PIONEERS OF A WARLESS WORLD - CONSCIENTIOUS
OBJECTORS AND THE LAW
MARCY WENZLER
PIONEERS OF A WARLESS W O R L D — C O N S C I E N T I O U S
OBJECTORS AND THE LAW
by
Marcy We a 21 e r
Professor Daniel Benson
I n d e p e n d e n t Research
T e x a s Tech S c h o o l of L a w
A u g u s t , 1980
PIONEERS O F A W A R L E S S W O R L D - - C O N S C I E N T I O U S O B J E C T O R S A N D THE L A W
"The p i o n e e r s of a w a r l e s s w o r l d are those y o u n g m e n
fuse m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e . " *
[and women") w h o re-
W h e t h e r or not E i n s t e i n ' s v i s i o n of a w a r l e s s w o r l d
d e v e l o p s w i l l be i n f l u e n c e d by societies*
r e c o g n i t i o n and t r e a t m e n t o£ c o n -
2
scientious objectors.
It is therefore i m p o r t a n t to see what the United
States
has d o n e w i t h the c o n c e p t of c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t i o n and w h e r e it might g o w i t h
the c o n c e p t in the
future.
Many w o r k s have dealt w i t h the h i s t o r y of c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r s
country
and t h e i r t r e a t m e n t by the c o u r t s .
in this
For p u r p o s e s of this p a p e r , how-
e v e r , I w o u l d give the reader a brief h i s t o r y of c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r
law,
s o m e present s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s c o v e r i n g v a r i o u s types of c o n s c i e n t i o u s
ob-
j e c t o r s , t r e a t m e n t of c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r s by the c o u r t s w i t h p a r t i c u l a r emp h a s i s on recent d e v e l o p m e n t s
(since 1 9 / 0 ) , or lack t h e r e o f , in the l a w , arid
f i n a l l y some c o n c l u s i o n s and o b s e r v a t i o n s on d e v e l o p i n g
trends.
HISTORY
A n e a r l y r e c o g n i t i o n of c o n s c i e n t i o u s b e l i e f s in this country w a s
evidenced
by the passage of a r e s o l u t i o n in 1775 by the First C o n t i n e n t a l C o n g r e s s
advis-
ing the c o l o n i s t s to respect the rights of c o n s c i e n c e of those w h o w e r e
opposed
to the b e a r i n g of arms b e c a u s e of their r e l i g i o u s beliefs."*
tious o b j e c t o r s w e r e e x e m p t e d
Qualified
conscien-
from m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e but required to e n g a g e
in
6
some c h a r i t a b l e s e r v i c e and to o b t a i n a s u b s t i t u t e o r pay an e x e m p t i o n
fee.
T h e first federal Draft A c t of 1863 had n o c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r e x e m p t i o n s , but did a l l o w for s u b s t i t u t i o n or the p a y m e n t of $ 3 0 0 .
The Act
was
a m e n d e d in 1864,'' a f t e r public o u t c r y , to p r o v i d e for n o n c o m b a t a n t s e r v i c e
p
those w h o could give s u f f i c i e n t proof of t h e i r r e l i g i o u s m o t i v a t i o n s .
A U )
to
-2-
The first n a t i o n a l w a r - t i m e c o n s c r i p t i o n
in A m e r i c a n history was e s t a b -
9
lished by the Draft A c t of M a y 1 8 , 1 9 1 7 .
T h i s Act r e c o g n i z e d
religions whose
creed forbid m e m b e r s to p a r t i c i p a t e in w a r in any f o r m , but this s e r v e d
to
limit e x e m p t i o n s to m e m b e r s of the h i s t o r i c peace c h u r c h e s , Q u a k e r s , B r e t h r e n ,
and Mennonit.es.
The c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of the 1917 Act w a s attacked in the
S e l e c t i v e D r a f t Law C a s e s ^ as b e i n g a g a i n s t the first a m e n d m e n t ' s
m e n t and free e x e r c i s e c l a u s e s .
establish-
The S u p r e m e Court s u m m a r i l y d i s m i s s e d
these
a r g u m e n t s by s a y i n g that the A c t ' s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y on s u c h g r o u n d s w a s
"too
3
a p p a r e n t to require us to [ d e c l a r e
otherwise]." *
In a d d i t i o n to the narrow r e c o g n i t i o n of c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r s , t h e r e
w a s a p r e s u m p t i o n of univei-sal s e r v i c e w i t h e x e m p t i o n s of c o n s c i e n t i o u s
tors c o n s i d e r e d a m a t t e r of g o v e r n m e n t a l l a r g e s s e .
objec-
"It m a y ' n o t be d o u b t e d
the v e r y c o n c e p t i o n of a just g o v e r n m e n t and its duty to the c i t i z e n
that
includes
the r e c i p r o c a l o b l i g a t i o n of the c i t i z e n to r e n d e r m i l i t a r y service in c a s e of
12
need and the right to c o m p e l
The A c t of 1 9 4 0 '
broadened
it."
w a s the first p e a c e - t i m e s e l e c t i v e s e r v i c e l a w , and
the c o n c e p t of c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t i o n by e x e m p t i n g any p e r s o n , w h o
by r e a s o n of r e l i g i o u s t r a i n i n g and b e l i e f , w a s c o n s c i e n t i o u s l y opposed to par1A
t i c i p a t i o n in w a r in any f o r m .
Once this b a s i c s t a n d a r d was e s t a b l i s h e d , the
later acts m e r e l y e l a b o r a t e d on the p r o v i s i o n s , in r e s p o n s e to S u p r e m e
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of
Court
them.
In 1 9 4 8 , the S e l e c t i v e S e r v i c e Act d e f i n e d " r e l i g i o u s t r a i n i n g and
to include an i n d i v i d u a l ' s b e l i e f
belief"
in r e l a t i o n t o a S u p r e m e B e i n g , i n v o l v i n g
d u t i e s s u p e r i o r to those a r i s i n g from any h u m a n r e l a t i o n , but did not
include
e s s e n t i a l l y p o l i t i c a l , s o c i o l o g i c a l or p h i l o s o p h i c a l v i e w s or a m e r e l y
m o r a li c o ad e . 15
personal
T h e n in 1967 C o n g r e s s d e l e t e d the S u p r e m e B e i n g c l a u s e in the M i l i t a r y
tl»
1"!
S e l e c t i v e S e r v i c e A c t of 1 9 6 7 , a f t e r the s i g n i f i c a n t S e e g e r d e c i s i o n '
2G6
c o n s t r u i n g "belief in relation to a S u p r e m e B e i n g " to m e a n a "belief
that...
o c c u p i e s a place In the life of its p o s s e s s o r parallel to that, filled by the
o r t h o d o x belief in God of one w h o c l e a r l y q u a l i f i e s for the [^conscientious ob—I
^q
jectorj exemption."
D e s p i t e the d e c l i n e of the r i g h t - p r i v i l e g e d i s t i n c t i o n in c o n s t i t u t i o n a l
l a w , the p r e s u m p t i o n of u n i v e r s a l s e r v i c e w i t h e x e m p t i o n s as a m a t t e r of g o v e r n m e n t a l l a r g e s s e still p r e v a i l s .
In the Dicki nson c a s e , the S u p r e m e C o u r t de-
clared that e x e m p t i o n s are a m a t t e r of l e g i s l a t i v e grace r a t h e r than a
19
right.
T h e n in 1968 General Hershey a s s e r t e d that the " n a t i o n a l interest may have a
'right* t o the d e f e r m e n t of a r e g i s t r a n t , but an i n d i v i d u a l has no ' r i g h t ' ex20
cept the right to m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e to w h i c h he has been by law
It can be a r g u e d , h o w e v e r , that C o n g r e s s i o n a l
Congress changed
precommitted."
intent was o t h e r w i s e
since
the U n i v e r s a l M i l i t a r y T r a i n i n g anc! S e r v i c e Act to the M i l i 21
tary S e l e c t i v e S e r v i c e Act of 1 9 6 7 .
W h a t e v e r the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , u n d e r the
present Military Selective Service Act
the b u r d e n is c l e a r l y on the
to p r o v e that he q u a l i f i e s for an e x e m p t i o n ;
registrant
"each r e g i s t r a n t w i l l be con-
s i d e r e d as a v a i l a b l e for m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e until his e l i g i b i l i t y for d e f e r m e n t
or e x e m p t i o n is c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d . " 23 In this A c t t C o n g r e s s has d e c l a r e d
that "in a free s o c i e t y the o b l i g a t i o n s and p r i v i l e g e s of s e r v i n g in the armed
f o r c e s . . . s h o u l d be shared
generally..,."
24
PRESENT STATUTORY
PROVISIONS
T h e p r e s e n t law p r o v i d e s for a s y s t e m of r e g i s t r a t i o n , c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , and
i n d u c t i o n , any point at w h i c h a person m a y m a k e his c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r beliefs k n o w n .
2S
The c l a i m a n t m a y request the S p e c i a l F o r m for C o n s c i e n t i o u s
Ob-
26
j e c t o r s at any t i m e ,
dures.
or m a k e his b e l i e f s known w i t h o u t f o l l o w i n g the
proce-
If the r e g i s t r a n t v i o l a t e s the draft l a w , he has c o m m i t e d a felony
o f f e n s e and is s u b j e c t to a fine of $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 a n d / o r p r i s o n time of up to f i v e
O p y
/-l. s
years.
27
H o w e v e r , there is a five y e a r s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s for n o n - r e g i s -
t r a t i o n , meaning, that e v e n though a person
is t h e o r e t i c a l l y liable to s e r v e
until his 26th b i r t h d a y , p r o s e c u t i o n is barred a f t e r he turns 23 because
t
s t a t u t e b e g i n s to run five d a y s a f t e i p i s 18th
birthday.
28
A f t e r r e g i s t r a t i o n , e a c h r e g i s t r a n t s h a l l be c l a s s i f i e d based on
tion contained
informa-
in his file and s t a t e m e n t s m a d e b e f o r e local and appeal
A l l r e g i s t r a n t s w i l l be c l a s s i f i e d
different classification.""'
the
boards.
1 - A u n l e s s there are o t h e r g r o u n d s tor a
No c l a s s i f i c a t i o n
is p e r m a n e n t , * and it m a y be.
c h a n g e d by the board upon appeal or a f t e r a request to r e o p e n and
reconsider
32
the
classification.
C l a s s 1 - A - Q , c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r a v a i l a b l e for n o n c o m b a t a n t m i l i t a r y
s e r v i c e o n l y , and c l a s s l - Q , c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r a v a i l a b l e for a l t e r n a t e
s e r v i c e , e n t i t l e the r e g i s t r a n t to an e x e m p t ! on, as d i s t i n g u i s h e d from o t h e r
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s w h i c h only e n t i t l e the r e g i s t r a n t to a d e f e r m e n t , m e a n i n g
33
r e m a i n liable for s e r v i c e until they are 35 years
they
old.
