Military Personnel: Number of Formally Reported Applications for Conscientious Objectors Is Small Relative to the Total Size of the Armed Forces
Published: 2007-09-28T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Section 587 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 required GAO to address (1) the trends in the number of conscientious objector applications for the active and reserve components during calendar years 2002 through 2006; (2) how each component administers its process for evaluating conscientious objector applications; and (3) whether, upon discharge, conscientious objectors are eligible for the same benefits as other former servicemembers. GAO's review included the Coast Guard components. GAO compiled numbers of applications based on data provided by the Armed Forces. However, these numbers do not include the numbers of applications that are not formally reported to the components' headquarters. Also, the Defense Manpower Data Center does not maintain separate data on numbers of applications for conscientious objector status; it does maintain data on reasons for separation. GAO used these data to help assess the reasonableness of the component-provided data and to compile demographic data.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: During calendar years 2002 through 2006, the active and reserve components reported processing 425 applications for conscientious objector status. This number is small relative to the Armed Forces' total force of approximately 2.3 million servicemembers. Of the 425 applications the components reported processing, 224 (53 percent) were approved; 188 (44 percent) were denied; and 13 (3 percent) were pending, withdrawn, closed, or no information was provided. Each component considers applications from servicemembers who wish to be classified as conscientious objectors. Each component's process is essentially the same, taking an average of about 7 months to process an application. After the servicemember submits an application, arrangements are made for a military chaplain and a psychiatrist to interview the applicant. An investigating officer holds a hearing and prepares a report. An authorized official or board makes the final decision and informs the commanding officer, who informs the applicant that he or she has or has not met the burden of proof necessary to establish the claim. Officials from all the components stated that they attempt to temporarily reassign applicants to noncombatant duties while their applications are pending. Conscientious objector status is not considered when determining eligibility for benefits; the primary determinant is the type of discharge--honorable or under honorable conditions (general). Of those 224 servicemembers whose applications were approved for conscientious objector status, 207 received honorable discharges, 14 received general discharges, and information on the remaining 3 was not available. In addition to the characterization of discharge, a servicemember may have to meet other eligibility requirements--including years of service--to receive certain Veterans Affairs benefits.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: After the adoption of an all-volunteer force in 1973, the United States no  longer drafted individuals for its military force. Before this change,  individuals could apply for conscientious objector status and, if approved,  be exempted from the draft. Servicemembers in today’s all-volunteer  force—which is comprised of approximately 2.3 million active and  reserve members, including the Coast Guard—can also apply for  conscientious objector status and, if approved, either leave the military  before the end of their service obligations or be reassigned to  noncombatant duties. Although recruits are asked on entrance  applications if they oppose war, the U.S. Armed Forces’ conscientious  objector policies recognize that servicemembers’ religious, ethical, or  moral beliefs can change over time and lead to conscientious objection to  war. For example, after joining the military, a servicemember might  convert to a religion that opposes war or have other life-altering  experiences (e.g., exposure to combat or the death of a family member)  that change the servicemember’s religious, ethical, or moral beliefs.  Therefore, the Armed Forces have policies and procedures in place to  consider applications from servicemembers who wish to be classified as  conscientious objectors.
The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007  directed us to review the Armed Forces’ conscientious objector process.  Specifically, we addressed (1) the trends in the number of servicemembers  applying for conscientious objector status during calendar years 2002  through 2006; (2) how each component of the U.S. Armed Forces  administers its process for approving or denying conscientious objector  applications; and (3) whether conscientious objectors are eligible to  receive the same benefits that other servicemembers are eligible to receive  after they are discharged from the military. In addition to the mandate, as  agreed with your offices, we are providing demographic information on  servicemembers who separated as conscientious objectors between  calendar years 2002 and 2006. This demographic information is presented  in appendix I.
