Opinion ID: 1238699
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Basis in Fact Standard

Text: Pursuant to Department of Defense regulation, discharge for conscientious objection is discretionary with the Military Department concerned, based on a judgment of the facts and circumstances in the case. Department of Defense Instruction ¶ 4.1. The final determination is subject to limited review in federal court for whether there is a basis in fact to support the military's decision. Foster, 520 F.2d at 755. The basis in fact test is satisfied if there is objective evidence, even though not preponderant or substantial, to support the finding in question. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The standard of review is thus severely limited, Hammond, 398 F.2d at 716, and has been called the narrowest [review] known to the law, United States v. Corliss, 280 F.2d 808, 810 (2d Cir.1960). In determining whether there is a basis in fact to support a decision, we do not substitute our own judgment for that of the military, and do not weigh the evidence to determine whether the decision was justified. See Aguayo v. Harvey, 476 F.3d 971, 977-78 (D.C.Cir.2007); Estep v. United States, 327 U.S. 114, 122-23, 66 S.Ct. 423, 90 L.Ed. 567 (1946). Instead, the military's decision, made in conformity with the regulations, is final even though [it] may be erroneous. Estep, 327 U.S. at 122, 66 S.Ct. 423. Nonetheless, as the First Circuit recently explained: [a]lthough this standard of review is a narrow one, it is not toothless. A basis in fact will not find support in mere disbelief or surmise as to the applicant's motivation. Rather, the government must show some hard, reliable, provable facts which would provide a basis for disbelieving the applicant's sincerity, or it must show something concrete in the record which substantially blurs the picture painted by the applicant. The DACORB's reasons for its decision must be grounded in logic and a mere suspicion is an inadequate basis in fact. Hanna v. Sec'y of the Army, 513 F.3d 4, 12 (1st Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). This comports with our decision in Checkman, where we held that the DACORB must predicate any finding of insincerity upon objective evidence affording a rational basis for the Board's refusal to accept the validity of the applicant's claims. . . . What is required is the kind of evidence that substantially blurs the picture painted by the applicant. 469 F.2d at 778 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). While the evidence in the record, need not be as comprehensive as substantial evidence, . . . it cannot be a mere scintilla. Id. at 787 (internal quotation marks omitted). Finally, the requirement that there be a basis in fact in objective evidence to support the DACORB's decision is one that is satisfied whether or not that basis is set forth in the formal opinion of the [DACORB], so long as it appears in the record. Id.