A n y request for a c h a n g e in c l a s s i f i c a t i o n or r e o p e n i n g m u s t be timely
filed prior to the i s s u a n c e of an i n d u c t i o n o r d e r , unless there has b e e n a
c h a n g e in the r e g i s t r a n t ' s s t a t u s r e s u l t i n g from c i r c u m s t a n c e s over w h i c h the
34
r e g i s t r a n t had n o c o n t r o l .
The courts were split over whether conscientious
o b j e c t i o n w a s a c i r c u m s t a n c e beyond one's c o n t r o l , thus e n a b l i n g a c l a i m a n t
to
35
r e o p e n his c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .
In the E h l e r t d e c i s i o n ,
t e r p r e t e d the p r e s e n t r e g u l a t i o n s
the S u p r e m e Court
in-
to a l l o w a p e r s o n w h o files a p o s t - i n d u c t i o n
o r d e r c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r c l a i m to have his c l a i m r e v i e w e d a f t e r
induction
and before w e a p o n s t r a i n i n g , w i t h o u t s e t t l i n g w h e t h e r c o n s c i e n t i o u s
objection
w a s a m a t t e r beyond one's c o n t r o l .
The S u p r e m e C o u r t has a l s o held that the local board m u s t reopen the c l a s
s i f i c a t i o n w h e r e a r e g i s t r a n t m a k e s n o n f r i v o l o u s a l l e g a t i o n s of facts
m
that
would h a v e not been p r e v i o u s l y c o n s i d e r e d , u n l e s s the truth of the a l l e g a t i o n s
is c o n c l u s i v e l y refuted by other reliable i n f o r m a t i o n in the r e g i s t r a n t ' s
file.
In the p a s t , local b o a r d s e n f o r c e d t h e i r rulings by r e t a i n i n g the p o w e r to
d e c l a r e r e g i s t r a n t s d e l i n q u e n t and a c c e l e r a t e their i n d u c t i o n s , but t h e s e actions have s i n c e been d e c l a r e d illegal b e c a u s e the S e l e c t i v e S e r v i c e A c t m a d e
37
no p r o v i s i o n for s u c h
acceleration.
Even t h o u g h a p e r s o n m a y m a k e a c l a i m f o r c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t i o n at any
t i m e , the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n process is p a r t i c u l a r l y
t r o u b l e s o m e b e c a u s e the d e t e r -
ruination is m a d e by the local board w h o m a y not be s e n s i t i v e to those w h o
to w a r .
object
A S e l e c t i v e S e r v i c e p a m p h l e t c l a i m s that, the law "is d e l i b e r a t e l y
de-
s i g n e d to p l a c e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the m o b i l i z a t i o n of m a n p o w e r in the local
c o m m u n i t i e s , w i t h broad d i s c r e t i o n g i v e n to m e m b e r s of the local
boards."38
The M a r s h a l l C o m m i s s i o n R e p o r t noted that the a v e r a g e board m e m b e r w a s
y e a r s of a g e , w h i t e , m a l e , m i d d l e - c l a s s , a v e t e r a n , and w i t h o u t legal
A d d i t i o n a l l y , the v a g u e s t a n d a r d s of the r e g u l a t i o n s r e s u l t e d
board p r a c t i c e s , w h i c h w a s c o n s i d e r e d a v i r t u e by the M a r s h a l l
in n o n - u n i f o r m
Commission.^
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n in o r d e r to d e v e l o p m o r e facts as to a c o n s c i e n t i o u s
the
objector
T h i s d o e s n o t , h o w e v e r , replace the p e r s o n a l a p p e a r a n c e a f t e r c l a s s i 42
f i c a t i o n that c a n be r e q u e s t e d by a r e g i s t r a n t .
A r e g i s t r a n t may e x p e c t to be q u e s t i o n e d by board m e m b e r s r e g a r d i n g
thetical s i t u a t i o n s as to w h e n a p e r s o n m i g h t c h o o s e to f i g h t .
o b j e c t o r d o e s not have to be a p a c i f i s t , and m a y be a l l o w e d to use force
v i o l e n c e toward o t h e r p e r s o n s in the c o m m u n i t y . "
hypo-
A conscientious
d e f e n s e of home and f a m i l y , o r in d e f e n s e a g a i n s t i m m e d i a t e acts of
4'3
"in
aggressive
H o w e v e r , a recent
39
training.
The local board m a y grant a r e g i s t r a n t a c o u r t e s y i n t e r v i e w b e f o r e
c l a i m . 41
58
first
c i r c u i t d e c i s i o n has l i m i t e d this c o n c e p t by d e n y i n g a d i s c h a r g e to a J e w w h o
a n s w e r e d a h y p o t h e t i c a l q u e s t i o n by s a y i n g that he would b e a r a r m s , t h o u g h not
in a m i l i t a r y u n i t , if a f o r e i g n force invaded the United S t a t e s in o r d e r
to
e x t e r m i n a t e all J e w s .
The court r e a s o n e d t h a t , d e s p i t e the recent h i s t o r y of
the h o l o c a u s t , "if e x e m p t i o n is g i v e n a p p e l l a n t
for this r e a s o n , m u s t not it
a l s o be g i v e n a M o r m o n , a S e v e n t h Day A d v e n t i s t , o r to h a r k back to the C r u s a d e
„ 44
any p r o f e s s e d C h r i s t i a n , if the i n v a d e r be
•infidel'?"
A d e c i s i o n based on the r e g i s t r a n t ' s file record should not include n o t a tions m a d e a f t e r the r e g i s t r a n t has r e q u e s t e d and reviewed the f i l e .
one court has said that s u c h a p r a c t i c e , if it p r e j u d i c e s
45
iat.es the s p i r i t of the r e g u l a t i o n s .
At
least
the r e g i s t r a n t , v i o -
If a r e g i s t r a n t gets his c l a s s i f i c a t i o n r e o p e n e d , it. s e r v e s to c a n c e l any
46
induction order issued,
but only in the s e n s e that it t e r m i n a t e s the
t r a n t ' s o n g o i n g o b l i g a t i o n to c o m p l y w i t h the i n d u c t i o n o r d e r .
regis-
It does not
o p e r a t e r e t r o a c t i v e l y to a b s o l v e him of c r i m i n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for a p r e v i o u s
f a i l u r e to report tor i n d u c t i o n .47
J U D I C I A L I N T E R P R E T A T I O N OF THE S T A T U T E S
T h e basic c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r c l a i m is m a d e pursuant to §456(j) of the
M i l i t a r y S e l e c t ! v e b e r v i c e Act "
N o t h i n g . » . s h a l l be c o n s t r u e d t o require a n y p e r s o n to be
s u b j e c t to c o m b a t a n t . . . s e r v i c e » * . w h o , by reason of r e l i g i o u s
t r a i n i n g and b e l i e f , is c o n s c i e n t i o u s l y o p p o s e d to p a r t i c i p a t i o n
in w a r in any f o r m .
'[Tj he term ' r e l i g i o u s t r a i n i n g and b e l i e f
d o e s not include e s s e n t i a l l y p o l i t i c a l , s o c i o l o g i c a l , or philos o p h i c a l v i e w s , or a m e r e l y p e r s o n a l m o r a l c o d e .
Such
person
. . . s h a l l . . . b e a s s i g n e d to n o n c o m b a t a n t s e r v i c e , ...or s h a l l , if
he is found to be c o n s c i e n t i o u s l y o p p o s e d t o p a r t i c i p a t i o n in
such n o n c o m b a t a n t s e r v i c e , * * * p e r f o r m . . . s u c h c i v i l i a n w o r k cont r i b u t i n g t o the m a i n t e n a n c e of the n a t i o n a l h e a l t h , s a f e t y , o r
i n t e r e s t *....
A p r i m a f a c i e c l a i m for c o n s c i e n t i o u s
o b j e c t o r s t a t u s is m a d e if the
r e g i s t r a n t is able to s h o w to his local b o a r d that ( 1 ) he is c o n s c i e n t i o u s l y
o p p o s e d to w a r in a n y f o r m ,
t r a i n i n g and b e l i e f ,
49
48
and O )v
(2) his o p p o s i t i o n
is based upon
50
his o b j e c t i o n is s i n c e r e .
.'a?
religious
" 7 "
When the board d e t e r m i n e s a c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r c l a i m , there is
sarily a subjective judgment as to the claimant's s i n c e r i t y .
neces-
A conscientious
objector c l a i m admits of no exact proof and the best e v i d e n c e may not be the
c l a i m a n t ' s own or a w i t n e s s ' s t a t e m e n t s , but his c r e d i b i l i t y and d e m e a n o r .
The burden of showing that one is entitled to a c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r classification is on the c l a i m a n t ,
52
and such burden is not shifted by s t a t e m e n t s of
53
belief.
V a r i o u s factors the board m a y consider in making its d e t e r m i n a t i o n
include:
the time w h e n the claim is f i l e d , ^ m e m b e r s h i p in m i l i t a r y o r g a n i z a t i o n s , ^ the
56
5?
58
v a g u e n e s s of the c l a i m a n t ,
inconsistent
Or untruthful s t a t e m e n t s ,
objec59
50
tion to any g o v e r n m e n t a l s e r v i c e ,
time spent in religious a c t i v i t i e s ,
ployment in a defense f a c i l i t y , ^ and the instability of belief and
em-
principles
62
of the c l a i m a n t .
L a t e r court d e c i s i o n s determined w h e t h e r these factors w e r e
s u f f i c i e n t to deny a claim s t a n d i n g
alone.
The case law has attempted to define the first two c r i t e r i a of a prima
facie c l a i m .
As far as religious t r a i n i n g , beliefs found to stem from a
church's doctrines regardless of a c o m m a n d i n g officer's interpretation of those
d o c t r i n e s was held to be s u f f i c i e n t " t r a i n i n g , " even though the o f f i c e r believed
that the Church of S c i e n t o l o g y did not require objection to w a r . ^
The test for d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r ' s beliefs are
reiigious is found in the S e e g e r d e c i s i o n : w h e t h e r the belief is a " s i n c e r e
and m e a n i n g f u l belief which occupies in the life of its p o s s e s s o r a place
parallel 64
to that filled by the God of those admittedly q u a l i f y i n g for the exs
emption."
§456(j) "does not d i s t i n g u i s h between e x t e r n a l l y and internally
derived b e l i e f s . "
65
O p p o s i t i o n to w a r must stem from the registrant's
beliefs
about what is right and w r o n g , and those beliefs should be held w i t h the
s t r e n g t h of traditional religious c o n v i c t i o n s .