To address the first objective—to report on trends in the numbers of  applications for conscientious objector status—we used data provided by  each component for calendar years 2002 through 2006. We did not report  on data between September 11, 2001, and December 31, 2001, as directed  in the mandate, because several of the components did not have these data  available or believed the data to be unreliable. The Defense Manpower  Data Center (DMDC) does not maintain information on applications for  conscientious objector status but does maintain information on  separations. We obtained personnel information on separations for  conscientious objectors from DMDC because it maintains data for all of  the Armed Forces, including the Coast Guard, dating back to the early  1970s. To assess the reliability of the conscientious objector applications  and separations data we received from the components and DMDC, we   (1) performed electronic testing; (2) compared data provided by the  components with data provided by DMDC to assess their reasonableness;  (3) reviewed information about the systems that produced the data; and  (4) interviewed component and DMDC officials to identify known  problems or limitations in the data and to understand how DMDC receives  and processes data from the components. When we found discrepancies,  we worked with the component or DMDC to understand why the  discrepancies had occurred and to gather the most complete data possible.  We found limitations with the consistency and completeness of the data  that could result in a possible understatement of the number of  applications, but we believe that the data are sufficiently reliable to  demonstrate overall trends in the numbers of applications, approvals, and  denials for applications submitted for conscientious objector status during  calendar years 2002 through 2006. However, the numbers of applications  maintained by the components do not include those applications that did  not get formally reported to the components’ headquarters. To address the  second objective, we analyzed each component’s regulation to identify its  processes for reviewing conscientious objector applications. For the third  objective, we reviewed relevant documentation about veterans’ benefits,  such as the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) guidance and benefits  booklet. To address all three objectives, we interviewed knowledgeable  officials—including those responsible for the conscientious objector  process and its guidance and regulations—from the Office of the Under  Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), DMDC, and each of the  military services and their reserve components within the Department of  Defense (DOD); from the Coast Guard within the Department of  Homeland Security; and from the VA. To obtain demographic information  on applicants for conscientious objector status, we provided DMDC with  applications data provided by the components; DMDC then matched this  information to personnel data it maintains. A more thorough description of  our scope and methodology is provided in appendix II.
We conducted our audit work between November 2006 and August 2007 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness)—who reports  to the Deputy Secretary of Defense—is responsible for developing the  DOD instruction for the conscientious objector application process and  for monitoring all of the DOD components for compliance with the  departmentwide instruction. The Secretaries of the components, or their  designees, are responsible for implementing the process and for making  final decisions on whether to approve or deny conscientious objector  applications. According to Coast Guard officials, the Coast Guard’s  Director of Personnel Management is responsible for overseeing its  conscientious objector application process, including maintaining the  instruction. However, the Director of Human Resources makes the final  decision on whether to approve or disapprove conscientious objector  applications. The Director of Personnel Management reports to the  Director of Human Resources and—through the chain of command—to  the Commandant of the Coast Guard.
According to guidance and regulations established by the components, in  order to be granted conscientious objector status, servicemembers must  submit clear and convincing evidence that (1) they are opposed to  participation in any form of war; (2) their opposition is based on religious,  ethical, or moral beliefs; and (3) their beliefs are sincere and deeply held.  These regulations do not recognize selective conscientious objection, that  is, opposition to a specific war or conflict. The components’ regulations  recognize two categories of applicants for conscientious objector status. A  class 1-O applicant sincerely objects to all participation in any form of war  and is discharged if the application is approved. A class l-A-O applicant  sincerely objects to participating as a combatant in any form of war but  has convictions that permit military service as a noncombatant. With the  exception of the Army and its reserve components, the components have  the discretion to either reassign an approved class l-A-O conscientious  objector to noncombatant duties—if they are available—or discharge the  servicemember. Army regulation states that servicemembers approved for  1-A-O status are not eligible for discharge. These servicemembers continue  to serve the remainder of their contract and, when necessary, they are  retrained in an occupational specialty that does not require them to bear  arms.
