Petitioner was not denied due process in the administrative proceedings, because the statement in question was in his file, to which he had access, and he had opportunities to rebut it both before the hearing officer of the Department of Justice and before the appeal board. Pp. 62 -- 63.

Petitioner was not entitled to have the hearing officer's notes and report, especially since he failed to show any particular need for them and he did have a copy of the Department of Justice's recommendation to the appeal board. Pp. 63 -- 64.

Petitioner was not entitled, either in the administrative hearing at the Department of Justice or at his trial, to inspect the original report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, since he was furnished a resume of it, did not challenge its accuracy, and showed no particular need for the original report. Pp. 64 -- 66.

Haydn C. Covington argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.

Daniel M. Friedman argued the cause for the United States. On the brief were Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Wilkey, Beatrice Rosenberg and J. F. Bishop.

Mr. Justice Clark delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a prosecution for refusal to be inducted into the armed services, in violation of the provisions of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, 62 Stat. 604, 622, 50 U. S. C. App. 462 (a). Petitioner, who claims to be a conscientious objector, contends that he was denied due process, both in the proceedings before a hearing officer of the Department of Justice and at trial. He says that he was not permitted to rebut before the hearing officer statements attributed to him by the local board, and, further, that he was denied at trial the right to have the Department of Justice hearing officer's report and the original report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation as to his claim -- all in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The trial judge decided that the administrative procedures of the Act were fully complied with and refused to require the production of such documents. Petitioner was found guilty and sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 269 F. 2 d 613. We granted certiorari in view of the importance of the questions in the administration of the Act. 361 U. S. 899. We have concluded that petitioner's claims are controlled by the rationale of gonzales v. United States, 348 U. S. 407 (1955), and United States v. Nugent, 346 U. S.1 (1953), and therefore affirm the judgment.