons v. United States, supra; United States v. Nugent, supra; United States v. Purvis, 403 F. 2d 555 (2nd Cir. 1968). It follows that an Appeal Board must examine detailed and supported allegations of prejudice on the part of the Hearing Officer if the report of the Department of Justice is to be given weight. This is not to say that every bald allegation of prejudice must be examined. But where a specific charge of prejudice is made and supported, and where details with respect to the prejudice are shown, the record must indicate either that the entire report and recommendation have been disregarded or that the charge of prejudice has béen examined by the Appeal Board or by the Department of Jusice and found to be without merit.
  Reversed.
  . Former 50 U.S.C. App. § 456 (i) and former 32 C.F.R. § 1626.25. The procedure was eliminated by the Military Selective Service Act of 1967. See, United States v. Purvis, 403 F.2d 555 (2nd Cir. 1968).
  . See, United States v. Broyles, 423 F.2d 1299 (4th Cir. 1970 (en banc) ; United States v. Hnughton, 413 F.2d 736 (9th Cir. 1969).
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
  To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
  United States of America,
  Plaintiff, Appellant
  v
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendant, Appellee.
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendants, Cross-appellants
  v
  United States of America.
  Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
  of the Board
  Plaintiff, Appellants,
  v
  United States of America,
  Defendant, Appellee.
  This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
  Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
  If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
  Your specific task is to determine the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.