DMDC, which is a support organization within DOD that reports to the  Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), maintains various  types of data on military personnel, dating back to the early 1970s, such as  separations data on servicemembers discharged as conscientious  objectors. The majority of these data are provided to DMDC by the  military components and are the source for the separations information  now being provided to Congress. DMDC’s mission is to deliver timely and  high-quality support to its customers and to ensure that the data it receives  from different sources are consistent, accurate, and appropriate when  used to respond to inquiries. DMDC customers include DOD organizations  such as the Armed Forces, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the  Joint Staff, as well as external organizations, such as Congress. These  organizations rely on data supplied by DMDC to help them in making  decisions about the military. DMDC’s Active Duty Military Personnel  Transaction File and the Reserve Components Common Personnel Data  System contain information about servicemembers who separate from the  Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard, and  from their reserve components.
The VA is responsible for providing a broad range of federal benefits and  services to veterans and their families, working through the field facilities  of its three major organizations located throughout the United States:    The Veterans Health Administration manages and operates VA’s medical  care system and administers health care benefits.
The Veterans Benefits Administration manages and operates VA programs  that provide financial and other forms of assistance to veterans, their  dependents, and their survivors. This organization administers disability  compensation, pension, vocational rehabilitation and employment,  education and training, home loan guaranty, and life insurance benefits.
The National Cemetery Administration operates 125 national cemeteries in  the United States and its territories. It also oversees the operations of 33  soldiers’ lots, confederate cemeteries, and monument sites.
The Board of Veterans’ Appeals is a statutory board that makes decisions  on appeals under the authority of the Secretary of VA. Members of the  board review benefit claims determinations made at the field facilities and  issue decisions on appeals. (See fig. 1 for VA’s organizational structure.)
In 1993, we reported that between fiscal years 1988 and 1990, DOD  processed up to 200 applications annually for conscientious objector  status and that about 80 to 85 percent of these applications were  approved. During the Persian Gulf War, which was fought in fiscal year  1991, the number of applications rose to 447, and about 61 percent were  approved. We noted in that report that, though the number of applications  more than doubled in fiscal year 1991, it was small compared to the total  number of military personnel, indicating that conscientious objectors had  no measurable impact on the readiness of the all-volunteer force.
section_title: The Number of Applications for Conscientious Objection Was Small
paragraphs: Despite possible understatement, the numbers of known applications for  conscientious objector status for calendar years 2002 through 2006 were  relatively small compared to the size of the force, which is approximately  2.3 million servicemembers. (See app. II for a detailed description of the  methods we used to determine data reliability.) Of the 425 applications for  conscientious objector status the components reported that they  processed during this period, 224, or about 53 percent, were approved;  188, or about 44 percent, were denied; and 13, or about 3 percent, were  pending, withdrawn, closed, or no information was provided. Further,  these data show that the overall number of reported applications for  conscientious objector status increased in 2003 and 2004 and then  dropped in 2005 and 2006 (see table 1).
DMDC-provided data similarly shows a small number of separations, or  discharges, for conscientious objectors. See appendix III for more  information from the DMDC-provided separations data.
The application approval rate was 55 percent for the Army, 84 percent for  the Navy, 62 percent for the Air Force, 33 percent for the Marine Corps,  and 33 percent for the Coast Guard. The application approval rate was 44  percent for the Army Reserve, 58 percent for the Army National Guard,  and 44 percent for the Marine Corps Reserve.
Although there were 188 applications for conscientious objector status,  these applications were submitted by only 186 servicemembers, because  two servicemembers applied twice. Of the 186 servicemembers whose  applications were denied, 114 (about 61 percent) were discharged for  other reasons; 62 (about 33 percent) are still serving in the military service;  and there is no information about the remaining 10 (about 5 percent). Of  the 114 servicemembers who were discharged for other reasons, 33 (about  29 percent) separated after completion of their service contract; 21 (about  18 percent) were discharged for misconduct; 22 (19 percent) were  separated for medical reasons; 22 (about 19 percent) were separated for  miscellaneous reasons, including substandard performance and hardship;  and 16 (about 14 percent) did not have a code designating the reason for  the discharge.
section_title: Conscientious Objector Application Process Is Consistent Across Components
paragraphs: All components of the Armed Forces follow the same basic steps to  administer their conscientious objector application processes. Figure 2  illustrates the eight steps in the process.