27 i
66
Seeger has been
interpreted
-8-
to require that " o n e ' s p a c i f i s t beliefs be 'totally d e v o i d ' of
religious
67
g r o u n d s b e f o r e e x e m p t i o n as a c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r m a y be d e n i e d . "
T h e n in the W e l s h d e c i s i o n the S u p r e m e Court w i d e n e d the d e f i n i t i o n
to
e x e m p t "those w h o s e c o n s c i e n c e s , spurred by d e e p l y held m o r a l , e t h i c a l , or
r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s , w o u l d give them no rest or peace if they allowed t h e m s e l v e s
68
t o b e c o m e part of an i n s t r u m e n t of w a r . "
The court s e e m e d to be r e c o g n i z i n g
i n d i v i d u a l c o n s c i e n c e as w o r t h y of p r o t e c t i o n , yet w o u l d not d i s a s s o c i a t e
the
c o n c e p t from " r e l i g i o n , " r e f e r r i n g to W e l s h himself as "a " r e l i g i o u s ' c o n s c i e n 69
tious
objector."
Justice Black interpreted
the broad test in We 1 sh t.o m e a n that
w h o s e o b j e c t i o n to w a r does not rest at all upon m o r a l , e t h i c a l , or
"those
religious
p r i n c i p l e but instead rests s o l e l y upon c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of p o l i c y , p r a g m a t i s m ,
70
or e x p e d i e n c y " w o u l d be e x c l u d e d .
T h e e f f e c t of this test was to e x c l u d e
only those w h o s e b e l i e f s w e r e i n s i n c e r e or p u r e l y p o l i t i c a l .
If any part of
the belief was m o r a l , then this was equated w i t h " r e l i g i o u s . "
T h i s kept
c o u r t s from b a l a n c i n g b e l i e f s as e i t h e r r e l i g i o u s or s e c u l a r and
w h a t b e l i e f s w e r e " r e l i g i o u s " or m e r e l y " m o r a l . "
determining
The c o n s c i e n c e was now
r e c o g n i z e d as part of an i n t e g r a t e d p e r s o n a l i t y , not e a s i l y
the
finally
compartmentalized.
F o r e x a m p l e , a M a s s a c h u s e t t s court found that the r e q u i r e m e n t s of We 1sh
w e r e m e t by a d o c t o r w h o had w o r k e d in a g h e t t o and c a m e to b e l i e v e that
his
m e d i c a l w o r k r e a f f i r m e d his b e l i e f in the " e s s e n t i a l d i g n i t y of all m e n and
7i
the a b s o l u t e v a l u e of e v e r y h u m a n
life."
W i t h the e x p a n d e d c o n c e p t of " r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s , " there was p r e s s u r e
from
the lower c o u r t s to e x t e n d the p r o t e c t i o n s of r e l i g i o u s liberty to the select i v e c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r o p p o s e d to p a r t i c u l a r w a r s . 72 T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t
a d d r e s s e d and r e j e c t e d s e l e c t i v e c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t i o n in the G i 1 l e t t e
case
by a f f i r m i n g that o n l y those o p p o s e d to war is* any form w e r e entitled to an
o :n o
fr f f*
73
exemption.
In o r d e r to be opposed to " w a r in any form," the S u p r e m e C o u r t
d e f i n e d " w a r " as a c o n f l i c t b e t w e e n o r g a n i z e d p o l i t i c a l g r o u p s , thereby
had
exclud-
74
ing s e l f - d e f e n s e , d e f e n s e of f a m i l y , and s p i r i t u a l w a r .
that the s t a t u t o r y
T h e court
reasoned
l a n g u a g e was c l e a r l y c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y a c c e p t a b l e and not a
v i o l a t i o n of the e s t a b l i s h m e n t or free e x e r c i s e c l a u s e s b e c a u s e it s e r v e d a
secular purpose with a neutral
impact and the b u r d e n was justified by s u b s t a n 75
tial g o v e r n m e n t a l i n t e r e s t s in raising and s u p p o r t i n g
armies.
One t h o u g h t f u l c o m m e n t a t o r v i e w s the Gi i1ette d e c i s i o n as " g r a n t i n g
judi-
cial d e f e r e n c e to l e g i s l a t i v e a c t i o n h a v i n g a rational basis in the a r e a of
76
first a m e n d m e n t r e l i g i o u s r i g h t s . "
His fear is that u n d e r an e x p a n d e d
cept of " r e l i g i o n " to include e v e n n o n - r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s
con-
(Seeger and W e l s h ) in
c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h the s t r i c t a d h e r e n c e to o p p o s i t i o n to w a r in any f o r m , the
c o u r t m a y be d i m i n i s h i n g its p r o t e c t i o n of r e l i g i o u s liberty by refusing
to
r e c o g n i z e the often p r o f o u n d and d e e p l y held r e l i g i o u s o b j e c t i o n s to p a r t i c u l a r
wars.
J U D I C I A L R E V I E W OF C O N S C I E N T I O U S O B J E C T O R C L A I M S
If a r e g i s t r a n t
is d e n i e d his c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r c l a i m , he m a y a p p e a l
to the A p p e a l s Board and t h e n to the President.'''
"Where it is c l e a r that a
prima facie case w a s e s t a b l i s h e d , ...it is e s s e n t i a l to the v a l i d i t y of an
o r d e r to r e p o r t that the board state its basis of d e c i s i o n and the
t h e r e f o r e , i . e . , w h e t h e r it has found the r e g i s t r a n t
i n c r e d i b l e , or
reasons
insincere,
78
o r of bad faith and w h y . "
If a r e g i s t r a n t u l t i m a t e l y fails to have his c l a i m s u s t a i n e d at any
level,
t h e r e are two basic w a y s of c h a l l e n g i n g the d e n i a l > by \<?rit of h a b e a s c o r p u s
a f t e r i n d u c t i o n or as a d e f e n s e to a c i v i l i a n p r o s e c u t i o n
79
fuses to be i n d u c t e d .
/O
if the r e g i s t r a n t
re-
-10
8460(b)(3) states
that:
n o j u d i c i a l r e v i e w shall be m a d e o£ the c l a s s i f i c a t ion...of any
r e g i s t r a n t . . . , e x c e p t as a d e f e n s e to a c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n ins t i t u t e d .. .after the r e g i s t r a n t has responded e i t h e r a f f i r m a t i v e l y
o r n e g a t i v e l y to an o r d e r to report for i n d u c t i o n . P r o v i d e d , that
s u c h r e v i e w shall go to the q u e s t i o n of the j u r i s d i c t i o n . . . only
w h e n there Is no basis in fact for the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a s s i g n e d . ^ ^
This s e c t i o n has been held to be p r o c e d u r a l , s p e c i f y i n g w h e n s u b s t a n t i v e
right
can be a s s e r t e d ; not a limit on the s c o p e of j u d i c i a l r e v i e w , but m e r e l y a
. . .
pre-induction
81
review.
The Congressional
intent of limited j u d i c i a l review w a s to p r e v e n t
j u d i c i a r y from p r e m a t u r e l y e n t e r i n g into the S e l e c t i v e S e r v i c e
p r o c e s s b e f o r e e x h a u s t i o n of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e m e d i e s .
the
classification
The r e q u i r e m e n t of an
" a f f i r m a t i v e r e s p o n s e " to an o r d e r to r e p o r t for i n d u c t i o n is met w0 h e n a regis
82
trant a c c e p t s r e s e r v e s t a t u s and then files a habeas c o r p u s c l a i m .
Generally, a registrant
is not e n t i t l e d to j u d i c i a l review until he has
83
e x h a u s t e d his a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
r e m e d i e s , ' but s e v e r a l e x c e p t i o n s to this ex-
h a u s t i o n d o c t r i n e have been d e v e l o p e d over the y e a r s . A first a m e n d m e n t ex84
c e p t i o n w a s r e c o g n i z e d in the Wolff case
where a student's deferment was
85
revoked for p a r t i c i p a t i n g in a s i t - i n .
The Petersen case " recognized the Con
g r e s s i o n a l power to regulate the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the l o w e r c o u r t s , limited
due p r o c e s s w h e r e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a c t i o n , s u c h as the S e l e c t i v e S e r v i c e
t o u c h e s on f u n d a m e n t a l r i g h t s .
The e x h a u s t i o n
s t a n c e s w h e r e it w a s held not to be n e c e s s a r y
flicted d i r e c t l y w i t h the s t a t u t o r y e x e m p t i o n
rule was a l s o relaxed
by
System,
in c i r c u m
86(a) , pwuhneirt ei v ether e cr le ag si ss it rf ai nc ta t imoand e c o n
87
good faith e f f o r t s to c o m p l y , ' w h e r e the board had told a r e g i s t r a n t that any
a p p e a l s w o u l d be f u t i l e ,
88
and w h e n an a p p e a l w o u l d have been a p h y s i c a l
impos'
89,
sibility
(time e x p i r e d w h i l e on f i r e f i g h t i n g duty
)*
The b e t t e r way to c h a l l e n g e a d e n i a l of c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r s t a t u s
w o u l d be as a d e f e n s e to a c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n , because o n c e a r e g i s t r a n t
974
IT'
*
.X
is
-11-
inducted he b e c o m e s s u b j e c t to m i l i t a r y a u t h o r i t y and his remedy is h a b e a s
corpus.
The c h a n c e of p r e j u d i c e a g a i n s t a c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r is m u c h
90
g r e a t e r w i t h i n the m i l i t a r y s y s t e m .
N o t a b l y t h o u g h , w h i l e refusal to be
inducted m a y increase the c h a n c e s for a s u c c e s s f u l c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r chall e n g e , the a d v o c a c y of s u c h w a s the very thing f o r w h i c h the S p o c k - C o f f i n
,,91
spiracy was
con-
prosecuted!
The " b a s i s in f a c t " s t a n d a r d d e t e r m i n e s if the board had j u r i s d i c t i o n
deny a c l a i m .
to
If j u r i s d i c t i o n is f o u n d , then the court has n o power to w e i g h
92
e v i d e n c e or o v e r t u r n a w r o n g d e c i s i o n .
E v e n if there is p r o c e d u r a l
error,
s u c h as f a i l u r e to c o m p l y w i t h the r e g u l a t i o n s , this will not be c o n s i d e r e d a
d e n i a l of due process and n o j u d i c i a l r e v i e w w i l l be a l l o w e d unless the
93
can show substantial prejudice.
petitioner
C o n v i c t i o n s m a y be reversed for f a i l u r e
to
c o m p l y w i t h r e g u l a t i o n s , e v e n those intended for the s e r v i c e s ' b e n e f i t , if the
r e g i s t r a n t can show p r e j u d i c e .
The test of p r e j u d i c e is w h e t h e r the c l a i m a n t
m i g h t not h a v e b e e n faced w i t h a f e l o n y c h a r g e had the r e g u l a t i o n been
complied
wi t h .
The c o u r t s ' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of what is a "basis"iias v a r i e d w i d e l y , £ rem a
liberal standard consistent with "substantial evidence,"
95
to a n a r r o w
r e q u i r i n g m o r e than a m e r e s c i n t i l l a of e v i d e n c e , but not n e c e s s a r i l y
standard
prepon-
96
derating.
