Opinion ID: 2998291
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: “Basis in Fact” Analysis

Text: A conscientious objector has no constitutional or statutory right to be discharged from active service after voluntary enlistment. Roby v. United States Dep’t of the Navy, 76 F.3d 1052, 1055 (9th Cir. 1996); Sanger v. Seamans, 507 F.2d 814, 817 (9th Cir. 1974); DeWalt v. Commanding Officer, 476 F.2d 440, 442 (5th Cir. 1973). Service members’ rights to request conscientious objector status derive from military regulations. See Parisi v. Davidson, 405 U.S. 34, 38 n.2 (1972). The Department of Defense (“DOD”) has implemented procedures for service members to apply for conscientious objector status. 32 C.F.R. § 75. As such, the Marine Corps has promulgated a regulation that executes the DOD procedures. Marine Corps Order 1306.16E, supra note 1. As described earlier, under Marine Corps Order 1306.16E, Alhassan must show first that he is conscientiously opposed No. 04-2446 7 to participation in war in any form. Second, that this opposition is based on religious training and beliefs, and third, that his position is sincere and deeply held. Id. Alhassan argues here that the Marine Corps’s denial of his application had no basis in fact. The Marine Corps does not challenge Alhassan’s assertion that he is conscientiously opposed to war in any form. However, relying on the reports of Major Anderson, Lieutenant Colonel Lloyd, and the final decision of General Hagee, it challenges Alhassan’s ability to satisfy the second and third prongs of Marine Corps Order 1306.16E. We find that there was some basis in fact for the decision of the Marine Corps to deny Alhassan’s application. Because the “ultimate question in conscientious objector cases is the sincerity of the registrant,” Witmer, 348 U.S. at 381, we review the record for “some inference of insincerity or bad faith.” Id. at 382. Within the “basis in fact” standard of review, we have found that “a belated conscientious objector application following assignment is a proper element for consideration.” Okerlund, 473 F.2d at 1289. On July 22, 2002, Alhassan enlisted for eight years in the Marine Corps Reserve. On January 23, 2003, less than a year later, Alhassan applied for conscientious objector status after receiving orders which would have placed his unit directly in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Although the timing of Alhassan’s application is not by itself a basis for insincerity, we can factor the timing of an application for conscientious objection status into our analysis. Id. In July 2002 when Alhassan enlisted he stated that he did not, nor did he ever have, “a firm, fixed, and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or to the bearing of arms because of religious belief or training.” Six months later, upon learning of his imminent deployment to Iraq, Alhassan informed his superiors for the first time that he harbored convictions against war and filed his 8 No. 04-2446 application for discharge as a conscientious objector. As the district court noted, despite Alhassan’s claim to have developed his beliefs during boot camp, there is no indication that he told his parents, girlfriend, or any of his superiors at boot camp about his concerns. Alhassan did not raise this issue during his post-boot camp combat training or during his motor vehicle training. In addition, Alhassan did not disclose his objections to war when Gunnery Sergeant Howard informed him that the Unit was being deployed to Iraq. Alhassan only expressed concerns about how his mother would handle her divorce in his absence, and his inability to return to college in the fall. Alhassan even remained silent when accompanying the Unit to Camp Pendleton to prepare for deployment. It was not until Alhassan had been at Camp Pendleton for approximately two weeks, and the possibility of deployment to Iraq became even more imminent, that he informed anyone in his chain of command that he had a conscientious objection. As the reviewing court in this matter, it is not our job to assess whether the military had substantial evidence to support its conclusion that Alhassan’s opposition was not based on religious training and beliefs, and that his position was not sincere and deeply held. We need only determine whether all of the facts suggest that there is “some proof that is incompatible with the applicant’s claim.” Roby, 76 F.3d at 1055. Here, we conclude that the Marine Corps had a basis in fact for its decision denying Alhassan’s application. Alhassan argues that we should rely on United States v. Lemmens, 430 F.2d 619 (7th Cir. 1970) and United States v. Joyce, 437 F.2d 740 (7th Cir. 1971), which he reads to suggest that the timing of a conscientious objector’s application is of little importance. In Lemmens, we concluded that the timing of the plaintiff’s conscientious objection application did not suffice as a basis in fact. 430 F.2d at 624. No. 04-2446 9 Similarly, in Joyce, we held that, “[t]ardiness standing alone, however, carries slight weight in light of the subjectivity of the beliefs involved and the fact that aging, as well as external circumstances, may serve to crystallize sincere beliefs in a young man’s mind long after his initial registration.” 