IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 26 May 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220011140 APPLICANT REQUESTS: in effect, removal of his identification as a Conscientious Objector (1-0) and reinstatement on active duty. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Letters of Recommendation (two) * Performance Appraisal FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states he left the Army to become one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Around 2015, he left that organization due to changes in doctrine and has since returned to the Catholic Church in which he was raised. Since his discharge, he has continued to serve as a military contractor as an aviation mechanic and team leader. In view of the current situation in which the Army finds itself, the applicant believes he can better serve his country once again as a Soldier. His religious views and morals have changed; he realizes the severity of his mistake and assures the Board it will not happen again. 3. On 5 July 2006, the applicant enlisted into the Regular Army for a period of 6 years. He served in Afghanistan from 8 January 2008 until 31 December 2008. He was promoted to the rank/grade of specialist/E-4 on 1 April 2009. 4. On 9 May 2012, the applicant submitted a packet to his immediate commander requesting administrative separation from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-43 (Conscientious Objection) in a Conscientious Objector (1-0) status. In his supporting statement, the applicant explained that: a. He was raised a Roman Catholic and had very little knowledge of the Jehovah Witness. After joining the Army in 2006, he was stationed at Fort Campbell, KY, and met his wife who was a Jehovah's Witness. Following his 2008 deployment to Afghanistan, he agreed to receive a free Bible study given by a church elder at the applicant's home every Saturday. After several months he lost interest but continued to attend the meetings every other Sunday to support his wife. This practice continued at his next duty station in,. He reenlisted and was reassigned to a unit in. Shortly after arriving in, , he found himself attending the Sunday Jehovah's Witness meetings. It was there that he met a gentleman named who convinced him to receive a Bible study upon his return from a rotation at the National Training Center (NTC). b. While at NTC, he visited the chaplain and asked for a Bible which he continuously read throughout his rotation. Upon returning home, he and started their Bible study and eventually read some Bible passages that cause him to question how he could enjoy playing a video game in which he pretended to kill people, much less have a job that required him to enable or participate in the killing of people. Since his job as an Air Assault Crew Chief required him to man a machine gun on the aircraft, he requested to be transferred to a medical evacuation company. This made him feel better about himself based upon what he had learned. A noncommissioned officer (NCO) advised him that he should be careful discussing his reason for requesting the transfer because it could label him as a Conscientious Objector and ultimately lead to him being administratively separated from the Army. c. The following weekend during his weekly Bible study, he asked why Jehovah's Witnesses did not serve in the military. He showed the applicant several verses that support the reasons why they did not serve in the military. This caused him to reflect and led to changes in his beliefs and values. He truly felt in his heart and mind that it would be best for him and his family to request Conscientious Objector status. He did not regret serving his country in the military, but felt in the bottom of his heart to serve God with the Jehovah Witness Society had to be his first and utmost priority. 5. On 9 May 2012, as part of the regulatory requirements, he consented to the disclosure of information for acting on the application. He further acknowledged on 14 May 2012, the possible non-entitlement to benefits administered by the Veterans Administration if discharged as a conscientious objector under certain conditions. 6. On 17 May 2012, the applicant underwent a Mental Status evaluation and was psychiatrically cleared for separation. 7. On 18 May 2012, the applicant was interviewed by his squadron chaplain who opined his sincerity and depth of conviction was authentic and genuine. He knew why he believed what he believed and seemed to be a humble student of the Bible. He believed the applicant had good reason to request removal from service in the Army. 8. On 16 October 2012, an Interviewing Officer (IO) was appointed and directed to conduct a thorough interview and recommend whether the applicant's underlying basis of professed conscientious objection was sufficient to warrant granting Conscientious Objector status. 9. The IO conducted a Conscientious Objector Hearing, during which he interviewed the applicant, the Chaplain, his former and current chain of command, and a military policeman. On 13 November 2012, the IO rendered his findings and recommendations pertaining to the applicant's request. a. He believed the applicant sincerely opposed all war and that his service in the Army was a good experience, but it was not the way he wanted to live his life. He wanted to leave the Army so he could participate fully with his religion which stressed personal missionary work and helping redeem people through active conversion. Being part of the Army did not allow him to act this way because he would be seen as a hypocrite because he was viewed as being in a violent profession. b. The IO recommended approval of the applicant's Conscientious Objector (1-0) application under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-43. Furthermore, in the IO's opinion, the applicant's convictions would cause a negative impact on his duties if he was to continue his service by further detracting from the other Soldiers in his unit and the Army as a whole. 