The T e n t h C i r c u i t follows the s t a n d a r d that o n c e a prima
facie
c l a i m is m a d e , "the g o v e r n m e n t m u s t s h o w s o m e h a r d , r e l i a b l e , p r o v a b l e
facts
w h i c h w o u l d p r o v i d e a b a s i s . . . , or it m u s t s h o w s o m e t h i n g c o n c r e t e in the
97
record w h i c h s u b s t a n t i a l l y blurs tine p i c t u r e painted by the
applicant."
C o m i t y p r i n c i p l e s between c i v i l i a n and m i l i t a r y t r i b u n a l s d i c t a t e
the c i v i l i a n c o u r t s d e f e r to the m i l i t a r y c o u r t s .
not. b e e n e x p a n d e d
that
H o w e v e r , the p r i n c i p l e
to the point that a c i v i l i a n court m u s t stay a h a b e a s
corpus
h e a r i n g b a s e d on w r o n g f u l d e n i a l of c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r s t a t u s until a
,c
/ o
has
27
military court-martial was completed.
A n d the T h i r d C i r c u i t has held
e v e n t h o u g h a c o u r t - m a r t i a l c o n v i c t i o n had become final before the
that
petitioner
had filed for h a b e a s c o r p u s r e l i e f , the m i l i t a r y c o u r t s s h o u l d set aside
the
99
c o n v i c t i o n as a m a t t e r of c o m i t y .
The c i v i l i a n c o u r t should c o n d i t i o n its habeas c o r p u s o r d e r on c o m p l e t i o n
of any lawful m i l i t a r y s e n t e n c e if the m i l i t a r y charge was u n c o n n e c t e d w i t h the
1
c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r claim.' '""'
A recent c a s e , t h o u g h , has stated that a
c i v i l i a n court should stay a h a b e a s corpus p r o c e e d i n g
ing c o u r t - m a r t i a l w h e n the r e q u e s t e d relief appeared
10.1
s o n a b l e p r o m p t n e s s w i t h i n the m i l i t a r y s y s t e m .
IN-SERVICE CONSCIENTIOUS
w h i l e there w a s a p e n d to be a v a i l a b l e w i t h rea-
OBJECTORS
B e c a u s e of c o m i t y and the n a r r o w s c o p e of r e v i e w , it was not until
1968
t h a t the first i n - s e r v i c e o b j e c t o r was o r d e r e d out of the m i l i t a r y by a f e d e r a l
102
civilian court.
T h e r e m u s t be a basis in fact for d e n y i n g a c o n s c i e n t i o u s
o b j e c t o r c l a i m for p e r s o n s w i t h i n the armed s e r v i c e s as w e l l , but even
though
an a d v i s o r y o p i n i o n from the d i r e c t o r of the S e l e c t i v e S e r v i c e S y s t e m is m a n d a tory before there can be an i n - s e r v i c e d i s p o s i t i o n of a c o n s c i e n t i o u s
objector
c l a i m , if there is n o basis in fact for s u c h d e n i a l , then s u c h a d e t e r m i n a t i o n
is a g a i n s t due p r o c e s s and the p e r s o n is not required to subject himself
c o u r t - m a r t i a l in o r d e r to e x h a u s t his a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
to a
remedies.
Of c o u r s e , an i n - s e r v i c e c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r c a n request to be a s s i g n e d
to n o n c o m b a t a n t d u t y , i n c l u d i n g service in the m e d i c a l d e p a r t m e n t of any of the
104
armed f o r c e s .
But. m a n y m e d i c s w h o w e r e c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r s have
been
s u r p r i s e d to learn that, "since the o b j e c t i v e of m i l i t a r y m e d i c i n e is to c o n s e r v e
t r a i n e d m a n p o w e r , . . . i t m a y be n e c e s s a r y to f a v o r those p a t i e n t s w h o can be re105
turned to immediate d u t y , r a t h e r than those m o r e s e r i o u s l y i n j u r e d . "
276
Once an i n - s e r v i c e c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r has b e e n g r a n t e d a d i s c h a r g e , he
can be required to d o a l t e r n a t i v e s e r v i c e if he had less than 180 days
active
106
duty.
Even t h o u g h there is no s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y for imposing
conditions
on i n - s e r v i c e c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r s w h o have s e r v e d g r e a t e r than 180 d a y s
a c t i v e d u t y , p a r t i c u l a r l y those w h o have had t h e i r e d u c a t i o n paid for by the
107
armed f o r c e s , three c i r c u i t s a l l o w i t ,
and at least two c i r c u i t s d i s a p p r o v e
^ ,
of the
practice.
108
B e c a u s e of the time lag between a p p l i c a t i o n and r e s o l u t i o n of an
in-service
c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r c l a i m , there are p r o v i s i o n s w h i c h serve to m i n i m i z e con109
f l i c t i n g d u t i e s of a s e r v i c e m a n w h i l e an a p p l i c a t i o n is b e i n g
considered.
D e s p i t e these p r o v i s i o n s , i n - s e r v i c e c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r s face s p e c i a l
prob-
lems and there m a y be p r e s s u r e s to get m o r e i m m e d i a t e relief than w a i t i n g
for
r e v i e w of an a p p l i c a t i o n .
A l t h o u g h v i o l a t i o n s of m i l i t a r y lav; will s u b j e c t
one
to p u n i s h m e n t , an i n - s e r v i c e c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r will not be held to have
w a i v e d his c l a i m to c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r s t a t u s unless it can be
e s t a b l i s h e d by a p r e p o n d e r a n c e of the e v i d e n c e
affirmatively
( p e t i t i o n e r faced a c o u r t - m a r t i a l ,
but a c c e p t e d a d i s h o n o r a b l e d i s c h a r g e " f o r the good of the s e r v i c e " ; n o w a i v e r * * ^ )
A n i n - s e r v i c e c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r m a y be e n t i t l e d
to a d i s c h a r g e
even
if he had c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r b e l i e f s b e f o r e e n t e r i n g m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e , as
long as s u c h b e l i e f s " c r y s t a l l i z e d " a f t e r the receipt of his induction
11
notice. *
T h e w i l l i n g n e s s of c o u r t s to review the c r y s t a l l i z a t i o n q u e s t i o n as part of
t h e i r " b a s i s in f a c t " d e t e r m i n a t i o n points to the p r o b l e m s of any t r i b u n a l det e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a p e r s o n acts a c c o r d i n g to his c o n s c i e n c e , but has a l s o b e e n
the s o u r c e of an e x p a n d i n g j u d i c i a l c o n c e p t of c o n s c i e n t i o u s
beliefs.
A m e r e i n f e r e n c e of p r e - i n d u c t i o n c r y s t a l l i z a t i o n c a n n o t satisfy the basis
in fact t e s t , u n l e s s n o o t h e r r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the a p p l i c a n t ' s c l a i m s can be d r a w n . ^ ^
" [c] rys tal I i zat i on requi rements .. .are
it
/
(
best
- Uni n t e r p r e t e d as d e s i g n a t i n g the p r o p e r forum for an individual to bring a cons c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r c l a i m rather than as a d e v i c e for d e p r i v i n g c e r t a i n
un-
113
lucky p e r s o n s of any f o r u m at a l l . "
The b u r d e n is on the m i l i t a r y
to s h o w that the r e g i s t r a n t held
tious o b j e c t o r beliefs p r i o r to e n l i s t m e n t . *
14
conscien-
L a t e n e s s or s u s p i c i o u s
timing
in f i l i n g a c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r c l a i m is i n s u f f i c i e n t for d e n y i n g a d i s c h a r g e
a p p l i c a t i o n , 115 and i n c o n s i s t e n t acts p r e c e d i n g c r y s t a l l i z a t i o n must be dis, , 116
regarded.
"Crystallization reflects a very subtle psychological process.
For some
p e r s o n s just r e a d i n g and d i s c u s s i n g is e n o u g h to c a u s e them to m a k e the m e n t a l
and e m o t i o n a l commitment
to oppose p a r t i c i p a t i o n
in w a r .
Other
persons...need
to go t h r o u g h the a c t u a l e x p e r i e n c e of combat t r a i n i n g , the e x p e r i e n c e of
ing to h a n d l e and to use w e a p o n s of d e s t r u c t i o n b e f o r e t h e i r b e l i e f s
learn-
crystallize
117
into c o m m i t m e n t , "
"It has a l w a y s b e e n r e g a r d e d as c o n s i s t e n t w i t h
spiritu-
a l i t y and n o b i l i t y of c h a r a c t e r for men of c o n s c i e n t i o u s s c r u p l e s to c o n t i n u e
to e x a m i n e a m o r a l p r o b l e m until the final hour of d e c i s i o n . " 113
The d i f f i c u l t y of j u d i c i a l l y d e t e r m i n i n g w h e n c r y s t a l l i z a t i o n o c c u r s
is
119
i l l u s t r a t e d by the b os t e r c a s e .
In that case a p s y c h i a t r i s t applied for a
c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r d i s c h a r g e , c l a i m i n g r e c e n t c r y s t a l l i z a t i o n of his bel i e f s , and pointed to p r e c e d e n t s h o l d i n g that g e n e r a l r e l i g i o u s t r a i n i n g and
e v i d e n c e of some r e f l e c t i o n on the q u e s t i o n of v i o l e n c e were i n s u f f i c i e n t
120
b a s e s of fact for early c r y s t a l l i z a t i o n .
In d e n y i n g h a b e a s c o r p u s
as
relief,
the court m e r e l y said that his b e l i e f s seemed to have p r o g r e s s e d "to a f a r m o r e
d e v e l o p e d s t a t e " than p e t i t i o n e r s in the p r e c e d e n t s , w i t h o u t e n u m e r a t i n g
g u i d e l i n e s for d e t e r m i n i n g w h a t was " t o o far d e v e l o p e d . "
any
It seems as if peti-
t i o n e r ' s h i g h level of e d u c a t i o n m a y have w o r k e d a g a i n s t his c o n s c i e n t i o u s
j e c t o r c l a i m in this c a s e .
The court i n d i c a t e d
278
ob-
that if the only e v i d e n c e as to
-15-
late c r y s t a l l i z a t i o n w a s a statement by the petitioner h i m s e l f , then d e m e a n o r
evidence would be d e t e r m i n a t i v e and findings of the investigating officer would
not be r e v e r s e d ,
Foster was reversed on appeal on grounds that he could not have waived
his c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r claim because his c r y s t a l l i z a t i o n was based on ethical
and moral b e l i e f s , prior to the We 1.sh d e c i s i o n .