As shown in the process flowchart, the components attempt to reassign an  applicant to noncombatant duties while an application is pending. Officials  responsible for the conscientious objector process for each component  said that the commanding officer reassigns the applicant. While  temporarily assigned to noncombatant duties, an applicant must continue  to meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duties,  such as wearing the uniform and following orders. If noncombatant duties  are unavailable, an applicant must continue to fulfill the duties within the  unit. Officials from the active and reserve components of the Air Force  and the Marine Corps stated that, in the event that an applicant’s unit is  deployed while the application is pending, the applicant will not be  deployed. In contrast, officials for the other components said an applicant  may deploy with his or her unit at the discretion of the commanding  officer or authorized official.
We inquired about the extent to which psychiatrists or clinical  psychologists are readily available to interview and evaluate the mental  condition of the applicants. The components’ visibility over the availability  of psychiatrists and clinical psychologists varied. Army, Army National  Guard, Army Reserve, Air Force, and Air Force Reserve officials reported  that they were not aware of any difficulties in obtaining a psychiatric or  psychological evaluation. Navy and Marine Corps officials said that they  did not have visibility over this issue for either their active or reserve  components, because responsibility for obtaining such evaluations resides  at the unit level. An Air National Guard official said that the component  has a limited number of personnel who can conduct such an evaluation  and that when one of these professionals is not available locally, the  process may be delayed. Coast Guard officials said that in remote units in  the active and reserve components where a psychiatrist or clinical  psychologist is not readily available, processing is delayed.
In addition, each component’s process includes provisions to allow the  applicant to be (1) represented by legal counsel, (2) given the opportunity  to rebut the evidence in the record before the authorized official makes a  final decision, and (3) given an explanation if the application is denied.
According to their regulations, all components allow an applicant to obtain  and pay for outside legal counsel. In addition, officials responsible for the  conscientious objector process for the Army, the Navy, the Navy Reserve,  the Air Force, the Air Force Reserve, the Marine Corps, and the Marine  Corps Reserve said that an applicant has access to free legal advice from  these components’ legal offices.
Each component provides an applicant with the opportunity to rebut  information included in the record. The applicant submits the rebuttal  prior to the final processing of the application. The time frame to submit a  rebuttal varies among the components and ranges from 5 to 15 days. On  the basis of data provided by the components for calendar years 2002  through 2006, the military services took an average of about 7 months to  process an application—this includes the time allowed for applicants to  submit their rebuttals. The Air Force Reserve typically took the longest  amount of time to process an application, at an average of nearly a full  year (357 days), while the Navy’s processing time averaged about 5 months  (160 days). According to component officials, processing may be  prolonged when, for example, applications must be returned to the unit or  the applicant for additional information. As stated earlier, Air National  Guard and Coast Guard officials said that personnel who can conduct  psychiatric or psychological evaluations are not always readily available  and that this may prolong the processing time. Coast Guard officials also  stated that, because they receive so few applications, it is necessary for  officials located in the field offices to reeducate themselves about the  process each time, which may prolong processing time for the  applications. Table 3 shows average application processing times by  component.
According to the components, the commanding officer typically informs  an applicant if he or she has or has not met the burden of proof necessary  to establish the claim. In addition, officials for the Army, the Air Force, the  Marine Corps, the Coast Guard, and their reserve components stated that  when an application has been denied, the applicant is sent a memorandum  providing additional detail on the reason for the decision. Generally,  applications are denied when the servicemember has not provided clear  and convincing evidence supporting his or her claim of conscientious  objection.