10. The applicant's entire chain of command concurred with the IO's findings and recommendation. On 20 December 2012, the Commanding General, Headquarters, U.S. Army Alaska recommended approval and forwarded the application to Headquarters, Department of the Army for processing. 11. On 8 March 2013, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) informed the applicant's chain of command the recommendation of the Department of the Army Conscientious Objector Review Board (DACORB) to grant the applicant's request for Conscientious Objector (1-0) status was approved. After thorough examination of the Case Record, the DACORB determined by unanimous vote, the applicant presented convincing evidence, in accordance with regulatory guidance, that his stated beliefs warranted award of (1-0) status. It was directed that his DD Form 214 show the authority for his separation as Army Regulation 600-43; Separation Program Designator code as "KCM"; Reentry Eligibility Code as "4"; and narrative reason for separation as "Conscientious Objector." 12. Orders and the applicant's DD Form 214 show he was honorably discharged accordingly on 30 June 2013. 13. Army Regulation 600-43 provides, in part, conscientious objection is a firm, fixed and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or the bearing of arms, because of religious training and belief. Applicants have the burden of determining and setting forth the exact nature of the request; that is, whether they request separation based on conscientious objection (1-0) or reassignment to noncombatant training and service based on conscientious objection (1-A-0). a. Class 1-A-0 Conscientious Objector: A member who, by reason of conscientious objection, sincerely objects to participation as a combatant in war in any form, but whose convictions are such as to permit military service in a noncombatant status. b. Class 1-0 Conscientious Objector: A member who by reason of conscientious objection, sincerely objects to participation of any kind in war in any form. 14. The applicant provides the following documents which are available in their entirety for the Board's consideration: a. The Deputy Commanding General, U.S. Army Europe, rendered a letter of recommendation on behalf of the applicant on 10 April 2013 in preparation for the applicant's separation from the Army. He expressed his full endorsement of the applicant for a position of leadership in his prospective employer's organization based upon his demonstrated performance and limitless potential. b. The applicant's former commander rendered a letter of recommendation on behalf of the applicant on 3 April 2015. She expressed her utmost sincerity in endorsing the applicant and opined that he was one of the most motivated and driven Soldiers that she had an opportunity to work with during her thirteen years as an Army officer and that she truly believed he would continue to build on his successes in the future. c. A performance appraisal shows his rater rendered the following comments: * Exceptional performance and can always be relied upon to complete all tasks in a timely manner * Aircraft knowledge is above average * Has great potential for advancement 15. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition, arguments and assertions, and service record. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found that partial relief was warranted. The applicant’s contentions, the military record, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered. The Board found the applicant’s statements and the statements of his prior leadership compelling and agreed the applicant’s service record warranted correction. For that reason, the Board recommended that granting partial relief was appropriate. 2. The Board further determined the applicant may choose to visit a recruiter if he chooses to return to any component of the service. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF :X :X :X GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION ? BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by issuing the applicant a new DD Form 214 for the period ending 30 June 2013 showing in: * item 25 (Separation Authority): Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-3 * item 26 (Separation Code): JFF * item 27 (Reentry Code): 1 * item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation): Secretarial Authority 2. The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to reinstatement on active duty. I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Department of Defense (DoD) Instruction 1300.06 (Conscientious Objectors), provides policy on uniform DoD procedures governing conscientious objectors and processing requests for discharge based on conscientious objection. a. Paragraph 3.2, defines "religious training and/or belief" as a belief in an external power or "being" or deeply held moral or ethical belief, to which all else is subordinate or which all else is ultimately dependent, and which has the power or force to affect moral wellbeing. The external power or "being" need not to be one that has found expression in either religious or societal traditions. However, it should sincerely occupy a place of equal or greater value in the life of the possessor. Deeply held moral or ethical beliefs should be valued with the strength and devotion of traditional religious conviction. The term "religious training and/or belief" may include solely moral or ethical beliefs even though the applicant may not characterize these beliefs as religious in the traditional sense or may expressly characterize them as not religious. The term "religious training and/or belief" does not include a belief that rests solely upon considerations of