T h e r e f o r e , at the time of his
" c r y s t a l l i z a t i o n " his beliefs did not qualify as c o n s c i e n t i o u s objector
u n d e r the law!
beliefs
On r e v e r s i n g , there w e r e still no guidelines as to how to de-
termine when exactly " c r y s t a l l i z a t i o n "
occurs.
S I N C E R I T Y OF T H E C O N S C I E N T I O U S
OBJECTOR
In addition to the " c r y s t a l l i z a t i o n " q u e s t i o n , the c o u r t s have been w i l l i n g
in i n - s e r v i c e as well as p r e - i n d u c t i o n claims to review denials of c o n s c i e n t i o u s
o b j e c t o r status made on the basis of lack of s i n c e r i t y .
121
"The threshold q u e s t i o n of s i n c e r i t y . . . m u s t be resolved in every c a s e . "
A l t h o u g h j u d i c i a l review under the basis in fact test is the n a r r o w e s t r e v i e w
known to the l a w , the court should
look for some proof that is i n c o m p a t i b l e
122
w i t h the a p p l i c a n t ' s c l a i m s .
"In m a k i n g s u c h a [basis in (.act}
determination,
h o w e v e r , the court m u s t thoroughly examine the record and c a r e f u l l y
scrutinize
123
the logic and reasoning of the B o a r d . "
J u d i c i a l review of " s i n c e r i t y " has probably been the m o s t litigated
tion in c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r cases in the past d e c a d e .
ques-
The courts have de-
tailed w h a t are proper factors and what are improper in d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a
c l a i m a n t is s i n c e r e .
A hearing o f f i c e r ' s first hand impressions will n o t be a
s u f f i c i e n t basis where his a s s e s s m e n t is flawed by improper
1
considerations. "^
Without c r e d i b l e , c o n t r a d i c t o r y e v i d e n c e in opposition to a prima facie c a s e ,
d e m e a n o r e v125
i d e n c e alone is insufficient to serve as a basis to a finding of insincerity.
/>< f ej
The f o l l o w i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n s w e r e held i n s u f f i c i e n t for d e n y i n g a c o n scientious objector application.
L a t e n e s s of f i l i n g m a y be a basis f o r sus-
126
p i c i o n of i n s i n c e r i t y , but s t a n d i n g a l o n e does not p r o v i d e a basis in f a c t ,
127
e . g . , f i l i n g right a f t e r an offer of a staff p h y s i c i a n p o s i t i o n at a h o s p i t a l .
T h e a b s e n c e of a c h a n g e in life s t y l e does n o t s h o w that a c l a i m a n t ' s
are not d e e p l y h e l d .
beliefs
A d e n i a l b e c a u s e there "has b e e n n o d e m o n s t r a t e d
change
in his life s t y l e to s h o w that his b e l i e f s are the c o n t r o l l i n g force in his
128
l i f e " is i n s u f f i c i e n t
v i o l e n t m o v i e s . 129
to rebut a p r i m a facie c l a i m ,
e . g . , a mere s h u n n i n g of
N o r will w i l l i n g n e s s to r e n d e r aid to m i l i t a r y p e r s o n n e l
130
in
an e m e r g e n c y d i s q u a l i f y one for c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r s t a t u s *
T h e r e need not be a c r y s t a l l i z i n g e v e n t o r c a t a l y s t to s h o w
sincerity.
A c c e p t a n c e of a p r o g r a m ' s b e n e f i t s d u r i n g a period w h e n his v i e w s w e r e
131
c a n n o t by itself s u p p o r t s u c h a f i n d i n g .
A m e r e s u s p i c i o n of i n s i n c e r i t y
i n s u f f i c i e n t , and a m e r e e f f o r t to p o s t p o n e the c o n f r o n t a t i o n between
tion and c o n s c i e n c e is a l s o i n s u f f i c i e n t .
voluntarily participated
changing
is
obliga-
Even c o l l e c t i v e facts that a c l a i m a n t
in ROTC* was from a f a m i l y of c a r e e r m i l i t a r y
and c l a i m e d c r y s t a l l i z a t i o n w i t h i n one m o n t h of a c t i v e s e r v i c e are
officers,
I'
insufficient.
The fact that a c l a i m a n t ' s a s s i g n m e n t w o u l d n o t i n v o l v e him d i r e c t l y in c o m b a t
o p e r a t i o n s is i r r e l e v a n t to a professed c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t i o n to any f o r m of
133
military
service.
A f i n d i n g of i n s i n c e r i t y was not a l l o w e d to stand w h e r e the p r e j u d i c e of
the h e a r i n g o f f i c e r w a s s h o w n by his d e n y i n g the c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r c l a i m
b e c a u s e c l a i m a n t i n i t i a l l y c o n s u l t e d the A m e r i c a n Civil L i b e r t i e s U n i o n r a t h e r
t h a n the N a v y , and the c l a i m a n t b e l i e v e d in a b o r t i o n and e u t h a n a s i a in limited
c i r c u m s t a n c e s . 134
A lack of r e s p e c t for the m i l i t a r y is c o m p a t i b l e w i t h
135
s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t i o n and d o e s not i n d i c a t e a lack of s i n c e r i t y .
The
c a n n o t imply i n s i n c e r i t y from a t a k i n g of the o a t h to s u p p o r t and d e f e n d
R
j. .A
K4J*)
conboard
the
-17-
136
C o n s t i t u t i o n a g a i n s t all e n e m i e s ,
while young,
138
1 7
family background, " minor derelictions
or w i l l i n g n e s s to hunt w i l d
game.
139
A c l a i m c r e d i b l e on its face may not be denied on the basis of m e r e unsubstantiated disbelief
140
or the fact that it c o n t a i n s b r o a d e r o b j e c t i o n s
to
1A1
p e r f o r m a n c e of m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e than the law r e c o g n i z e s .
The lack of
objec-
tion to the use of police force o r the use of force to restrain w r o n g d o i n g , nor
the r e l u c t a n c e on the part of the h e a r i n g o f f i c e r to d i s c h a r g e one w h o has rec e i v e d b e n e f i t s from the Berry Plan (medical t r a i n i n g p r o g r a m ) , are s u f f i c i e n t
142
to p r o v i d e a basis in fact for d e n i a l of a c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r c l a i m .
T h e c o u r t s h a v e found i n s t a n c e s w h e r e a finding of i n s i n c e r i t y p r o v i d e s a
s u f f i c i e n t basis in f a c t .
In the a b s e n c e of a p e r s o n a l a p p e a r a n c e by the claim-
ant and i n d i c a t i o n s of e v a s i v e n e s s on his p a r t , o b j e c t i v e facts m a y be held determinative.
143
It is a l s o i n s u f f i c i e n t u n d e r the law if the r e q u e s t is based
144
s o l e l y on m i n i s t e r i a l a c t i v i t i e s ,
the l a w . 145
or on m e r e u n w i l l i n g n e s s
to c o m p l y
with
And at least one c a s e has held that a p e r s o n has no right to a
c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r c l a i m , w i t h o u t e v i d e n c e of a later c r y s t a l l i z a t i o n of
146
b e l i e f s , if he e n l i s t e d in the s e r v i c e s .
A f i n d i n g of i n s i n c e r i t y w a s upheld w h e r e
the c l a i m a n t gave
inconsistent
s t a t e m e n t s as to his r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the c h u r c h and his w i l l i n g n e s s to d o
a l t e r n a t e s e r v i c e , and his g e n e r a l t e s t i m o n y was anti-mi 1.itary rather than
147
he lived by an a f f i r m a t i v e code of
that
non-violence.
The board m u s t s h o w that it could j u s t i f i a b l y
infer a lack of
"The B i b l e w a s not w r i t t e n w i t h the U n i v e r s a l M i l i t a r y T r a i n i n g and
A c t in m i n d , and a v e r b a l c o n g r u e n c e b e t w e e n the two d o c u m e n t s can
148
n o t r e a s o n a b l y be d e m a n d e d . "
sincerity.
Selection
therefore
-18-
CONSEQUENCES
Once there has been a d e n i a l of a c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r c l a i m , the c l a i m ant faces e i t h e r a c i v i l i a n p r o s e c u t i o n if he refuses to be inducted or a
court-martial.
The c o n s e q u e n c e s of a f e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n for draft r e f u s a l may
include loss of v a r i o u s c i t i z e n s h i p r i g h t s , d i m i n i s h e d p u b l i c and p r i v a t e emp l o y m e n t o p p o r t u n i t i e s , and p o s s i b l e d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n for o c c u p a t i o n s
requiring
149
state
licensing.
W h e t h e r or not s u c h a c o n v i c t i o n can s e r v e as a basis for f i n d i n g that an
a p p l i c a n t fails to m e e t the c h a r a c t e r r e q u i r e m e n t s for a d m i s s i o n to the bar remains unclear.
"A s t a t e can require high s t a n d a r d s of q u a l i f i c a t i o n . . . b u t
any
q u a l i f i c a t i o n m u s t have a r a t i o n a l c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the a p p l i c a n t ' s f i t n e s s or
c a p a c i t y to p r a c t i c e l a w . " 150 A s to the p r a c t i c e of l a w , the s t a t e ' s i n t e r e s t
is that a c a n d i d a t e w i l l not o b s t r u c t the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the j u d i c i a l
cess,
151
and that the c l i e n t s ' i n t e r e s t s w i l l remain p r o t e c t e d .
159
pro-
The fact of
c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t i o n o r perhaps e n c o u r a g i n g o t h e r s to e v a d e the d r a f t
laws
m a y r e f l e c t on the c h a r a c t e r d e t e r m i n a t i o n , but it is g e n e r a l l y not r e l e v a n t
f i t n e s s to p r a c t i c e l a w .
classified
to
In f a c t , if a c l a i m a n t a s s e r t e d that he had b e e n mis-
he could be found to be a s s e r t i n g a legal right r a t h e r than a v o i d i n g
a legal o b l i g a t i o n !
In a d d i t i o n , d e c i s i o n s as to a c o n s c i e n t i o u s
objector's
" m o r a l t u r p i t u d e " s h o u l d not bar a p e r s o n from the p r a c t i c e of law if the cons c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r was in fact a s s e r t i n g a legal right or e v e n
participating
153
in civil
disobedience.
A c o n s e q u e n c e f a c i n g a p e r m a n e n t r e s i d e n t alien r e q u e s t i n g an e x e m p t i o n
m a y be to w a i v e his right to become a n a t u r a l i z e d c i t i z e n .
A recent c a s e
found
that the a l i e n had k n o w i n g l y and i n t e l l i g e n t l y w a i v e d his right to b e c o m e a
c i t i z e n , e v e n though he c l a i m e d he had been m i s i n f o r m e d by his local
board
c l e r k that he w o u l d still be e l i g i b l e for n a t u r a l i z a t i o n if he c l a i m e d an ex154
e m p t i o n p u r s u a n t to a treaty b e t w e e n S p a i n and the United S t a t e s .
