The 19-year-old defendant was convicted for failing to submit to induction and was sentenced under the Youth Corrections Act. He contends that his conviction should be reversed because the examining physician at his induction center did not closely observe him with clothing removed and, thus, failed to give him the full physical inspection required by the army’s own regulation, AR 601-270 § 4-21. The regulation provides in part:
“b. Scope of physical inspection. The examining physician will review the previous medical examination reports (SF 88 and 89) and any accompanying additional documents, and discuss with the examinee any intervening injuries and illnesses, or any other health problems not a matter of record. The examinee, with clothing removed, will be closely observed by the examining physician to detect the presence of any communicable diseases and apparent defects not previously recorded. If additional defects are found, they will be recorded in accordance with paragraph 5-36. * * * ”
The defendant contends that if he had been observed while undressed, there would have been a significant possibility that he might have been found medically unfit under AR 40-501, §§ 2 — 10(b) (9) and (d)(1),1 because the fifth toe of his right foot is deformed in that it overlaps the fourth toe.
Prior to the defendant’s preinduction physical, he had complained of numerous ailments and attempted to document them. He had not complained of his toe. At the preinduction physical examination on February 19, 1970, the examining doctor noted on the defendant’s records that the toe was deformed but not disqualifying. The defendant presented no additional material to document his claim.
On January 25, 1971, the defendant reported for induction and was again interviewed by a physician. The defendant testified that he mentioned various problems, including the toe deformity. The defendant’s own physician was contacted by telephone, but there is no record of what was discussed. The defendant was not observed while undressed and, thus, his toe was not reexamined. On that day, the defendant, believing he was physically unqualified, refused induction.
At the trial, the defendant and his mother testified to various problems associated with the deformity. A statement by a podiatrist, who had examined the defendant some time after his refusing induction, was introduced into evi-*828denee. This statement indicated, under the heading “treatment:”
“Surgical correction before entering service as continuous chafing by vamp of shoe would limit activities.”
Neither of the army doctors testified at the trial.
The government does not dispute that the army failed to comply with its regulation, but urges that no prejudice was incurred by the defendant as a result of the lapse in procedure.
We think it is clear that “prejudice to the registrant from failure to observe regulations must be established.” Briggs v. United States, 397 F.2d 370, 373 (9th Cir. 1968). See, Parsons v. United States, 447 F.2d 1018, 1023 (8th Cir. 1971). The crucial questions we must answer are: What test is to be applied in determining whether the defendant has been prejudiced? Is the burden on the defendant to demonstrate actual prejudice, or may prejudice be presumed from the failure to comply with the regulation? The only Court of Appeals to deal with the question of prejudice in this context is the Ninth Circuit. We believe its most recent decisions state the proper test:
“* * * [T]he rule is established in this circuit that if there is a significant possibility that the registrant would have been rejected as unfit, had he been afforded the kind of physical inspection prescribed * * *, prejudice is indicated sufficient to invalidate the induction process. * * *”
United States v. Pace, 454 F.2d 351, 356 (9th Cir. 1972). Accord, United States v. Gress, 464 F.2d 1002 (9th Cir. 1972).2
Here, the defendant has demonstrated a sufficiently significant possibility that he might have been found unfit had he been given a full physical inspection. First, it is clear that at the time of inspection, the defendant did have an “apparent” physical defect which could have been observed had the examining doctor viewed the defendant while completely undressed. The defendant testified that he mentioned his deformed toe to the doctor, and the defendant’s records also called attention to *829it. Second, medical evidence was introduced which indicated that the toe deformity was serious enough to require surgery, and that it might be disqualifying under army regulations because it would interfere with the wearing of combat boots.3
The court below, however, stated that the purpose of the physical inspection was limited to detecting the presence of defects not previously noted. He believed that the defendant had not been prejudiced because the toe deformity had been noted at the preinduction physical and found not disqualifying. Further, the court held that there was no evidence of a change in the condition of the toe.
We think the court’s view of the physical inspection unduly limits its scope. Given the important interests of the army in detecting those physically unable to serve, see, United States v. Mendoza, 295 F.Supp. 673, 683 (E.D.N. Y.1969), and reading the regulation providing for physical inspection as a whole, we are convinced that the army intended to provide for a limited review of the evaluations of prior medical examinations as well as for the detection of changed or previously undetermined defects. Furthermore, the testimony of the individual in charge of the defendant’s induction center indicated that, in practice, such a review did take place and some individuals were found disqualified for unchanged defects previously noted as not disqualifying. Such a reevaluation is, of course, limited by the terms of the regulation to a review of prior medical examination reports and accompanying additional documents, and the close observation of the examinee while undressed.
In this case, where there is clearly an objective deformity and there is medical evidence indicating that it is serious and possibly disqualifying, we think there is a sufficiently significant possibility that the doctor conducting the physical inspection might have disagreed with the conclusions of the doctor who had conducted the original preinduction physical and might have determined the defendant to be disqualified. We find that the defendant has suffered prejudice because of the army’s failure to comply with its regulation.
In so holding, we offer no opinion upon whether the defendant is or is not medically qualified. The defendant is not, of course, excused from the requirements of the Selective Service. He may be inducted if found physically qualified in accordance with mandated procedures. Such a determination would be subject to only limited review in the courts. United States ex rel. Kempf v. Commanding Officer, etc., 339 F.Supp. 320, 326 (S.D.Iowa 1972); United States v. Hansen, 327 F.Supp. 1090 (D.Minn. 1971).
Reversed.