437 F.2d at 745. However, both Joyce and Lemmens are not applicable in this case. Both Joyce and Lemmens were cases we decided during the Vietnam era and involved draftees to the military. These draftees developed their conscientious objection after complying with their mandatory application to the draft board. Joyce, 437 F.2d at 744; Lemmens, 430 F.2d at 622. Our decision in Okerlund, 473 F.2d at 1289, is closer to the facts surrounding Alhassan’s application for conscientious objection. Okerlund, as with the case at bar, both involve soldiers who voluntarily enlisted into the military, and then began the conscientious objector process after realizing that the military was to send them to a combat zone. Id. Alhassan argues that there is no difference between cases in which a soldier volunteers in the military versus cases in which a soldier is drafted. We disagree. Alhassan volunteered, of his own free will, to serve in the Marine Corps. Before enlisting, he signed a document stating that he had no “firm, fixed, and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or to the bearing of arms because of religious belief or training.” In Joyce and Lemmens, the men had no choice as to whether they would volunteer or not—they were drafted and both men began their conscientious objection applications at various stages of the draft process. Because Commander Howard found Alhassan’s “faith . . . very immature at this point and not well developed,” presumptively relying on Marine Corps Order 1306.16E, which provides that an application for conscientious objection may be approved for an individual “whose position 10 No. 04-2446 is sincere and deeply held,”2 Alhassan also argues that we should adopt the reasoning of the Fifth Circuit in Helwick v. Laird, 438 F.2d 959 (5th Cir. 1971). Helwick, another Vietnam era draft case in which Helwick’s chaplain and unit commander recommended that Helwick’s conscientious objector application be rejected because of the lack of “depth and maturity” of Helwick’s views, held that “depth and maturity” factors were an insufficient basis for denying Helwick’s application, and that the government can only measure the sincerity of a conscientious objector’s religious convictions and not the depth or stage of an applicant’s religious development. Id. at 964. The First and the Eighth circuits also rejected the “depth of conviction” as an independent element of the government’s conscientious objector test. See Hager v. Sec’y of the Air Force, 938 F.2d 1449 (1st Cir. 1991); Kemp v. Bradley, 457 F.2d 627 (8th Cir. 1972)3. However, we decline to follow this reasoning. The holding of Helwick is not the law of this circuit. In Joyce, we 2 Alhassan has alleged no constitutional violation here, he simply argues that the Marine Corps should not be able to assess the depth of his conviction. 3 In Kemp, 457 F.2d at 629, the court wrote: “ ‘Depth of conviction’ requires theological or philosophical evaluation. We think it unwise to adopt this more complex concept as the requirement which a Selective Service registrant or member of the Armed Forces must fulfill in order to qualify for conscientious objector classification.” In Hager, 938 F.2d at 1459, the First Circuit adopted the Eighth Circuit’s reasoning, adding that when: “the military undertakes to measure the depth with which the applicant holds [his] belief, we think the inquiry becomes an impermissible subjective look into [the] heart and soul. The question is, does he believe, not, how deeply does he believe. Id. (emphasis in original). No. 04-2446 11 specifically held that, “United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 makes it abundantly clear that the [government] must focus on the nature and depth of the registrant’s individual beliefs, however derived or inspired, whether orthodox or unorthodox.” 437 F.2d at 744. We decline to disturb this holding. The courts have a history of giving the military a wide scope of deference in crafting its own regulations. Meinhold v. Dep’t of Def., 34 F.3d 1469, 1476-77 (9th Cir. 1994) (“. . . we are guided by [a] long-settled rule: The military’s ‘considered professional judgment,’ is ‘not lightly to be overruled by the judiciary.’ . . . Our review, therefore, is as deferential as our constitutional responsibilities permit.”); Turpin v. Resor, 452 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1971); Steffan v. Perry, 41 F.3d 677, 684-85 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (“It is hard to imagine a more deferential standard than rational basis, but when judging the rationality of a regulation in the military context, we owe even more special deference . . .”). The reason for the courts’ deference to the military, in particular to manage its own regulations, is simple, judges are not military leaders and do not have the expertise nor the mandate to govern the armed forces.