282
-19-
Of c o u r s e , if a c l a i m a n t e v e n t u a l l y s e r v e s p r i s o n time for his b e l i e f s
b e c a u s e he d o e s n ' t m e e t the legal
requirement
for a c o n s c i e n t i o u s
objector,
there m a y be p r o f o u n d p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o n s e q u e n c e s as well as physical if there is
abuse.
D u r i n g World W a r I I , the treatment of c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r s at C a m p
F u n s t o n w a s d o c u m e n t e d , including b e i n g s t r u n g up w i t h rope and h a v i n g cold
155
"
w a t e r s p r a y e d in their faces at c l o s e range u n t i l they c o l l a p s e d .
Such
156
t o r t u r e is less likely to o c c u r t o d a y , but rampant a b u s e is still
probable.
A c l a i m a n t m a y a l s o try to raise his c o n s c i e n t i o u s b e l i e f s as a d e f e n s e to
a court-martial proceeding.
But a w r o n g f u l d e n i a l of a c l a i m a n t ' s
application
for a c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r d i s c h a r g e r is n o d e f e n s e to a c o u r t - m a r t i a l
l i?
c h a r g e s of d i s o b e y i n g a lawful o r d e r .
on
T h e r e m a y be a d e f e n s e , t h o u g h , if
there is a d i r e c t c o n f l i c t b e t w e e n a c o n s c i e n t i o u s belief and a s u b s e q u e n t m i l i tary c r i m e , but the c l a i m a n t must s h o w that a m o r e r e a s o n a b l e c o u r s e of
158
conduct
f o l l o w i n g the d e n i a l w a s u n a v a i l a b l e to h i m .
T h e r e are c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r s w h o s e b e l i e f s c o m p e l them to q u i t
e r a t i n g w i t h the m i l i t a r y at any p o i n t .
Non-cooperation
coop-
has been held t o not
be a v a l i d ground for g r a n t i n g or d e n y i n g a c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r
discharge,
nor excuse a commanding officer's compliance with clearly mandated
procedures
of the r e g u l a t i o n s
(such as p r o c e s s i n g a c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r
159
application),
but the c l a i m a n t w i l l still have to prove that his c o m p l i a n c e w i t h m i l i t a r y
o r d e r s in any w a y c o n f l i c t e d w i t h his r e l i g i o n s or c o n s c i e n t i o u s
The a u t h o r has been u n a b l e to locate any cases w h e r e the c l a i m a n t
d e f e n d e d n o n - c o o p e r a t i o n on these g r o u n d s .
successfully
A recent c a s e m e r e l y v i e w e d
c o o p e r a t i o n on the p a r t of the c l a i m a n t a f a i l u r e to e x h a u s t his
remedi e s . 1 6 1
scruples.
non-
administrative
-20-
BENEFITS
W h e t h e r a c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r is e n t i t l e d
to v e t e r a n s benefits
on the type of b e n e f i t requested and the p r o v i s i o n under w h i c h those
are g r a n t e d .
38 U . S . C . §3103 p r o v i d e s for n o n e n t i e l e m e n t
depends
benefits
to v e t e r a n ' s
educa-
tional b e n e f i t s for c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r s v-iho r e f u s e to obey o r d e r s , p e r f o r m
m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e , or w e a r a m i l i t a r y u n i f o r m .
The B o a r d of V e t e r a n s A p p e a l s has
given a literal reading to this s t a t u t e to award benefits to a c o n s c i e n t i o u s
o b j e c t o r h o n o r a b l y d i s c h a r g e d w h o absented himself w i t h o u t a u t h o r i t y in o r d e r
162
to c o n s i d e r his b e l i e f s and then v o l u n t a r i l y r e t u r n e d to s e r v i c e .
The T e n t h C i r c u i t has held that the N a v y is e n t i t l e d
to r e c o u p the
undis-
c h a r g e d p o r t i o n s of r e e n l i s t m e n t bonus from a c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r b e c a u s e his
163
d i s c h a r g e w a s a " v o l u n t a r y noncorapletion" of a t e r m of m i l i t a r y
Unearned p o r t i o n s of reen.listment b o n u s e s w e r e a l s o r e q u i r e d
service.
to be r e t u r n e d
be-
c a u s e the d i s c h a r g e w a s " v o l u n t a r y " in a c a s e w h e r e S e v e n t h Day A d v e n t i s t s had
16
requested that they be a s s i g n e d to duty w i t h o u t S a t u r d a y w o r k or be d i s c h a r g e d .
165
The S u p r e m e Court in J o h n s o n
then d e c l a r e d that the d e n i a l of e d u c a t i o n a l
b e n e f i t s to c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r s u n d e r the V e t e r a n ' s R e a d j u s t m e n t A c t w a s
m e r e l y an i n c i d e n t a l b u r d e n on the free e x e r c i s e of r e l i g i o n justified by the
s u b s t a n t i a l g o v e r n m e n t a l i n t e r e s t in raising and s u p p o r t i n g
armies.
T o deny b e n e f i t s to c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r s w h o p e r f o r m e d a l t e r n a t e
service
w a s held not to be a g a i n s t the equal p r o t e c t i o n c l a u s e b e c a u s e it is r a t i o n a l
for the g o v e r n m e n t to m a k e a c t i v e s e r v i c e m o r e a t t r a c t i v e and then h e l p t h o s e
w h o served r e a d j u s t to c i v i l i a n l i f e .
After Johnson, a Massachusetts
court
found that, a s t a t e law d e c l a r i n g those d i s c h a r g e d from m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e as cons c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r s not to be " v e t e r a n s " and t h e r e f o r e d e n i e d them e d u c a t i o n a l
b e n e f i t s w a s a g a i n s t the federal p o l i c y ^ r a n t i n g e d u c a t i o n a l b e n e f i t s to v e t e r a n s .
9 9 4
-21-
CONCLUS I'.ON
F e w significant, d e v e l o p m e n t s have o c c u r r e d
objectors since 1971.
in the law of c o n s c i e n t i o u s
The e x p a n s i o n of the c o n c e p t of " r e l i g i o u s t r a i n i n g
and
b e l i e f " to a c c o m m o d a t e e s s e n t i a l l y n o n - r e l i g i o u s e t h i c a l or m o r a l b e l i e f s
a s t r i k i n g e x a m p l e of the j u d i c i a r y ' s a b i l i t y to force this c o u n t r y ' s
be r e s p o n s i v e to sophisticated s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l , and p h i l o s o p h i c a l
is
laws t o
realities.
A t the s a m e t i m e , the n o n - r e c o g n i t i o n of the s e l e c t i v e c o n s c i e n t i o u s
objector,
r e q u i r i n g o b j e c t i o n tdfwar in any form," s e e m s to be a l m o s t a j u d i c i a l
circling-
o f - t h e - w a g o n s , p u t t i n g tight r e s t r a i n t s on legal thoughtfrelating to c o n s c i e n c e
and the l a w .
The realities of the V i e t n a m War and d r a f t - a g e m e n ' s
that w a r w e r e likely m a j o r f a c t o r s in the d e c i s i o n s .
responses
to
By 1 9 7 2 , for e x a m p l e , o v e r
100 m e n per m o n t h in the a r m e d forces w e r e r e q u e s t i n g t r a n s f e r s to n o n c o m b a t a n t
167
duty b e c a u s e of their c o n s c i e n t i o u s
beliefs.
D e s p i t e t h e s e l i m i t a t i o n s and the fact that the "basis in fact;" s t a n d a r d
of r e v i e w is the n a r r o w e s t review k n o w n to the l a w , w h a t is s i g n i f i c a n t
about,
the j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n s of the last d e c a d e is the w i l l i n g n e s s of the lower
courts
to r e v i e w d e n i a l s of c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r r e q u e s t s on the basis of " c r y s t a l l i z a t i o n " and " s i n c e r i t y . "
T h e l i m i t a t i o n s on w h a t a h e a r i n g o f f i c e r or board
m a y c o n s i d e r in d e t e r m i n i n g s i n c e r i t y have
increased the l i k e l i h o o d of m o r e
successful conscientious objector claims.
The most f a s c i n a t i n g a s p e c t of these d e v e l o p m e n t s , in the v i e w of the
a u t h o r , is the m a s s i v e e d u c a t i o n of the j u d i c i a r y in this c o u n t r y that w e n t
in the past two d e c a d e s , at all l e v e l s , about the interplay between
and the rule of l a w .
has the c i t i z e n r y .
on
conscience
Not only has the j u d i c i a r y b e e n e d u c a t e d , h o w e v e r , but so
T h e n u c l e a r age and the u n s u c c e s s f u l t r a d i t i o n a l w a r f a r e
d u r i n g the V i e t n a m War have led n u m b e r s of y o u n g people to rethink their
tions on w a r .
n n i
posi-
-22-
T h e r e will
likely be s l o w d e v e l o p m e n t
tion to w a r in the n e a r f u t u r e .
in the law of c o n s c i e n t i o u s
The lower c o u r t s that c o n t i n u e to deal
objecface
to face w i t h c i t i z e n s and their/conscientious b e l i e f s may c o n t i n u e to e x p a n d
their
a c c e p t a n c e of those b e l i e f s , d e p e n d i n g on the p o l i t i c s of the m o m e n t .
the
S u p r e m e Court
itself m a y have reached a n e a r i r r e c o n c i l a b l e c o n f l i c t
But
between
the need to r e c o g n i z e liberty of religion and c o n s c i e n c e of i n d i v i d u a l s arid
the need to m a i n t a i n armed forces in s u p p o r t of the
country.
T h i s s t a l e m a t e w i l l not o b v i a t e the need for the c o u r t s to a d d r e s s
r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n c o n s c i e n c e and l a w , h o w e v e r .
the
The a d v e n t of w i d e s p r e a d
civil d i s o b e d i e n c e in response to n u c l e a r t e c h n o l o g y and r e s u l t i n g court dec i s i o n s a l l o w i n g d e f e n d a n t s to raise the d e f e n s e of the l e s s e r h a r m portend
s i g n i f i c a n t d e c i s i o n s r e l a t i n g to c o n s c i e n c e o v e r the c o m i n g
decades.
REFERENCES
A l b e r t E i n s t e i n (from a poster a v a i l a b l e from C e n t r a l C o m m i t t e e for Cons c i e n t i o u s O b j e c t o r s , 2208 S o u t h S t r e e t , P h i l a d e l p h i a , P e n n s y l v a n i a 1 9 1 4 6 ) .
2
When J o s e p h H o a g in 1812 w a s p l e a d i n g his peace p r i n c i p l e s , a m a n in his audience s a i d , "Well s t r a n g e r , if all the world w a s of y o u r m i n d , I w o u l d turn
and f o l l o w a f t e r . " J o s e p h r e p l i e d , "So then thou hast a mind to be the last
m a n in the w o r l d to be g o o d . I have a mind to be one of the first and set
the rest an e x a m p l e . " H . B r i n t o n , The Peace T e s t i m o n y of the S o c i e t y of
Friends 6 (1966).
