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.

Days 33-35 - An Appeal for Reader Action

At 9:41 this morning, I received an email from the Command Legal Clerk notifying me that a member of the Judge Advocate General's Corps (JAG) has been assigned to be the Investigating Officer of my conscientious objection. This Lieutenant will be conducting my Informal Hearing at 0900 on Wednesday, June 10, 2009.

The following information was also included in the message:

* You may be represented by an attorney, at your own expensive (sic), who can be present at the hearing and assist you in your presentation.
* Submit additional evidence - statements (sworn/unsworn)
* You may have witnesses (which you will have to ensure they are available and in attendance)
* If you would like a verbatim record of the hearing - you will need to provide it at your own expense.

Once the hearing is complete, the Investigating Officer will submit her report and you will have an opportunity to review it and make a rebuttal.

Whether you agree or disagree with my belief that war is immoral, I ask for your assistance in providing evidence to be submitted at my hearing. The Navy MILPERSMAN 1900-020 instruction states, "The applicant bears the burden of proving their claim of conscientious objection as grounds for separation," and, "They must show, by clear and convincing evidence ... their belief in connection therewith is honest, sincere, and deeply held."

If you are convinced that the latter description is true of my belief, I ask you to write a letter or email that explicitly answers the following three questions:

1. Who are you?
   
2. How do you know me?
3. If you know, how were my beliefs different before I joined the Navy, or even within the first two years of my enlistment?
   
4. Why are you convinced that my specific belief in the immorality of war is "honest, sincere, and deeply held"?

*If you vehemently disagree with the nature of my belief, as I know some readers here do, please don't hesitate to make such a disclaimer in your writing. If anything, doing so only further validates my claim because it shows that even people who disagree with me are nonetheless convinced that I'm sincere.

Even a few sentences or a mere paragraph could prove to be extremely helpful, so please don't feel that a short message isn't worth writing. For examples of what others have written please review "Evidence of My Sincerity." Also, if you like, you're welcome to include other contact information for yourself beyond your email address, but that is by no means necessary.

Please send email to warisimmoral@gmail.com

If you're interested in providing a signed and/or notarized letter or if you're willing and available to be a witness, please email me immediately. Of course, if you have my phone number, don't hesitate to call.

Day 31 - Listen Closely

I'm excited to report that the message of warisimmoral.com is continuing to spread in new ways, most recently via the audible medium of the Complete Liberty Podcast.

Wes Bertrand, the author of the books Complete Liberty and the Psychology of Liberty, is the host and describes the podcast as a "show that promotes total respect for self-ownership, property rights, and personal choice--amidst the authoritarian/obedience-oriented political and psychological memes in American culture (and elsewhere)."

In this week's episode, linked below, Wes spends the majority of the show sharing excerpts from my application. If you've been too busy to read my admittedly lengthy discourse on why I believe that war is immoral and how I came to hold this belief, you can now gain this understanding on-the-go by listening to the episode.

To be upfront, Wes doesn't begin talking about Guantanamo Bay until about 6 minutes into the show, and then after another 3 minutes or so he introduces my conscientious objection and continues on this topic for another 25 minutes. Overall, I highly recommend the entirety of the show as both insightful and entertaining, so please understand that I offer these time-specific designations merely as a convenience for those intending only to listen and catch-up on that which they haven't had the time to read.

Many thanks to Wes for his high quality and accurate presentation of my beliefs, and as always, please let me know any thoughts or ideas that you have in response to anything I've presented or referenced. I realize I still have some issues outstanding that I said I would address, but after yesterday's post, I need to take a break from more rigorous writing.

Complete Liberty Podcast - Episode 69 is available for download in two ways.

1. Free from the iTunes Store

2. By right-clicking and saving the following link directly as an mp3

Day 11 - A How-To Guide

I offer today's post as an overview of what the military has dictated to be the process through which a service member may request to be classified as a conscientious objector.

