Opinion ID: 712983
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Basis in Fact Review

Text: 40 Roby argues in the alternative that the district court improperly denied his habeas petition because the Navy did not meet its burden of showing a basis in fact for rejecting his application. Specifically, he contends that the investigating officer relied on impermissible factors when he recommended against the status change. 41 Assuming that Roby has made a prima facie showing that he is opposed to all wars, that his opposition is based on religious or moral training and belief, and that he is sincere in his beliefs, the military bears the burden of demonstrating a basis in fact for denying the application. Woods, 987 F.2d at 1456-57. Under basis in fact review, we must affirm if the record reveals some proof that is incompatible with the applicant's claim. Id. at 1456. This standard has been described as the narrowest review known to the law. Id. As the Supreme Court has cautioned, [i]t is well to remember that it is not for the courts to sit as super draft boards, substituting their judgments on the weight of the evidence.... Nor should they look for substantial evidence to support such determinations. Witmer, 348 U.S. at 380-81, 75 S.Ct. at 395 (citations omitted). 42 The investigating officer relied on four findings in support of his conclusion that Roby lacked depth of conviction and that his beliefs were not the primary controlling force in his life: (1) the chaplain's recommendation that the application be disapproved and his concern that Roby had held his beliefs for an insufficient length of time; (2) the psychologist's comment that Roby was influenced by his friends and still trying to find himself; (3) Roby's failure to point to any changes in his lifestyle; and (4) his impending transfer to sea duty. The officer did not doubt his sincerity. 9 Although there may be some problems with these findings individually, considered as a whole they create a basis in fact for the Navy's denial. See Woods, 987 F.2d at 1458 (Each item by itself ... does not constitute a basis in fact. However, taken together they suggest that Woods' conscientious objection to war is not sincere and deeply held.). 43 Several factors contraindicate a belief that has directed his life in the way traditional religious convictions of equal strength, depth and duration have directed the lives of those [who hold religious beliefs] or that is the primary controlling force in [his] life. 32 C.F.R. § 75.5(c)(1); MILPERSMAN 1860120. His beliefs are based only on his reading two or three books and watching two television documentaries. He does not plan to study further (the time of book study is over for me). The only change in lifestyle that he foresees (other than leaving the military) is possibly to write letters for Amnesty International on behalf of other conscientious objectors. If discharged, he plans to study photography. The investigating psychologist commented that Roby has been influenced by his friends more strongly that [sic] he is willing to admit.... He is idealistic and an intellectualizer who is restless and still trying to 'find' himself. These factors could reasonably persuade an official to question how deeply Roby holds his convictions. 44 The timing of Roby's application also gives reason to doubt his conviction. After three years of active duty, Roby applied for conscientious objector status only when faced with deployment to an aircraft carrier. Although timing cannot be the only basis for rejecting a status change, it can lend doubt to the application. Koh v. Secretary of the Air Force, 719 F.2d 1384, 1386 (9th Cir.1983) (rejecting application where objector submitted her claim one month after receiving active duty orders); Woods, 987 F.2d at 1458 (denying discharge where objector filed application 10 days after receiving deployment orders). 45 Finally, the chaplain reported that Roby was sincere but that: 46 I am concerned that it has only been three or four months since he has read the above mentioned book that he claims to be the catalyst for his beliefs. His depth of conviction may be temporary.... I believe that Petty Officer Roby has not had enough time to be convicted of his decision to request conscious [sic] objector status. 47 Length of time alone does not create a basis in fact for denial of a conscientious objector application. Schuman v. United States, 208 F.2d 801, 805 (9th Cir.1953). A rapid turn-around in beliefs, however, may be considered as a factor if other findings also support that conclusion. Bishop v. United States, 412 F.2d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir.1969). 10 48 Although each of these factors standing alone arguably might provide an insufficient basis for denying Roby's application, the combination provides a basis in fact for the Navy's denial of Roby's conscientious objector application. See Woods, 987 F.2d at 1458.