Each of the components—with the exception of the Army and its reserve  components—has the discretion to reassign an approved l-A-O  conscientious objector to a noncombatant duty—if one is available—or  discharge the servicemember. In contrast, according to Army regulation,  1-A-O conscientious objectors in the Army and its reserve components are  not eligible for discharge. According to Army officials, these  servicemembers continue to serve the remainder of their service  obligations, and when necessary are retrained in occupations that do not  require them to bear arms.
section_title: Conscientious Objectors May Receive the Same Benefits as Other Discharged Servicemembers
paragraphs: In general, in accordance with component policies, servicemembers  separated as conscientious objectors may be granted honorable or under  honorable conditions (general) discharges, thereby making them eligible  to receive the same benefits as other discharged servicemembers. Army,  Navy, and Air Force regulations state that conscientious objectors must be  given one of these two types of discharge. The Marine Corps and the Coast  Guard do not specify what type of discharge must be assigned to  conscientious objectors; rather, their regulations state that the type of  discharge should be determined by the member’s overall service record. In  accordance with VA guidance, conscientious objector status generally is  not considered when determining eligibility for any of the benefits VA  offers; the primary determinant for these benefits is the characterization  of discharge. All servicemembers separated with an honorable or an  under honorable conditions (general) discharge are eligible for the same  VA benefits, with the exception of Montgomery GI Bill-Active Duty  Education and Training benefits. Whether discharged as a conscientious  objector or for other reasons, a servicemember must receive an honorable  discharge to be entitled to Montgomery GI Bill-Active Duty Education and  Training benefits. In addition to the characterization of discharge, a  servicemember may have to meet other eligibility requirements—including  years of service, period of service (e.g., during a period of war), or an  injury or disease that was incurred or aggravated during military activity— to receive certain VA benefits. Table 4 provides an overview of the VA  benefits available to veterans and the basic eligibility requirements for  each.
To apply for VA benefits, a veteran submits an application to a veterans’  claims examiner or other qualified VA employee at a VA field facility,  where it is reviewed to ensure that it is complete and that the applicant  meets basic eligibility requirements. If it is determined that the veteran  does not meet basic eligibility requirements (i.e., the characterization of  discharge is not honorable or under honorable conditions (general)), then  the examiner or other qualified VA employee will notify the veteran that he  or she is not entitled to benefits. The veteran can then (1) seek an upgrade  in the characterization of his or her discharge through the military  component and, if successful, provide the revised discharge papers to VA  or (2) provide the examiner or other qualified VA employee with evidence  of mitigating circumstances that could lead VA to revise its determination  of the veteran’s eligibility. Even if the veteran does not provide additional  information, the examiner or other qualified VA employee will review the  veteran’s military personnel and service record to determine if (1) there  were mitigating circumstances surrounding the discharge; (2) there is a  period of service, other than the one for which the veteran was  discharged, upon which the benefits may be based; or (3) despite the  characterization of discharge, the veteran’s service was faithful or  meritorious. For example, if it is determined after a review of the military  personnel and service record that the veteran received an under other than  honorable conditions discharge because of an absence without official  leave to see a dying parent, the veteran may still receive VA benefits. If an  examiner or other qualified VA employee determines that a veteran with  an under other than honorable conditions or bad conduct discharge is not  eligible for most VA benefits, the veteran may still be eligible for health  care for any disability incurred or aggravated in the line of duty during  active service, unless the veteran is barred from receiving VA benefits. If  the veteran’s military personnel or service record indicates that he or she  refused to perform military duties, wear the uniform, or comply with  lawful orders of a competent military authority while the conscientious  objector application was pending, the veteran is barred from receiving VA  benefits. The decision of the examiner or other qualified VA employee  applies not only to those benefits that the veteran was requesting at the  time of the decision but also to any future benefits he or she may seek,  except for education and training, for which the discharge must be  honorable. A dishonorable discharge automatically disqualifies a veteran  from receiving benefits; the examiner or other qualified VA employee does  not make decisions on dishonorable discharges.