policy, pragmatism, expediency, or political views. b. Paragraph 5.1, states the criteria set forth herein provide policy and guidance in considering applications for separation or for assignment to non-combatant training and service based on conscientious objection. Consistent with the national policy to recognize the claims of authentic conscientious objectors in the Military Service, an application for classification as a Conscientious Objector may be approved (subject to the limitations of paragraph 4.1) for any individual: * 5.1.1. Who is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form; * 5.1.2. Whose opposition is based on religious training and/or belief; and * 5.1.3. Whose position is firm, fixed, and deeply held c. Paragraph 5.2.1, states in order to find that an applicant's moral and ethical beliefs are against participation in war in any form and are held with the strength of traditional religious convictions, the applicant must show that these moral and ethical convictions once acquired, have directed the applicant's life in the way traditional religious convictions of equal strength, depth, and duration have directed the lives of those whose beliefs are clearly found in traditional religious convictions. In other words, the beliefs upon which conscientious objection is based must be the primary controlling force in the applicant's life. 3. Army Regulation 600-43 sets forth policy, criteria, responsibilities, and procedures to classify and dispose of military personnel who claim conscientious objection to participation in war in any form or to the bearing of arms. a. Paragraph 1-5a(1), stipulates that conscientious objection claims after entering the military will not be considered when the requests are based on a claim of conscientious objection that existed before enlistment and satisfied the requirements for classification as a Conscientious Objector according to Section 60) of the Military Selective Service Act, as amended (Title 50, U.S. Code, Appendix 4560)), and other provisions of law when such a claim was not presented before enlistment. However, a claim based on conscientious objection growing out of experiences before entering military service, which did not become fixed until after the person's entry into the service, will be considered. b. Paragraph 1-5a(5)(a), states in pertinent fact that, the most important consideration is not whether applicants are sincere in wanting to be designated as a conscientious objector, but whether their asserted convictions are sincerely held. Sincerity is determined by an impartial evaluation of each person's thinking and living in totality, past and present. The conduct of persons, in particular their outward manifestation of the beliefs asserted, will be carefully examined and given substantial weight in evaluating their applications. c. Paragraph 1-5b, states in pertinent part that relevant factors that should be considered in determining a person's claim of conscientious objection include training in the home and church; general demeanor and pattern of conduct; participation in religious activities; whether ethical or moral convictions were gained through training, study, contemplation, or other activity comparable in rigor and dedication to the process by which traditional religious convictions are formulated; and credibility of persons supporting the claim. d. Paragraph 1-5a(5)(b), states in pertinent part that church membership or adherence to certain theological tenets are not required to warrant separation or assignment to non-combatant training and service. Mere affiliation with a church or other group that advocates conscientious objection as a tenet of its creed does not necessarily determine a person's position or belief. Conversely, affiliation with a church group that does not teach conscientious objection does not necessarily rule out adherence to conscientious objection beliefs. Applicants may be or may have been a member of a church, religious organization, or religious sect; and the claim of conscientious objection may be related to such membership. If so, inquiry may be made as to their membership, the teaching of their church, religious organization or sect, as well as religious activity. However, the fact that these persons may disagree with, or not subscribe to, some of the tenets of their church does not necessarily discredit their claim. The personal convictions of each person will dominate so long as they derive from the person's moral, ethical, or religious beliefs. The task is to decide whether the beliefs professed are sincerely held and whether they govern the claimant's actions in word and deed. e. Paragraph 1-5c, states in pertinent part that the burden is on the applicant to establish a claim of conscientious objection as grounds for separation or assignment to non-combatant training and service. To this end, applicants must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the nature or basis of the claim comes within the definition of criteria prescribed in AR 600-43 for conscientious objection and that their beliefs are sincere. They have the burden of determining and setting forth the exact nature of the request; that is, whether they request separation based on Conscientious Objector (1-0) or reassignment to non-combatant training and service based on Conscientious Objector (1-A-0). f. Appendix D-4a, states that during the conduct of the entire investigation, the IO should remember that a Conscientious Objector is a person who is sincerely opposed, because of religious or deeply held moral or ethical (not political, philosophical, or sociological) beliefs, to participating in any form (1-0) or to participating as a combatant (including training in tactics or weapons) in any form (1-A-0). //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20220011140 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1