Days 53-56 - IO Report Received

With little fanfare, I received another email today requesting my presence at the Command Legal Office. After doubling back because they were at lunch during my first attempted visit, I was given my copy of the much anticipated report of the Investigating Officer (IO).

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.

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 12 - I've Been Linked

Yesterday's careful rereading of the MILPERSMAN 1900-020 caused me to question whether it would be a problem that my psychological evaluation is scheduled with a civilian clinical psychologist. The cause for my concern was the statement from the instruction prescribing that the chaplain and the mental health professional be "members of a regular or reserve component of any of the Armed Forces." Since my appointment is currently scheduled with a civilian, I spoke with someone from the legal office today to confirm that this would not pose a problem. The legal representative stated that since the clinical psychologist is employed by the Navy, all requirements are met.

In this same conversation, I also inquired as to the identity of the Investigating Officer, whose role I detailed in yesterday's post. I was informed that I would be told this person's identity only after the psychiatric evaluation, which will determine whether or not I'm suffering from any "psychiatric disorders which would warrant recommendation for appropriate administrative action." Unless there are any unexpected developments, it appears my request is in limbo until my mental health appointment next Thursday.

On a slightly different note, my website has apparently attracted the attention of at least one person whom I hadn't directly contacted about it. Check out this reference to my request at The Holy Cause: A Christian Perspective on Liberty. I think those of you with an evangelical background will find this article and the comments to be particularly interesting.

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."