A veteran who disagrees with the decision has 1 year to file an appeal with  the VA Board of Veterans Appeals. When the case comes before the Board  of Appeals, the veteran may be represented by legal counsel. If the board  decides in favor of the veteran, the veteran will be awarded the benefit in  question. If the board upholds the decision to deny benefits, the veteran  can appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which is an  independent court and not part of the VA.
Of the 224 servicemembers who were approved for conscientious objector  status during calendar years 2002 through 2006, 207 (92 percent) were  granted honorable discharges; 14 (6 percent) were granted under  honorable conditions (general) discharges; and no information on the  discharges of the remaining 3 (1 percent) was available (see table 5).
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: DOD, the Department of Homeland Security, and VA were provided a draft  of this report and had no comments on the findings. The Department of  Homeland Security and VA provided technical comments, which were  incorporated as appropriate.
We will send copies of this report to interested Members of Congress, the  Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the  Director of the Department of Veterans Affairs. We will also make copies  available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at  no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions on this report, please contact me at  (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Demographic Information on Known Applicants for Conscientious Objector Status, Calendar Years 2002-2006
paragraphs: In calendar years 2002 through 2006, 81 percent of the applicants were  enlisted males. In addition, the majority of male applicants were between  the ages of 21 and 25. The occupational area for the majority of the  applicants was general infantry (which includes weapons specialists and  special forces, among others), and most of the applicants also had  between 1 to 4 years of service.
On the basis of the information shown in table 7, we determined that 83  percent of male applicants for conscientious objector status were 30 years  old or younger. Eighty-four percent of female applicants were 30 years old  or younger.
Table 8 shows that 43 percent of applicants had 1 to 2 years of service, and  32 percent had 3 to 4 years of service.
On the basis of component-provided data, we were able to determine that  during calendar years 2002 through 2006, 154 of the 202 applicants for  which these data were provided had participated in Operation Noble Eagle  (ONE), Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), or Operation Iraqi Freedom  (OIF) (see table 9). Of the 154 who served in these operations, 153 were  from Army or Marine Corps components.
Our review of component-provided data found that servicemembers who  applied for conscientious objector status worked in a variety of  occupational areas. The top five occupational areas for the 377 enlisted  servicemembers for calendar years 2002 through 2006 were    general infantry, which includes weapons specialists, ground  reconnaissance specialists, special forces, and military training  instructors, with 42 applicants;    other functional support, which includes supply accounting and  procurement, transportation, flight operations, and related areas, with 16  applicants;    medical care and treatment, which includes surgical and therapy  specialists, with 16 applicants;    security, which includes specialists who guard weapon systems, defend  installations, and protect personnel, equipment, and facilities, with 14  applicants; and    combat engineering, which includes specialists in hasty and temporary  construction of airfields, roads and bridges, and in demolition, field  illumination, and chemical warfare, with 14 applicants.
Of the 33 officer applicants, the three largest occupational types included 6  applicants whose occupations were designated as unknown (i.e., officer  unknown occupation); 5 who were in ground and naval arms, which  includes infantry, artillery, armor and close support officers, and naval  ship commanders and other warfare-related officers; and 3 who were in  the occupational area of student officers, which includes law students,  medical students, and other trainees.
