THE DEFENDANT WAS PUT ON PROBATION AND ORDERED TO PARTICIPATE IN A DRUG TREATMENT PROGRAM. DURING THE FIRST YEAR OF THE SENTENCE THREE PROBATION VIOLATION WARRANTS WERE ISSUED AGAINST HIM; THE DISTRICT COURT REVOKED PROBATION AND SENTENCED HIM TO 2 YEARS IN PRISON. THE CASE WAS APPEALED ON THE BASIS THAT THE COURT DID NOT GRANT CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED ON PROBATION WHEN FEDERAL STATUTES SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT CREDIT MUST BE GRANTED FOR TIME SPENT ON PAROLE. THE 10TH CIRCUIT COURT UPHELD THE SENTENCE, STATING THAT THE PUROSES OF PROBATION AND PAROLE WERE DIFFERENT. JUDGES REVOKING PROBATION MAY DENY SIMILAR CREDIT TO PROBATIONERS WITHOUT VIOLATING EQUAL PROTECTION PRINCIPLES BECAUSE DENYING CREDIT COMPELS COMPLIANCE WITH PROBATION TERMS. THE BASIS FOR THIS RULING WAS THE RATIONAL BASIS TEST. THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE RATIONAL BASIS TEST AND THE STRICT SCRUTINY TEST IN DETERMINING EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW IS EXPLAINED AND APPLICABLE COURT CASES ARE CITED. THE STRICT SCRUTINY TEST HAS DETERMINED THAT EQUAL PROTECTION MUST BE GUARANTEED FOR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS REGARDLESS OF RACE, ALIENAGE, NATIONALITY, LEGITIMACY OF BIRTH, GENDER, OR SOCIAL CONDITION. BEYOND THIS, THE RATIONAL BASIS TEST IS TRADITIONALLY USED TO DECIDE EQUAL PROTECTION CASES. SUPREME COURT RULINGS IN ASSORTED RATIONAL BASIS CASES ARE REVIEWED. THE APPLICATION OF THIS REASONING TO THE SHEAD CASE IS EXAMINED. THE ARTICLE IS EXTENSIVELY FOOTNOTED. (GLR)