The selective service law indicates that if your number is called in 1970 while you are 1-A (but undergoing appeals) then you are placed at the top of the 1971 pool. Those still appealing on December 31. 1970. whose numbers have been reached will be taken as soon as their appeals run out. The law also states that anyone who is 1-A and draftable on the last day of the year and whose lottery number is not reached is placed into a second priority pool-composed of men not to be touched until all the lottery numbers have been exhausted the following year. The regulations simply require you to be in the pool at the end of the year to serve your "year of eligibility."

AMBIGUITY arises if your number was reached in September when your appeal was being processed (say your number is 250) but-because of the rapidly growing pool-when you finally enter the pool, say in November or December, the lottery does not reach 250. Are you draft-able because your number has been reached, or are you free because you were draft-able on the last day of the year and your number was not reached? Admittedly this is a somewhat unlikely situation and would affect only a few people, but it raises some interesting legal questions and could create an awful stink.

Another embarrassing situation that speedy processing might alleviate is the case where a local board panics because the men with low lottery numbers are either deferred or not yet processed. To meet their quota for the month, they might be forced to take a man with an extremely high number (say 358). Does this mean that all the men in that board with numbers less than 358 will have to go either this year or next? Surely not.

In spite of their rhetoric that every one would be drafted, many draft boards continued to grant deferments to people for cloudy reasons. It is no coincidence that most of the people with borderline cases who received deferments without much hassle had lottery numbers over 300-numbers which won't be reached this year because the pool is so big. Therefore draft boards weren't giving anything away by granting these people deferments-they are saving them for next year when the pool will be smaller. This is similar to granting deferments to young people under the old system. To prevent men from escaping their claws, they encourage them to take deferments, postponing their entrance into the lottery pool until they have a greater chance of being inducted. By threatening to go through the entire list, they scare men who are probably safe this year into getting "redundant" deferments. Their control has not been reduced to one year. By making irresponsible estimates of manpower needs, they can extend their control indefinitely. This is not to attribute Machiavellian motives to all draft boards-just most.

A competent draft counselor on Long Island recounts a story which illustrates well the attempt of local boards to maintain control. In December, two boys applied for teaching deferments on almost identical grounds. The boy numbered 352 had no trouble getting a deferment. The boy numbered 29 was turned down by the local board. The board was only too willing to defer someone out of reach for this year.

With the premise that draft boards get great satisfaction from the control and channeling of people's lives. I have tried to indicate some reasons why those with high numbers have the good fortune of being in this lottery. They must not panic by seeking unnecessary and nearly impossible deferments if they are to escape the fanatical tentacles of the draft boards.