section_title: Appendix II: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To meet our first objective—to identify trends in the number of  servicemembers applying for conscientious objector status during  calendar years 2002 through 2006—we obtained data from each of the  components. We did not report data between September 11, 2001, and  December 31, 2001, as directed in the mandate, because several of the  components were unable to provide data for this time period. The Army  National Guard and the Air Force did not provide any data to us for this  period of time. Navy officials reported receiving five applications in 2001,  but they said that they were not confident that this information was  accurate. We found that the data provided by the components could  underrepresent the total number of applications for conscientious  objector status because applications could be withdrawn during the  application process before they reach the headquarters level. However, we  believe that the data are sufficiently reliable to demonstrate overall trends  in the numbers of applications that were approved and denied during  calendar years 2002 through 2006. The Defense Manpower Data Center  (DMDC) does not maintain separate data on the numbers of applications  for conscientious objector status; however, it does maintain data on  personnel, including demographics and reasons for separation, dating  back to the early 1970s. We therefore used DMDC data for these purposes.  To assess the reliability of all data presented in this report, we obtained an  understanding of the sources of the data and the file structures.  Specifically, we (1) performed electronic testing of the data variables for  completeness (that is, duplicative and missing data); (2) assessed the  reasonableness of the data by comparing data provided by the  components with data provided by DMDC; (3) reviewed existing  information about the systems that produced the data; and (4) interviewed  component and DMDC officials to identify known problems or limitations  in the data, as well as to understand how data are received from each of  the components and processed by DMDC. When we found discrepancies  (for example, duplicate Social Security numbers), we worked with the  appropriate components and DMDC to understand the reasons for the  discrepancies.
To meet our second objective—to determine how each component of the  U.S. Armed Forces administers its process for approving or denying  conscientious objector applications—we reviewed relevant guidance and  regulations, including DOD’s instruction. We interviewed officials  responsible for each component’s current practices for (1) reviewing  conscientious objector applications, including the roles and availability of  key personnel (e.g., chaplains and medical personnel); (2) reassigning  servicemembers with pending applications; and (3) approving or denying  servicemembers’ applications. Finally, we used component-provided data  (e.g., application start dates) to calculate the average processing time for  conscientious objector applications.
To meet our third objective—to determine whether conscientious  objectors are eligible to receive the same benefits that other  servicemembers are eligible to receive after they are discharged from the  military—we analyzed applicable laws and instructions from VA, DOD,  and the components. We also interviewed VA, DOD, and component  officials about the benefits available to conscientious objectors and other  servicemembers upon discharge. We reviewed component-provided data  to determine the characterization of discharge (e.g., honorable) received  by the servicemembers separated as conscientious objectors.
To obtain demographic information on applicants for conscientious  objector status, we provided DMDC with applications data provided by the  components; DMDC then matched this information to personnel data it  maintains.
In conducting this work, we contacted the appropriate officials from the  following organizations (see table 10).
We performed our work from November 2006 through August 2007 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Appendix III: Data on Active Components’ Servicemembers Separated as Conscientious Objectors, Calendar Years 1994-2006
paragraphs: The Department of Defense (DOD) reported to Congress that 44 of the  197,786 servicemembers separated in fiscal year 2006 were discharged as  conscientious objectors, and 39 of the 214,353 servicemembers separated  in fiscal year 2005 were discharged for that reason. As reported, the  numbers of servicemembers separated as conscientious objectors  represent about two-tenths of 1 percent of the total separations from DOD  (see fig. 3).
DMDC-provided data showed that 547 servicemembers were discharged as  conscientious objectors between calendar years 1994 and 2006. The  number of conscientious objectors has decreased from 61 in 1994 (during  a period when the services were larger) to 46 and 36 during calendar years  2005 and 2006, respectively. These numbers are very small, given the size  of the total force—approximately 2.3 million servicemembers.
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
paragraphs: Brenda S. Farrell, (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov.
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact above, Cynthia Jackson, Assistant Director;  Minty M. Abraham; Kurt A. Burgeson; Fatema Z. Choudhury; Kenya R.  Jones; Mitchell B. Karpman; Ronald La Due Lake; Joanne Landesman; Julia  Matta; Lonnie J. McAllister II; Anna Maria Ortiz; Kimberly L. Perteet;  Maria-Alaina I. Rambus; Beverly C. Schladt; Derek B. Stewart; and Jennifer  M. Thomas made key contributions to this report.