In keeping with what seems to be the perfunctory manner with which my freedom is being decided, the report was simply clipped into a standard navy blue folder complete with a sticky note on top saying "Copy for PO Lakemacher".
To acknowledge receipt of this fateful document I signed and dated the following:
"26JUN09 : I received this date a copy of the record (as defined in MILPERSMAN 1900-020) of my conscientious objection hearing. I understand that I have the right to submit a written rebuttal to this record, provided my rebuttal is submitted to the investigating officer within 5 working days after this date. I do/do not desire to submit a rebuttal."(signed)HM2 DANIEL J. LAKEMACHER, USN***-**-####
I circled "do" as it was not immediately apparent what the recommendation of the IO was, and I figured that if I didn't end up submitting anything, those claiming authority would surely continue the process.
To avoid confusion, let me be clear that the IO only makes a recommendation. I understand this to be a very important recommendation as this is the sole person charged with the task of reviewing everyone else's reports about me, in addition to conducting my hearing and interviewing me. That said, the IO's word is not final. However, my rebuttal to the report is the last step of the process in which I have any involvement.
From here, my report will be reviewed by the Commanding Officer and then sent to a place/group called "NAVPERSCOM (PERS-832)" or more understandably Navy Personnel Command. The final decision will somehow be handed down from whatever individual(s) are identified by this title. I'm honestly not sure who this is, or how they decide, but on the linked website in the previous sentence there is a toll-free "customer service" telephone number, so perhaps someone there could clarify who and how my request will ultimately be resolved.
In the meantime, here are some of the highlights of the IO's report:
3. ... Additionally applicant maintains a blog on the website www.warisimmoral.com and printouts from the website were reviewed. (Encl. (10)).5. Applicant was placed under oath and was allowed to make a presentation of proof that his beliefs (sic). Along with the items made available previously (encls. (1)-(11)), applicant physically presented several novels which demonstrate the amount of study his (sic) has pursued into libertarianism and natural law.
*I find it interesting that the IO choose to use the term novels, despite the fact that 29 of the 31 books I "physically presented" in the hearing were non-fiction. The only two that can rightly be described as novels are Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, both by Ayn Rand. Additionally, the word "libertarianism" was never used in the entirety of the hearing. The word "libertarian" was used once when I noted the title of a book by Murray Rothbard. Admittedly, I understand that the IO would have trouble grouping me in a conventional manner given that I most readily identify myself as being an individual.
5. ... Applicant additionally provided the following other documentary evidence: ("numerous" other sworn and unsworn statements, many of which are available online, but some of which are not yet as I still need to update this section)6. Applicant presented the in person testimony of his wife, Heather Lakemacher, civilian. ...7. Applicant then presented the telephonic testimony of Jay Marsh. ...(ditto for Noah Marsh and HM2 Benito Almaguer III, USN)11. In a closing argument Applicant indicates that he is emotionally/intellectually troubled by putting on the uniform, and that his own formed beliefs based in libertarianism and natural law are incompatible with military service. ...
*There's that word again, "libertarianism" nothing against it per se, but I never claimed that my beliefs were based in it, although I most certainly did in regard to natural law. And finally what I imagine we've all been waiting for . . .
12. After consideration of the package and the presentation, my recommendation would be to separate the Applicant for the convenience of the government because of his conscientious objection to war.
There you have it. For any of my detractors that have argued that I'm failing the "Navy" by not "fulfilling my contract," the IO thinks I should be separated "for the convenience of the government." Therefore, if I am freed to leave, my doing so will be exactly what the "government" wants. Although I personally have a different perspective from the view of those who call themselves government, this is clearly not at all a matter of my preference but an issue of governmental convenience.
Since I now understand the immoral purpose of their organization, I sincerely hope that any individuals reading this who are a part of NAVPERSCOM will be equally as convinced that, given my insight, it is far more convenient to release me than to continue to force me to labor on their behalf.
So if you're able and/or willing to lift a glass on this Friday night, here's to hoping!
Finally, for all those who wrote or spoke on my behalf, you definitely made a difference as evidenced (no pun intended) by the following:
14. Applicant is consistent in his maintenance that he is a changed person. This assertion was supported by the numerous letters or (sic) support and testimonies of those who have known him.
To the above group, you are true friends, and I have no doubt that you are the individuals with whom I have real relationships. Thank you, and stay tuned for further updates.
Posts