The Department of Defense regulations regarding this issue are found in DOD Directive 1300.6, and the Navy guidance comes from MILPERSMAN 1900-020. All quotations within this post are from MILPERSMAN 1900-020. Before I begin my overview, I would like to respond to a few emails that I have received by highlighting the fact that the existence and nature of these instructions leave no question as to the following points:

• A request to be classified as a conscious objector is a completely legitimate, regulated, and accepted action that any enlisted person or officer may choose to exercise. A request for leave (vacation) is no more acceptable or legitimate than a request to be classified as a conscientious objector. Although leave requests are obviously made more frequently, both are rights guaranteed to the service member by the military itself.

• If I am classified as a conscientious objector and discharged, I would not be discharged simply because I wanted it to happen. If it happens, it will be done "by reason of Convenience of the Government - Conscientious Objection," and it will be an honorable discharge. According to the government's own rules, I cannot of my own volition terminate my employment; in other words, the government makes clear that I cannot break my contract. I hope that this makes clear to any interested persons that according to the rules and language of the military, I have not violated, backed out, broken, dishonored, reneged, or otherwise failed to fulfill the terms of my enlistment. The military is absolutely clear that if I'm discharged, it will be as a "convenience" to them, not as a favor to me. I wish to make the disclaimer that this response is strictly limited to the terms and conditions set forth by the military itself, and it is not an attempt to address the legitimacy of military employment contracts in principle.

• Implied within the previous two bullets is the fact that the military doesn't obligate itself, nor is it obligated by any other governmental body, to fulfill my request. Should I not be classified as a conscientious objector the military will continue my employment.

That said, after a member has submitted a request, (mine is viewable here) she or he will undergo two interviews, one with a Chaplain and another with a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist. About these interviews:

"a. . . . "A written report must be provided by both and attached as enclosures and part of the case file. If the applicant refuses to participate, is uncooperative, or unresponsive in the course of these interviews, this fact will be included in their statements.

b. The chaplain will provide opinion of the nature and basis of the applicant's claim, sincerity, and depth of conviction in the claim of conscientious objection, and a recommendation of disposition with the rationale for the conclusion.

c. The psychiatrist or clinical psychologist will provide a report or psychiatric disorders which would warrant treatment or disposition through medical channels or such personality disorder which would warrant recommendation for appropriate administrative separation action. Comments concerning the sincerity or credibility of the applicant's claimed convictions may also be included."

My interview with the chaplain has been completed and is the topic of my post, Man of the Cloth. The expected date of my evaluation by a clinical psychologist is 21MAY09. In addition to these interviews a "lieutenant commander or above will be appointed, by the commanding officer (CO), as the Investigating Officer (IO)." In addition to a few other administrative tasks, the IO:

"(2) will conduct a hearing on the application to afford the applicant an opportunity to present any evidence desired in support of the application. This will help the hearing officer to ascertain and assemble all relevant facts to create a comprehensive record, and to facilitate an informed recommendation to the CO.

(3) will actively and critically examine the applicant's beliefs, and any failure or refusal to submit to questioning under oath or affirmation. Should the applicant fail to appear, the IO may proceed in the applicant's absence as the applicant is considered to have waived the right for appearance."

Numbers (1) and (4) pertain to the IO obtaining guidance from different Navy resources and counseling the applicant as to the potential loss of veteran's benefits that could result from refusing "to perform military duty or otherwise to follow lawful orders of competent military authority". The instruction describes the hearing as follows:

"The hearing will be informal in character and the rules of evidence employed by a court-martial do not apply, except that all oral testimony presented shall be under oath or affirmation. Any relevant evidence may be received. Statements obtained from persons not present at the hearing need not be made under oath or affirmation."

Also I was most comforted to read that "the hearing is not an adversary (sic) proceeding." The IO is next tasked with providing a written report that summarizes the hearing. All the documentation is then organized and a copy is given to the CO and to the applicant. The applicant then has five working days to submit a rebuttal to the investigating officer.

After reviewing the record for "completeness" and adding "comments and recommendations," the CO is to "forward the completed case file to NAVPERSCOM". It should also be noted that "comments are restricted to those matters contained in the record." As for who or what is the mysterious NAVPERSCOM, it's the abbreviation for Navy Personnel Command, located in Millington, TN, and tasked with handling the assignment of personnel within the Navy.

Thus the process ends, and I will either be discharged as a conscientious objector, or I won't. A final quote makes this point abundantly clear:

"Determination by NAVPERSCOM is final with respect to administrative separation."