'x
" C o n s c i e n c e in A m e r i c a
(L. Schlissel e d . 1968).
^ C o n s c i e n t i o u s O b j e c t o r s : Recent D e v e l o p m e n t s and a New A p p r a i s a l , 70 C o i u m b i a
L R e v . 1426 ( 1 9 7 0 ) . '
"
"
"
"
' C o s t a n z o , C o n s c r i p t i o n arid the C o n s c i e n t i o u s O b j e c t o r s , 6 Land and W a t e r L . R e v .
5 7 0 , 603 ( 1 9 7 1 ) .
"
™
~
6
I d . at
603-604.
'Act of F e b r u a r y 2 4 , 1 8 6 4 , c h . 1 3 , §17, 13 S t a t . 6 .
o
S u p r a note. 5 , at 6 0 6 .
9
A c t of May 1 8 , 1 9 1 7 , c h . 1 5 , 1 4 , 4 0 S t a t . 7 8 .
^Selective
5i
l d 1 at
1 2
Draft Law C a s e s , 2 4 5 U . S . 366
(1918),
389-390.
I d , at 3 7 8 .
^Selective
1 4
T r a i n i n g and S e r v i c e A c t of 1 9 4 0 , c h . 7 2 0 , 54 S t a t . 8 8 5 ,
I d . at §5(g).
--'Selective S e r v i c e A c t of 1 9 4 8 , c h . 6 2 5 , §6(j), 62 S t a t . 6 0 4 .
^ M i l i t a r y S e l e c t i v e S e r v i c e A c t of 1 9 6 7 , 50 U . S . C . A p p . §456(j) ( 1 9 6 8 ) .
17
U n i t e d S t a t e s v . S e c g e r , 380 U . S . 163
l 8
H l
a t
l 6 6
(1965).
*
^ D i c k i n s o n v . United S t a t e s , 346 U . S . 3 8 9 , 395
(1953).
^ L . H e r s h e y , The O p e r a t i o n of the S e l e c t i v e S e r v i c e Syst:em, C u r r e n t H i s t o r y 3
(1963)'.
—
—
~
—
"
'
27
M . T i g a r and R . Z w e b e n , S e l e c t i v e S e r v i c e s S o m e C e r t a i n Problems and S o m e
T e n t a t i v e A n s w e r s , 37 Geo* Wash* L r R e v . 4 3 3 , 510 ( 1 9 6 9 ) ,
22
M i l i t a r y S e l e c t i v e S e r v i c e A c t , P u b , L . N o , 9 2 - 1 2 9 , 85 S t a t , 348
' ^ S e l e c t I v e S e r v i c e S y s t e m , 32 C . F . R . 8 1 6 2 2 . 1 ( a )
2
(1971).
(1979).
^ S u p r a note 2 2 , §451(b).
2 5 s e £ 50 U . S . C . §§453-473
26
(1977),
S u p r a note 2 3 , §1621.11.
^ C e n t r a l C o m m i t t e e for C o n s c i e n t i o u s O b j e c t o r s , H a n d b o o k for= C o n s c i e n t i o u s Obiectors 47 (12th e d . 1 9 7 2 ) ,
^ ^ T o u s s i e v . United S t a t e s , 396 U . S . 112
29
S u £ r a n o t e 2 3 , §1623.1(a) and
3 0 i d . at
3 1
3 2
(1970),
(b).
11623.2.
i d . at i 1 6 2 5 . 1 .
I d . at 1 1 6 2 5 . 2 .
33supra note 2 2 , 1456(h)(1).
• ^ S u p r a n o t e 2 3 , §1625.2.
35
E h l e r t v . United S t a t e s , 4 0 2 U . S . 99
36
M u l l o y v . United S t a t e s , 398 U . S . 410
37
3
(1971).
(1970).
B r e e n v . L o c a l B o a r d N o . 1 6 , 396 U . S . 4 6 0 ( 1 9 7 0 ) ; Gut k n e e h t v . United
396 U . S . 295 ( 1 9 7 0 ) .
~
States,
~
® S e l e c t i v e S e r v i c e p a m p h l e t , referred to in T i g a r and Z w e b e n , supra n o t e 2 1 , a t
525.
• ^ S u p r a n o t e 2 1 , at
525,
O A . F . G i n g e r , M i n i m u m Due P r o c e s s S t a n d a r d s in S e l e c t i v e S e r v i c e C a s e s — Part
H a s t i n g s L . J , 1313 ( 1 9 6 8 ) .
I,
/ ^
S e l e c t i v e S e r v i c e S y s t e m N a t i o n a l H e a d q u a r t e r s , Local B o a r d M e m o r a n d u m N o . 4 1 ,
(3)(b), date unavailable,
42
S u p r a n o t e 2 3 , §1624.1(b).
^ G i l l e t t e v . United S t a t e s , 401 U . S . 4 3 7 , 4 4 8 (1971 ),
A
* R o s e n f e l d v . R u m b l e , 515 F.2d 499 (1st C i r .
1975),
^ M o s e r v . M i d d e n d o r f , c i t a t i o n from M i l i t a r y Law R e p o r t e r 4 ( S . D . C a l . 1 9 7 6 )
(chief s u r g e o n noted that p e t i t i o n e r ' s s e r v i c e s w e r e b a d l y n e e d e d ) .
A6
S u p r a n o t e 2 3 , §1625.14.
^ U n i t e d S t a t e s v . R u e d a , 373 F . S u p p . 1392
^ ® S u p r a note
(S.D.Ni.Y. 1 9 7 4 ) ,
43.
/n
-Slak?
U n i t e d v . S e e g e r , 380 U .S . 163 (1965); Welsh
(1970).
4y
S t a t e s , 348 U .S. 375
^^Witmer v . United
v . United S t a t e s , 398 U . S . 333
(1955).
8
51 United S t a t e s v . S i m m o n s , 21.3 F.2d 9 0 1 , r e v d
(1955).
on o t h e r g r o u n d s 8
348 U . S . 397
- ^ U n i t e d S t a t e s v . P a l m e r , 223 F . 2d 893 (3d C i r . 1 9 5 5 ) , c e r t , d e n i e d , 350
873 ( 1 9 5 5 ) .
^ C a m p b e l l v . United
5
^ S u p r a note
U.S.
S t a t e s , 221 F . 2d 454 (4th Ci r . 1 9 5 5 ) ,
50.
5 5 u n i t e d S t a t e s v . B o r i s u k , 206 F . 2d 338 (3d C i r . 1 9 5 3 ) .
J
^ B a t e s v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 216 F . 2d 130 (8th C i r . 1 9 5 4 ) , rev'd on o t h e r
348 F . 2d 724 ( 1 9 6 7 ) .
-''Lingo v . U n i t e d
grounds,
S t a t e s , 384 F . 2d 724 (9th C i r . 1 9 6 7 ) .
5 ® D e M o s s v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 218 F . 2d 119 (8th C i r . , 1 9 5 5 ) , rev'd on o t h e r
349 U . S . 9 1 8 ( 1 9 5 5 ) .
grounds,
- ^ U n i t e d S t a t e s v . G a s t o n , 222 F . 2d 818 (4th C i r . 1 9 5 5 ) .
6o
61
62
J e f f r i e s v . United S t a t e s , 169 F . 2d 86 (10th C i r . , 1 9 4 8 ) .
M a n k e v . United S t a t e s , 259 F . 2d 518
A y e r s v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 240 F . 2d 802 (9th C i r . 1 9 5 6 ) , cert denied,. 352 U«S«
1016 ( 1 9 5 7 ) .
^Lindsey
v
. M i d d e n d o r f , c i t a t i o n from M i l i t a r y Law R e p o r t e r 4 (S . D . C a i .
ft/,
,_
S u p r a note 4 9 , at
6 5
b6
67
(1958),
I d . at
, _,
176.
186.
C l a y v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 403 U . S . 6 9 8 , 700
(1971).
U n i t e d S t a t e s v . A b b o t t , 4 2 5 F . 2d 9 1 0 , 9 1 6 (8th C i r . 1 9 7 0 ) ,
6 ® W e l s h , s u p r a n o t e 4 9 , at
343-344.
1976).
27
I d . at
7 0
I d . at
; 1
72
343.
342-343.
He i n h o I d v . S c h l e s t n g e r , 379 F . S u p p . 6 3 8 ( D . M a s s .
U n i t e d S t a t e s v . S i s s o n , 297 F . S u p p . 9 0 2 ( D . M a s s . 1 9 6 9 ) , a p p e a l d i s m i s s e d ,
399 U . S . 267 (1971);'
S u p r a n o t e 4 3 ; N e g r e v . Lars e n , 4 1 8 F . 2d 9 0 8 (9th
f
C i r . 1 9 6 9 ) , a f f d , 401 U . S . 437 (1971); United S t a t e s v . M c F a d d e n , 309 F .
S u p p , 502 ( N . D . C a l . 1 9 7 0 ) , v a c a t e d a n d r e m a n d e d in l i g h t of G i l l e t t e , 4 0 1
U . S . 1006 ( 1 9 7 1 ) .
upra note
74
1974).
48.
S i c u r e I l a v . United S t a t e s , 348 U . S . 3 8 5 , 389 n . *
(1955).
7 5 s u p r a n o t e 4 8 , at 4 5 0 , 4 6 2 .
7
^ J . J . P a r t s , T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t ' s A p p r o a c h t o R e l i g i o n in C o n s c i e n t i o u s
tor Cases", 7 S u f f o l k U . L , R e v . 4 4 9 ( 1 9 7 3 ) .
Objec-
77
S u p r a n o t e 2 3 , §§1626, 1 6 2 7 .
78
7 9
U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Broyl.es, 4 2 3 F . 2d 1299 ( 4 t h C i r . 1 9 7 0 ) (en
E s t e p v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 327 U . S . 114
80supra note
8
Conway
banc).
(1946).
22.
v . S u r l e s , 4 7 4 F . 2d 3 7 2
(9th C i r .
1973).
82id,
Q ^ F a l b o v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 3 2 0 U . S . 549
84
85
86
S 7
(1944),
W o l f f v . S e l e c t i v e S e r v i c e L o c a l B o a r d N o . 3.6, 372 F . 2d 817 (2d C i r . 1 9 6 7 ) .
P e t e r s e n v . C l a r k , 285 F . S u p p . 700 ( N . D . C a l .
0 e s t e r e i c h v.,Selective Service
1968).
L o c a l Board N o . 1 1 , 393 U . S . 233
G l o v e r v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 2 8 6 F . 2d 84 (8th C i r .
8 8 p o w e r s v . P o w e r s , 4 0 0 F . 2d 4 3 8 (5th C i r .
(1968),
1961).
1968).
