Days 40 & 41 - Isn't it obvious?

In opening the hearing, the "investigating officer" (IO), set out the purpose as follows:

IO: First of all, just start out the purpose of this hearing is to see whether or not your beliefs qualify as conscientious objector as defined by MILPERSMAN 1900 020. Additionally it’s also to test the depth and sincerity of your beliefs.

and,

IO: The standard which I’m operating by today is clear and convincing evidence that you are sincere in your belief and that your belief qualifies as conscientious objector.

The hearing was commenced with these and a few other administrative remarks from the IO. After more than 2.5 hours of hearing detailed explanations from myself and my witnesses as to how significantly I've changed since joining the Navy, and how frustrating it has been for me to try and cope with being a part of an organization that I believe exists for an immoral purpose, I was taken aback by the first question the IO asked of me. Bear in mind, I am already in a non-combatant position, and thus had explicitly filed my CO request as one for the purpose of discharge. Nonetheless, this was the first question I received:

IO: First question is why didn’t you just apply to be a non-combatant status, I mean looking at your service record you only have a year left on your contract.

As I already said, and as the IO already knew, I'm currently in a non-combatant position, therefore, I completely fail to see why this question was asked. Admittedly, there is the possibility that a military member can request CO status and remain in the armed forces as a non-combatant, but this typically involves transfer to the "Hospital Corps" of which I'm already a member. This is even documented in the first section of the first page of my application for CO status.

Secondly, it's a complete misnomer to say that I only have one year left on my "contract." As I've pointed out before, whenever anybody enlists, it's for an eight-year time period. Whatever portion is not designated as Active Duty is spent as a part of the Individual Ready Reserve. At any point during this time, one is eligible to be called back to Active Duty. Don't be fooled. If you, or someone you know says that they are only enlisting for 2, 3, 4, 5 years, they are wrong. The truth is that the military will exercise ownership over you for a minimum of 8 years.

As for myself, the Navy does not have me scheduled to be released until 2013, even though my Active Duty is set to expire in July of 2010. Much can happen in three years, and I don't want to labor a day longer for a group that exists to make war.

Despite all these relevant details, overall, I was shocked by what I felt was the insensitivity of the question. I had brought in my wife, who ended up in tears while explaining the effect that this has all had on me and on us, and in response the first question I'm indifferently asked is why I don't just continue since I only have a year left. How was I supposed to respond to that? By repeating the emotionally charged two and a half hours that had just transpired?

I wasn't sure where to go in answering, and I surely felt affronted by the nature of the question. After a definite pause, I made this attempt:

Me: The reason being . . . I feel like I’ve, I’ve answered to the effect that I mean it’s definitely having an emotional toll on me remaining as a part of the military given my change in belief, and I believe that there’s in some senses, by putting on the uniform every day that I do, there’s the implication of at least tacit consent to what it is that the military does and I no longer wish to give that consent.

This was met with the immediate follow-up:

IO: Do you believe you’re giving tacit consent to the military by being a citizen of the United States?

I didn't see this question coming either, and I was admittedly still somewhat off-kilter from the first question. However, after another pause, I found this one much easier to answer as it was more theoretical, and much less personal.

Me: I do not. In that I never requested citizenship in the United States. That’s something that was, that those who make up the United States government choose to do upon my birth in my specific geographic location. And that is a difference, than the fact that I did at one time very much want to be a part of the military. I no longer do, and so the fact that I explicitly expressed that desire to do that, and took action based on that, is different from my citizenship which I did nothing to request or obtain.

For being extemporaneously given, and somewhat poorly worded, I'd generally stand by my answer. I made a mistake in joining the military, and although I'm admittedly no longer a part of it by choice, I want to do everything in my power to disentangle myself from it. My citizenship on the other hand is not something for which I ever asked; it's merely something with which others have labeled me.

As always, I'm interested to hear what you think. What do you make of these questions? What of my answers? I'll aim to have more on Monday.