D o n a t o v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 3 0 2 F . 2d 4 6 8 (9th C i r .
1962).
^ I n t e r v i e w w i t h B i l l G a l v i n , C e n t r a l C o m m i t t e e for C o n s c i e n t i o u s O b j e c t o r s , in
Lubbock, Texas (July, 1980).
. J . R o s e n , G i v i l D i s o b e d i e n c e and O t h e r S u c h T e c h n i q u e s : L a w M a k i n g
L a w B r e a k i n g , 37 G e o . W a s h , L . R e v . 4 3 3 ( 1 9 6 9 ) .
Through
92
S u p r a note 7 9 , at
122.
U n i t e d S t a t e s v . W a t s o n , 442 F . 2d 1273 (8th C i r . 1 9 7 1 ) , c e r t , d e n i e d , 404
U . S . 848 (1971); C h i l d r e n v . S c h l c s i n n e r , 499 F . 2d 204 (8th Cir". 1 9 7 4 ) .
94
95
96
S u p r a note 5 0 , at
392.
U n i t e d S t a t e s ex rel F o s t e r v . S p h l e s i n g e r , 520 F . 2d 751 (2d C i r . 1 9 7 5 ) .
97
98
U n i t e d S t a t e s v . J e n s e n , 4 5 0 F . 2d 1258 (9th C i r . 1 9 7 1 ) , cert..denied, 405
U . S . 1043 ( 1 9 7 2 ) .
S m i t h v . L a i r d , 4 8 6 F . 2d 3 0 7 , 310 (10th C i r . 1 9 7 3 ) .
Par.isi v . D a v i d s o n , 405 U . S . 34
(1972).
" L o s e m a n n v . L a i r d , 475 F . 2d 1395 (3d C i r . 1 9 7 3 ) .
1 0 Q
10I
102
I d . at 46 n . 1 5 .
A p p l e v . G r e e r , 554 F . 2d 105 (3d C i r . 1 9 7 7 ) .
C r a n e v . H e d r i c k , 284 F . S u p p . 250 ( N . D . C a l . 1 9 6 8 ) .
3B
r o w n
v
. M c N a m a r a , 387 F . 2d 1.50 (3d C i r . 1 9 6 7 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 390 U . S .
1005 (1968)7
1 Q 4
l
S u p r a n o t e 4 1 , Local Board M e m o r a n d u m N o . 32
^'Army
Field M a n u a l , M e d i c a l S u p p o r t , p a r a g r a p h 2-5 ( A p r i l ,
l 0 6 o e p a r t m e n t of D e f e n s e D i r e c t i v e
107
1Q9
I10
ll/
1970).
1 3 0 0 . 6 , c i t a t i o n in M i l i t a r y Law R e p o r t e r .
P a c k a r d v . R o l l i n s , 422 F . 2d 525 (8th C i r . 1970); United S t a t e s v . C l i f f o r d ,
409 F . 2d 700 (4th C i r . 1969); S t r a i t v . L a i r d , 464 F . 2d 205 (9th C i r .
1972).
108
111
(1949).
S m i t h v . L a i r d , 486 F . 2d 307 (10th C i r . 1 9 7 3 ) ; M o s l e y v . C o m m a n d i n g
480 F . 2d 1107 (8th C i r . 1 9 7 3 ) .
J a c o b s v . S t e t s o n , 4 5 0 F . S u p p . 568 ( N . D . T e x .
1978).
L u d l u m v . R e s o r , 507 F . 2d 398 (1st C i r . 1 9 7 4 ) .
S u p r a note
106.
" A p p l e g a t e v . S t i l l w e l l , c i t a t i o n from M i l i t a r y Law R e p o r t e r 1 ( N . D . C a l . 1 9 7 3 ) .
1 11
Mi 11on v • Commandirig G e n e r a l , 316 F . S u p p . 4 0 5 , 406 ( N . D . C a l . 1 9 7 0 ) .
lI4
Officer,
G o o d w i n v . L a i r d , 317 F . S u p p . 863 ( N . D . C a l .
9 Q U
1970).
I1 s
T r e s s a n v . L a i r d , 4 5 4 F . 2d 761 (9th C i r . 1973); Lobis v . S e c r e t a r y of the
A i r F o r c e , 519 F . 2d 304 (1st C i r . 1 9 7 5 ) .
~~
11 6
C h a l a m i d e s v , W a r n e r , c i t a t i o n from M i l i t a r y L a w R e p o r t e r 2 (C.D.Cal*
1I7
1L8
1974).
S u p r a n o t e 1 1 4 , at 8 6 6 .
S i l v e r b e r f t v . W i l l i s , 306 F . S u p p . 1 0 1 3 , 1021 ( D . M a s s . 1 9 6 9 ) , rev'd on o t h e r
g r o u n d s , 4 2 0 F . 2d 662 (1st C i r . 1 9 7 0 ) .
II 9
S u p r a note
120
96.
S u p r a note 79; M c G e h e e v . M c K a n e y , 312 F . S u p p . 1372 ( D . M d . 1 9 7 0 ) .
2
* * S e e g e r , supra n o t e 4 9 , at
122
123
l 2 4
I23
126
S a n g e r v . S e a m a n s , 507 F . 2d 8 1 4 , 816 (9th C i r .
P a l y v . C l a y t o r , 472 F . S u p p . 752 ( D . M a s s . 1 9 7 9 ) .
F r i s b y v . L a r s e n , 486 F . 2d 244 (9th C i r .
1 3 0
l34
137
138
124.
l£L
B o r k e r h a g e n v . L a i r d , 392 F . S u p p , 637 ( D . M a s s ,
Shaffer
1975).
v . S c h l e s i n g e r , 531 F . 2d 124 (3d C i r . 1 9 7 6 ) .
L a F r a n c h i v . S e a m a n s , 536 F . 2d 1259 (9th C i r .
1976).
G o l d s t e i n v . M i d d e n d o r f , 535 F . 2d 1339 (1st C i r . 1 9 7 6 ) .
135
136
124.
P r a k e v . S t e t s o n , C i v . N o . 5 - 7 7 - 2 8 4 PCW ( E . D . C a l . A u g , 1 9 , 1 9 7 7 ) .
^ ° S u p r a note
133
1973).
F e r r a n d v . S e a m a n s , 488 F . 2d 1386 (2d C i r . 1 9 7 3 ) ; J o h n s o n v . P u l e s k i , 556
F . 2d 573 (2d C i r . 1976); C h e c k m a n v . L a i r d , 469 F . 2d 773 (2d C i r . 1 9 7 2 ) .
128
132
1974).
B o r t r e e v . R e s o r , 4 4 5 F . 2d 776 ( D . C . C i r . 1 9 7 1 ) .
^ ' S u p r a note
131
185.
Gecina v . B r o w n , c i t a t i o n from Mi 1i tary Law R e p o r t e r 6 ( D . C . S . C , 1 9 7 8 ) .
U n i t e d S t a t e s ex rel Reel v . B a d t , 152 F . 2d 627 (2d C i r . 1 9 4 5 ) , c e r t , dism i s s e d , 328 U . S . 817 ( 1 9 4 5 ) .
A n n e t t v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 205 F . 2d 689 (10th C i r .
1953).
R e m p e l v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 220 F . 2d 949 (10th C i r .
1955).
9 C 0
> fj
!U
l4I
Batf.erton v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 260 F . 2d 233 (8th C i r , 1 9 5 8 ) .
United
1M
S t a t e s v . E r i c k s o n , 149 F . S u p p . 576 ( S . D . N . Y . 1 9 5 7 ) .
T e r r a n d $ supra note
126•
1 li
Parr v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 272 F . 2d 4 1 6 (9th C i r .
lfa4
1959).
0 1 g u i n v . United S t a t e s , 392 F . 2d 329 (10th C i r . 1 9 6 8 ) ,
I4b
l
U n i t e d S t a t e s v . C o o n , 153 F . S u p p . 9 6 ( D . U t a h 1 9 5 7 ) ,
*°Brown v . M c N a m a r a , 387 F . 2d 150 (3d C i r . 1 9 6 7 ) , c e r t , d e n i e d . 390
1005 ( 1 9 6 8 ) .
147
1A8
U.S.
S t a n o v . S c h i e s i n g e r , 367 F . S u p p . 451 ( D . M i n n . 1 9 7 3 ) .
U n i t e d S t a t e s v . W a s h i n g t o n , 392 F . 2d 3 7 , 41 (6th C i r .
1968).
34 9 , , . .
,,
A d m i s s i o n to the Bar F o l l o w i n g C o n v i c t i o n tor Refusal of I n d u c t i o n , 78 Y a l e
L . J . 1352 ( 1 9 6 9 ) .
—
1 50
' S c h w a re v . B o a r d of B a r E x a m i n e r s , 353 U . S . 2 3 2 , 239
I5l
(1957),
H a l j J n a n v . C o m m i t t e e of B a r E x a m i n e r s , 65 C a l . 2d 447
152
I53
S u p r a note
Cirouard
l54
(1966).
149.
v . United S t a t e s , 328 U . S . 61 ( 1 9 4 6 ) ; S u p r a n o t e
151.
T o r r e s v . I N S , 602 F . 2d 190 (7th C i r . 1 9 7 9 ) .
155
' R . A . H a s s l e r , C o n s c r i p t s of C o n s c i e n c e 21-22
l56
(1971).
S u p r a n o t e 2 7 , at 9 7 - 1 1 4 .
U n i t e d S t a t e s v . A s h l e y , A C M 21332 (AFCMR N o v . 3 0 , 1 9 7 3 ) .
157
I58
C o n r a d v . S c h l e s i n g e r , 507 F* 2d 867 (9th C i r .
1973).
159
W r i g h t v . H e n d e r s h o t , 420 F . S u p p . 904 ( E . D . P a . 1976).
i60
16i
United
S t a t e s v . T e e r , N C M 73-0335 (NCMR J a n , 1 5 , 1 9 7 4 ) .
R i v e r a - R o d r i q u e z v . C o m m a n d i n g O f f i c e r , 596 F . 2d 508 (1st C i r . 1 9 7 9 ) .
1 6 2
In
l 6 3
the A p p e a l of W i l s o n , N o . 7 5 - 0 0 4 8 9 (Board of V e t e r a n s A p p e a l , M a y 2 1 ,
Uiff
v . S c h l e s i n g e r , 539 F . 2d 1275 (10th C i r . 1 9 7 6 ) .
^Decision
* 65J o h n s o n
166
of the C o m p t r o l l e r General., B - 1 7 1 9 4 2 ( E u r e . D e c . 2 2 , 1 9 7 6 ) .
v
. R o b i s o n , 4 1 5 U . S . 361 (19 7 4 ) .
R e y n o l d s v . D u k a k i s , 441 F . S u m > . 646 ( D . M a s s .
167
Sm&XM
note
37/
tj,f}, r>
1977).
1975).